4.8.18: President Trump's Isolationism Isn't Nationalistic/ And a Word On Regulations

At the top of the program, Chuck Todd mentioned 'nationalistic themes' running through Mr. Trump's presidency, but are they nationalistic or really isolationist? Nationalistic is the belief that your country is superior to other countries, but that's not what we're seeing from the president.

Also, more Americans than just the president's base supporters do not necessarily disagree with the Administrations mends as much as the president's method and madness.Case in point is the deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border. As The New York Times Helene Cooper pointed out, Presidents Bush and Obama sent the National Guard there. However, Mr. Trump is bent on creating hysteria, xenophobia and fear to justify these actions. Until the wall is built, the 'military,' as Mr. Trump purposely phrases it as such, has to guard the border.

Even with the tariffs that the president is imposing, many agree that something needs to be done about China's unfair trade practices and their constant theft of American intellectual property. When Mr. Todd asked, Peter Navarro, the Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, about the president's tariff announcements and whether they were negotiating tactics or policy, the director said, "both," but in the meantime there's much economic uncertainty being created. Tariffs need to be carefully negotiated, not tweeted as a blanket statement and then later walk some back through exceptions - e.g., steel and aluminum. The president has to be willing to face the political repercussions of the hit American farmers are surely going to take when China implements tariffs in kind. When the president makes mad statements, others (namely China) will get mad back.

Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) was right when he said that not doing the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TTP) was a mistake. With that partnership the United States could have locked in a multi-national trade deal with countries right on China's doorstep, and that would have created more leverage for the U.S. to deal with China. Senator Rounds also went on to explain that the president said that it would be better to negotiate with each country one on one, but none of these deals have been put in place yet.

It's also worth noting the refreshing appeal the Senator made for the Administration to stop fighting with Mexico and Canada on trade - our two best partners.

With regard to Syria, the president who has famously said that he would never show his hand when it came to foreign policy said that we're pulling our troops out of Syria where they have provided instrumental assistance in liberating cities once occupied by ISIS. Now, in light of another reported chemical attack, tacitly supported by the Kremlin, the president is 'boxed in' and there's a lot of pressure to respond as the National Review's Rich Lowry explained. The last time there was a chemical attack, the administration responded with a highly publicized missile attack. Ms. Cooper reported that U.S. military leaders are formulating multiple strike possibilities. Yet, according to the president, we disengaging from Syria.

Pulling back from promoting and selling American products, ceding our foreign policy to Russia and Iran in the Middle East and building a wall to keep 'them' out aren't nationalistic, it's isolationist. Donald Trump is a great salesman, but he doesn't sell American strength and prosperity to the rest of the world, he only sells himself to Americans.

***

Mr. Lowry stated that the president is 'dug in' on his support for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite Mr. Pruitt's many ethics violations. However, what he also essentially said was that Mr. Pruitt should own these excesses and vow to correct them, but that won't happen.

Mr. Pruitt is a conservative hero and and giving him the boot is not the way to endear yourself to the conservative base. With that, what everyone pointed out today, Mr. Pruitt has carried out a great deal of Mr. Trump's agenda, more so than any other cabinet member.

Chuck Todd asked Senator Rounds, a Pruitt admirer, why one could not like his regulation rollbacks, but not his ethics violations, to which Mr. Rounds doubled up on the administrator's achievements. Scott Pruitt is the poster child for conservative zero-sum politics and as long as he's winning, it doesn't matter how much of the taxpayers' money he spends on himself. Just a check, I did a quick search of regulations that illustrate what Mr. Pruitt was has been accomplishing.

President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017 directing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and rescind or replace the 2016 Waters of the U.S. Rule (also known as the “Clean Water Rule”), and on June 27, 2017, EPA and the Corps released a proposal to rescind the rule. 

On April 25, 2017, the Trump Administration halted, indefinitely, certain compliance deadlines in the 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (“ELG”) Rule, which set, for the first time, limits on toxic water pollution from coal-fired power plants. 

On September 14 2017, the Pruitt EPA announced that it would be reconsidering its Coal Ash Disposal Rule, the first federal rule governing disposal of coal ash, the by-product created from burning coal. Coal ash (also called coal combustion residuals) contains toxic pollutants including arsenic, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium that can leach into groundwater, surface water, or air and threaten health and the environment without proper disposal controls.   

On October 10, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a notice proposing a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which requires utilities to reduce carbon emissions from existing facilities by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, for rollback.

On April 2, 2018, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that his agency plans to eliminate new greenhouse gas reduction targets for cars and trucks that would double fuel efficiency by 2025.

I sourced these from the Environmental Integrity Project, which I'm sure someone, if not many people, will accuse of bias, but these are all documented by other sources or put into writing by the president himself, so you be the judge as to whether you think these regulations should have been reversed. In my humble opinion, these are all moves that set the country back, and in addition stifle ever-necessary energy innovation.

And finally, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Let's just say that with regard to Mr. Zuckerberg's appearance on Capitol Hill this week, Charles Cook, the Cook Political Report, summed it up best. If Mark Zuckerberg had appeared before Congress right away, it would have been bad, but now it's going to be horrific. "Roasted" was the term Rich Lowry used.

Mr. Zuckerberg's days of apologies and self-regulating half-measures are coming to a conclusion. It's just not going to work anymore that he's the individual who decides who gets your data and how much of it.

But here's the rub: When you have erudite old white men predominantly presiding over Congress who don't understand the back end of social media, regulation is going to be slow and ineffective. Conversely, this is why Mr. Wylie's insights are quite credible when he explains that it could be a lot more than 87 million people who have had their data shared with third parties.


Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, the National Review; Charlies Cook, the Cook Political Report


One more thing...
As a former teacher, I can safely say that teachers need to be paid more... much more. And states like Oklahoma that cut funding for their schools should be ashamed of themselves. Hard stop.

4.1.18: Two Questions: A New Cold War? And Should Someone Profit Off Of Veterans?

Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute was sort of correct when she explained that the Trump Administration would not do something if the president wasn't OK with it. She also said that the Trump Administration has been tougher on Russia than the Obama Administration, which is also half right.  The explanation comes in the face of the notion that the Administration/U.S. Foreign Policy apparatus writ large access and act in a way that is different from the president's.

Granted that U.S. and British politics respectively are chaotic and in a weakened state, it's still safe to say that the 'sacred relationship' between the two countries, dysfunctional as it is right now, is not broken and will not break in favor of Russia or the president's predilection to its leader Vladimir Putin. Even President Trump isn't going to jeopardize that even if it isn't his preference.

Was the Kremlin responsible for the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter? Given the use of the particular poison, Novichok, it's most probable as it was determined by the British government. Certainly a brazen act, it also put a significant amount of British citizens at risk.  Standing with the UK, despite their exiting the EU, these countries stood with them:

EU Countries                                Non-EU Countries
Belgium                                        Albania
Crotia                                            Australia
Czech Republic                            Canada
Denmark                                      Macedonia
Estonia                                         Moldova
Finland                                         Montenegro
France                                          Norway
Germany                                      Ukraine
Hungary                                       United States
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemborg
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Spain
Sweden

So the question: Are we headed for a new cold war?

From the amount of countries expelling Russian diplomats and the Kremlin reciprocating in kind, it would seem so, but alas it's unlikely. These expulsions are a tit-for-tat and expected, but because of President Trump's consistent silence in relation to Russia keeps it from going any farther.

If the president starts in with harsh Russian rhetoric that  would trigger it, but it's not going to happen because of the Russian probe hanging over the administration. Contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials have in fact been established, but it's up to the special counsel headed by Robert Mueller to put the story together and show that laws have been broken.

For the rest of these countries, some are standing in solidarity with Britain, but many one can suspect are joining the fray for various reasons, whether it's election meddling, annexing territory, naval activity in another country's waters, energy manipulation, or plain old deep distrust carried over from the Soviet era.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) described Russia as an 'unfriendly adversary,' which sums up the general attitude of the U.S. Senate and it also means that the Russia probe will continue. Speaking of that, Mr. Johnson also said that he thought that the special counsel should have been appointed after the Senate and House investigations. Good thing he isn't the attorney general because despite his reasoning that the special counsel disrupts congressional inquiries, the incompetence of the House and the hiccups in the Senate query have proven that it would have been the wrong move to wait.

Professor Emeritus at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz explained that a pardon can not be used as the pretext for a criminal charge because it's a Constitutional Act, even if there is corrupt intent because that last part is difficult to prove - even if it's for pardoning acts of collusion. As a counter-weight, Bob Bauer, former general counsel in the Obama Administration stated that the underlying reason for the pardons, the collusion, was at issue. Mr. Dershowitz  explained the collusion is not unlawful as it is not mentioned. However, what he failed to mention, what Mr. Bauer began to state but was interrupted, is that having foreign nationals participating in a campaign, depending on degree, is in fact illegal. See FEC laws: https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

As for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, fmr. Secretary David Shulkin stated that he did not violate any ethics laws, but nonetheless the investigation provided the pretext for his firing. But one has to think that there is some truth to what he was saying about privatizing the VA and look no further than today's interview with Senator Johnson for evidence.

Though he said being the head of the VA is a thankless job, he described the VA as a single-payer system, run by the government that doesn't work. That's the sound of someone who thinks privatizing the VA would be a good thing. However, that's not what most veterans would say. My general feeling is that once you bring in the profit motive into helping veterans that soon the profit will become more important than the veterans. An even more insidious thing could happen if private companies who run VA hospitals need to keep making profits. Think of this analogy: private prisons need to keep cells full to keep making money. Ugh. Does someone actually need to profit monetarily from the suffering of brave men and women who served their country?

Lastly, the panel discussed the police shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento and noted a column written by David French in the Weekly Standard, in which he said that police are trained to expect the worst at all times.  But what ever happened to training police not to shoot unless shot upon? If that were the training then Mr. Clark would have not been shot because he didn't have a gun. Shooting first and asking questions later is a military tactic, not a policing tactic. With the militarization of the police, which Elise Jordan mentioned, it's this mentality that overrides restraint.


Panel: George Will, The Washington Post; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Elise Jordan, NBC


A couple more things....
Art reflects cultural and the general mood of a society at the time it's being created. Not all the time, but many times. With that said, you have Roseanne Barr's television reboot. As Joshua Johnson explained the show is nuanced. But the bottom line is that it is a television program. If you like it, watch it. If you don't then don't. All good either way.

3.25.18: Cambridge Analytica's Dirty Tentacles Reach into The Fox and Friends Administration

As Mr. Todd outlined at the top of the program, President Trump is certainly fighting on many fronts - China and trade, North Korea, the Iran nuclear deal, the Mueller investigation, and last but not least Ms. Stormy Daniels. Mr. Trump's management style of 'crisis, chaos and confrontation' is now baked into the descriptive vernacular of his administration. Though it may not be quite complete, the president's new-look, Trumpian cabinet has taken shape this week with fmr. CNBC personality Larry Kudlow as economic advisor and FOX's John Bolton as national security advisor. To boot, you can throw in FOX's Joe diGenova who thinks Trump was framed by the FBI to the his legal team.

Hugh Hewitt was feeling very good about it, the others on the panel including the moderator looked queasy.

When you have a president that doesn't read his daily briefing, but never misses cable news political punditry every morning, this is what you're going to get, a cabinet and staff full of hyperbolic hard-charging types, as Robert Costa described them. However, the president is the only one who doesn't seem to know that you cannot run the government of the most powerful nation in the world like a soap opera. In fact, it's inexplicable some of the thought islands this president is on such as: tariffs are good - no one agrees; Russia didn't meddle, they certainly did; there were good people on both sides. It's like the Superman comic book character Bizarro who is the mirror image, exact opposite antagonist to Superman. His thoughts and inclinations are all backward.

With regard to John Bolton's appointment in particular, Heather McGhee described an old white guy who avoided ever going to war so doesn't know the human impact of it while cavalierly calling for bombing and troops and regime change. Unintentionally, she was also describing Mr. Hewitt in a sense as well, which must explain why he's happy with the choices.

Corey Lewandowski was also praising the president's decisions, saying that the president was putting America first by installing people on that fully behind the president's positions. If you're thinking that those two notions run counter to one another, take consolation that you have a good read on things. In response to the president congratulating Vladimir Putin on his election 'win' and the subsequent leak on the conversation briefing adamantly advising the opposite, Mr. Lewandowski blamed it on a leak from the deep state. Give us a break... It came from an aide to the president as Mr. Todd pointed out, which is NOT the deep state.

A new rule for "Meet The Press" should be that any one who blames the 'deep state' for anything should not be allowed to appear on the program. What's the point? The person instantly discredits him or herself thus simply becoming a waste of good air time henceforth. You can't take the person seriously.

You can get other individuals on the program to confirm that the president will go without a chief of staff if General Kelly is dismissed from his post or that Rex Tillerson was fired because he basically disagreed with the president on every foreign policy crisis. But as soon as you get into the 'deep state,' forget it.

John Bolton on the other hand is for cancelling the Iran deal as is new Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo, which will further isolate the United States from its allies and rivals alike. The other countries that signed on, which include China, Russia, England, France and Germany will not follow suit. Mr. Lewandowski also said that H.R. McMaster wanted more troops in Afghanistan, which the president disagreed with, only to replace the fmr. NSA with a person who wants to put lots of troops in other places. Playing the long game is not what Trump does, obviously.

For all that, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) said we're more vulnerable as a country, because he didn't call out or condemn Mr. Putin for his actions. One of the core questions we all hope that Mr. Mueller's investigation will answer is why doesn't the president ever say anything in opposition to  or negative about Mr. Putin?

More poignantly, Senator Warner stated that he thought Facebook has been less than forthcoming about what it knew about what Cambridge Analytica was doing with ill-gotten Facebook data, and for how long they knew.

Mark Zuckerberg is open to the idea of testifying in front of Congress? As Mr. Warner emphatically stated, it's his company so he has to take responsibility for it, and answer for it in front of Congress. As he described it, there was a broad weaponization of information through social media, most prominently through Facebook. The argument that Facebook and Twitter are in a sense media companies is well founded, certainly media aggregators.

And hopefully Mr. Mueller's team can unravel all the tentacles that Cambridge Analytica has and the role it's played. Now we find out that Steve Bannon was a founding partner of the firm while being the president of a media company and having roles as campaign chairman and presidential advisor. And where Mr. Bannon was (not now), the Mercers were always standing two feet behind. The entire thing looks dirty. As Robert Costa explained, since the election the Trump Administration has been trying to distance itself from the data firm after singing it praises during the campaign.

 ***

Lastly, in response to Mr. Todd's query about what would have more impact 6 months from now, the Stormy Daniels story or the March For Our Lives, call for gun control, the time frame seems a bit disproportionately (not purposely) to the short-term. Stormy Daniels, which has potential for explosiveness and very public legal battles, isn't going away anytime soon. It's the kind of 'entertainment' that Mr. Trump does in fact like, but only when it doesn't involve him. Basically, a mess.

More significantly, in more than 800 cities around the U.S. and the world, people lead by students came out in the hundreds of thousands in a March For Our Lives to say, "Enough with gun violence," and this is not going away for generations. You have to realize that the students that lead this march have grown up in a world where mass shootings are part of life and only getting worse. They're tired of it, enough is enough, they will not shut up about it, and they will vote on it.

Their passion now will turn into action later, and gun-control votes for years to come.

During the voter round table segment, a woman who supports the Second Amendment explained the 'shall not be infringed' clause of it, which is understandable, but she failed to mention the 'well regulated' part, which is not the case at all.

The round table featured one independent voter, an African American Army veteran who was featured little, but the three things he said were the three that made the most sense:

     -Gun violence has become an national emergency now that white kids are getting killed.
     -Adults are not good advocates for children right now.
     -Like cigarettes, there should be a big tax on the a gun purchase.



Panel: Heather McGhee, President of DEMOS; Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network

3.18.18: The Fog of Irony Is Thick But The Mueller Probe Isn't Going Anywhere

Despite the fact that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired, something wasn't really even touched on, it's the Friday firing of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, two days before his retirement and pension collection, that had everyone's attention today.

If you're trying to decide whether it's worse to be fired through Twitter or have your firing celebrated on Twitter by the president, the latter is clearly the choice. The irony that a person whose catch phrase on television was, "You're fired," can not seem to do it for real, face to face. I'm sure that isn't lost on anyone. But knowing he couldn't be the one to fire Mr. McCabe, the president celebrated it on Twitter. He said, "It is a great day for Democracy," of all things, which is ironic in and of itself because it's really a sad day when the President of the United States demeans the office by being so small minded and petty so publicly.

The president felt the firing presented another good opportunity to lash out at the Mueller probe, essentially saying it is a politically partisan witch hunt. Nothing new there. However, it also emboldened Mr. Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, to issue a statement to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, demanding that he shut down the Russia investigation.

With that said...
You have to agree with The National Review's Jonah Goldberg when he explained the irony of this distasteful firing (McCabe's) being an actual preventative measure in saving the Mueller probe because it saves Attorney General Jeff Sessions' job, which blocks Mr. Rosenstein from direct attack, which in turn keeps Special Counsel Muller in place.

And Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called Mr. McCabe a bad actor?

The irony is so thick you can practically smell it. Unfortunately, it smells like a fart, powerful enough to humble.

Speaking of humble, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) certainly seemed to be one public official humbled in the last month or so by the events in his state - the Parkland shooting of course, but also the passed legislation that ensued, and now this week's bridge collapse. For Democrats who get their underwear in a twist about the potential firing of Mr. Mueller, Senators like Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are in strong support of the special counsel, and as he said today, he supports the probe and in any direction it leads. Frankly, Mr. Rubio has had it with Trump; you can see it in his face. This attests to today's journalist-full panel accounts that Republicans in private are nervous and say they dislike the president's actions and statements. However, in public they're are stuck in supporting him because his popularity among the Republican base is greater than congressional Republicans.  For Mr. Rubio though, it's getting more difficult to hide his feelings.

The probe is not going away; not as more stories keep coming like the one discussed today, in which it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, doing work for the Trump Campaign, had somehow obtained the Facebook profiles of 50 million people. Did this organization somehow help Russian operatives spread fake news? That's the question Mr. Mueller and his team are investigating.

Facebook's role in all this lead to The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter asking whether the technology has gotten away from Facebook that they can no longer control the platform they created? Or are they just unwilling to spend the money to stop it from happening? You'd have to go with the latter again since Facebook has been trying to accommodate Chinese sensors for years so they're willing to spend the cash there to penetrate the market.

The other big news this week was that the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee wrapping up its Russia investigation because it said it found no evidence of collusion. In studio with Chuck Todd, making his first Sunday show appearance ever, was member of said committee Congressman Mike Conaway (R-TX). However, Mr. Conaway has a little explaining to do about his explaining because what he said today didn't make any sense at all. At one point in his interview he said the committee wasn't focused on Russian collusion but later said they found no evidence of it. Chuck Todd's point that if it wasn't a focus and you weren't looking into it, how could you find any? But then Mr. Conaway did say they investigated collusion. However, he explained that in terms of Vladimir Putin's intention to help Mr. Trump, he didn't see it.

At the 3:30 mark of the video, the discussion of the investigation begins...



Mr. Conaway didn't agree with Chuck Todd's assessment that the committee went 'off the rails' and said that oversight is constant. He also said that if there was something that surfaced that caused the committee to reconsider reopening, it's possible. However, that's unlikely because as long as Devin Nunes (R-CA) is the chair of the committee, it is in fact off the rails and will not reopen. They didn't even do a full investigation of the Russian meddling so how would they if something else came up? They didn't even interview George Papadopoulos, a key figure in it all.

There will be a time when congressional Republicans have their reckoning for being complicit and in many cases supportive of the president's constant attacks on our institutions, further deteriorating them by the day. Republicans in the Senate who think more long term, it seems, understand this more than their party brethren do in the House, and you can see Senate Republicans slowly souring. But it may not matter because as Poltico's Eliana Johnson pointed out, the Republicans have no legislative agenda for this year, which won't bode well come November.


Panel: Eliana Johnson, Politico; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Jose Diaz-Balart; NBC; Jonah Goldberg, The National Review

A few more things...
Chuck Todd threw out something today that didn't really get any follow-up discussion, but it was a great nugget. He said that Trump Organization lawyers have joined Michael Cohen in trying to push the Stormy Daniels' case back into private arbitration, which means it's official that Mr. Trump was involved in some way with Ms. Daniels. Awesome.

Jose Diaz-Balart was right with the whole notion of 'emotional spasms on Twitter' for sure, and I agree that Comey, Trump, Brennan et al should all stay off of Twitter, but this one from former CIA Director John Brennan is something... because wouldn't he have such insight? 

 

3.11.18: A Typical Week of The Trump Presidency Testing Our National Sanity

At the top of the program, Chuck Todd said that people are running out of ways to describe a week in the Trump presidency, alas Mr. Todd settled on 'crazy.' However, it's seems ever more clear that President Trump aspires to call a week such as this as 'typical,' because with this administration that's what a week like this has become. This 'typical' is also testing our national sanity on a weekly basis.

Each week there are so many things swirling that you inevitably hear someone in the TV media say, "That happened last week? It seems like a year ago." So next week, we'll be able to say that last year it was fmr. campaign aide Sam Nunberg, Tariffs, Gary Cohen, Stormy Daniels and the PA campaign rally. All this still does leave a columnist with the dilemma of where to start.

What stuck with Mr. Todd was the president's campaign stop in Pennsylvania on Friday night, particularly the president's continued attacks on the media, but when you're show is called "Meet The Press" it's understandable that such attacks would get up into your craw and stay there. Not to mention that little bitty about the press in the First Amendment in the Constitution and its freedom. And that's why it's totally justified for Mr. Todd to lay into the Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, about it because the president is supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution, something neither this secretary nor the president understand. Mr. Mnuchin dismisses vulgarity on the part of the president at a campaign rally as something of no consequence, indicative of a shill whose moral compass only points to money.

The campaign rally intended to support state legislator Rick Saccone's congressional candidacy instantly became a campaign for the president. Mr. Trump wouldn't have it any other way. Despite his appearance, Mr. Saccone's campaign is flagging and many political prognosticators are predicting that his opponent Connor Lamb is going to win in a conservative district in the Pittsburgh suburbs where the last Republican ran unopposed and Mr. Trump won by 20 points.

Mr. Trump's bombast and unpredictability keep growing as the undercurrent of these special congressional races show support for the president dwindling rapidly, which may fully manifest itself this November.

His appearance nor steel tariffs are going to turn this around in Pennsylvania or the country. In a conservative upper middle class district like PA18, it's more troublesome that the president's chief economic advisor Gary Cohn resigned over tariffs than it is keeping steel tariffs low. Never mind that he didn't resign over Charlottesville, which he should have, his exit is another sign of informed analysis and stability leaving the White House.

Or so it seems...

There may be a method to this madness if you'll indulge me for a few moments. Domestically, Mr. Trump attacks the press and anyone else (Republican, Democrat, celebrity or non) who vocally speaks out against him. Internationally, he's implementing steel tariffs that disproportionately hurt our traditionally allies setting off potential trade wars with Europe, while saying this week that he'll meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in May. If you look at all these steps in totality, Mr. Trump is realigning the United States to be more reflective of countries that we've stood opposed to in philosophy for the past 70 plus years. Russia's not a threat, Steel and Aluminum tariffs hurting our allies is good, Xi and Duterte are great guys and I'll meet with Kim Jong Un...

As The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson said about the Stormy Daniels story (which we'll get to in a minute), these things are a big deal as to what they're showing us about conservative Republicans. The Republican Party has never supported positions mentioned above, but now with a few exceptions are so neutered that they have nothing to say. On tariffs, House Speaker Paul Ryan and other leaders vocally opposed them but were too impotent to do anything. The President signed the tariffs into law on Thursday.

The evangelicals as Mr. Robinson explained have been left supporting a man they're giving 'mulligans' to on multiple affairs, the latest with a porn star. And let's not pretend that it's alleged. Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council clan have shown themselves to be more hypocritical than other group doing back flips to support this president, and they're becoming more and more irrelevant in doing so.

The panel debated whether the Stormy Daniels affair is of significant importance. Yahoo News's Matt Bai didn't think it a big deal while Andrea Mitchell spoke about the imperative of truthfulness and transparency in the presidency.  The conversation reference The New York Times Michelle Goldberg's column that explained the Stormy Daniels story was not a sex scandal as much as it was a campaign finance scandal. Yes, but ultimately, this story will not damage the president politically. The big rub is that it will further damage the president's marriage and most probably his number one legal sycophant, personal attorney Michael Cohen will be disbarred. Maybe it will be confirmed that the president did in fact have the affair, something we already knew because Press Secretary Sarah Sanders admitted it this week from the podium.

Former campaign aide Sam Nunberg? As for him, we all know someone like him who will make a big deal of himself saying he won't do this or that, and I dare them... blah, blah, blah. But at the end of the day, he's going to do what's he told and he was told to testify, which he did. Mentor or not, if Roger Stone has to go down because of Mr. Nunberg's testimony then so be it in the mind of Sam Nunberg.

This leaves us with the big announcement on North Korea, in which the President of the United States of America agree to meet with dictator Kim Jong Un in may, the details for which have not yet been laid out. I state it like that because one would have to agree with the panel consensus that it's largely a win for Kim to get the meeting. They also pointed out that usually the diplomacy comes first and then the summit, but this seems to be the other way around. However, with this president it seems that these two things are going to happen simultaneously. And now that Gary Cohn is gone when you look around the room in the Trump administration you have to ask, who's going to get this done? As Andrea Mitchell pointed out, we have no Korean expert in the administration, no ambassador to South Korea.

We'll see how it all goes, but we probably know how this summit's going to start...

Kim: Do you know Dennis Rodman?

Trump: I do know Dennis, too much metal in his face but a good guy.

Kim: He is my friend...


Panel: Andrea Mitchell; NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

3.4.18: Russia Is the Reason for the Crazy Season

The chyron read, "crisis, chaos and confusion" as a description of the White House's current state under Donald Trump's leadership.

The chaos is being sown from the continual personnel exodus, President Trump's rash and ill-timed decisions made under duress and scandal after scandal the most significant this week centering around the president's senior advisor, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner who lost his top secret security clearance. Then the news broke that during the transition Mr. Kushner held meeting in the White House about securing financing for his Manhattan property, 666 Fifth Ave. basically self-dealing using the power of the White House to enrich himself. Given both, Mr. Kushner should have been out the door last week. The only advice to offer Mr. Kushner at this point should be to 'be polite and hold the door for your wife first on the way out.'

Insert "pot-shot with purpose" here: Where is Republican leadership with all this corruption occurring in executive branch of our government? The reason for this becomes more significant farther into the column.

The administration's confusion is obvious because clearly President Trump is confused about policy, history and his day to day statements which are constantly changing. Guns are just the latest example of this. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, in his interview today, said "What ever his final decision is, is what will happen. What he has said, he has said. If he says something different, he says something different. I have no reason he's going to change." For the love of God... He just said that the president changes his mind, so what, but to be sure he does not change his mind. And then when Chuck Todd challenged him on the ridiculousness of this, he rephrased it, but essentially repeated the same notion.

Here it is:



Not only that, but Mr. Ross's defense of the president's decision to raise tariffs on steel by 25% and aluminum by 10% bordered on senile, saying that retaliation has nothing to do with the cost of a can of beer. He also said that it wasn't a rash decision because the president had made this promise on the campaign trail. Fine, but the timing of such an announcement without any significant consultation qualifies it as just that, rash. The administration's top economic advisor, Gary Cohn, has threatened to resign.

Senator Angus King (I-ME) in his interview explained that there need to be extensive negotiations with the countries that are our trading partners, all of which are allies with the exception of China, before making this kind of decision.  For his part, Mr. King did not say he was opposed to these tariffs, which is curious, but like all of us is questioning the random timing and ill-process of such a decision. Every state could be negatively impacted by this decision, especially ones where Mr. Trump's base resides. Also curious was the fact that Mr. King said he was not prepared to comment on whether or not Mr. Kushner was self-dealing in the White House, which must mean that his committee has concluded that he has.

All this because Russia is the reason for the crazy season. Communications Director Hope Hicks resigned this week because she didn't want to get any muddier from an investigation getting ever so closer to the Oval Office. Not to mention that when you're the White House Communications Director and it's leaked that in your congressional testimony that you tell 'white lies' for the president, let's just say it doesn't help you're long-term prospects on the job.

And you know what they say about 'white lies...'

Twice as sweet as sugar, twice as bitter as salt
And if you get hooked, baby, it's nobody else's fault,
So don't do it!

(OK, that's from Grandmaster Flash's "White Lines," but you get the idea.)

More seriously, Mr. Mueller and the special counsel's office have handed down indictments in regard to a cyber attack on our country and as Doris Kearns-Goodwin explained, the president is derelict in his duty to uphold the Constitution by not protecting our democracy. Here's something key to remember: If we've heard of a question that Mr. Mueller is asking of interviewees, he and his team already know the answer. So does Mr. Trump and that is the reason why there's so much chaos, crisis and confusion in the administration. Mr. Mueller's investigation is truly making Mr. Trump batty; 'unglued' is the term used in the press.

With all that is known, Mr. Trump has taken no initiative to defend the country. NBC's Katy Tur noted that NSA chief Admiral Mike Rogers has not received an direction from the White House in terms of responding to Russia's cyber-aggression. The president is blaming the Obama Administration for not having done enough when it was in power. You don't get away with arguing that your predecessor didn't do enough when since the time you've taken over, you've done nothing. Yet, fmr. Obama Administration White House Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, was on to defend his former boss, and what was clear from the interview was that the Obama Administration could have done more, but got hamstringed. Mr. McDonough explained that there wasn't a sense of urgency on the part of the Republican members of the 'group of 8' leadership group with regard to Russian election activity, specifically from Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Senator McConnell's name always seems to come up when the country writ large gets let down. Once again, not speaking out and on the wrong side of a decision that would be beneficial to the country. Mr. McDonough reluctantly admitted that Mr. McConnell didn't want to sign onto a bipartisan statement outlining and condemning Russia. What that did was make any potential out front statement by President Obama political and then seen as trying to tip the scale in favor of Mrs. Clinton. Image if Mrs. Clinton had been elected with Republicans still in control of congress. Hearing would be going on right now about how the Obama Administration tipped the scale. But McConnell and Republicans did nothing. Interestingly, Mr. Donough explained that the Russians didn't do some of the things the Obama Administration thought they would because the face to face meeting Mr. Obama had with Mr. Putin, where the president got into the Russian's face had an effect.

Despite that of course, Mr. Trump has done nothing so we see Vladimir Putin still able to smirk at the Trump reality-TV administration as he denies any role or knowledge of in what these indicted Russians have done. He's given himself free reign as far as acting and facing no repercussions. As this, while Xi in China consolidates even more power. Without presidential leadership there's no direction and we're just a dog chasing its tail in an ever-maddening circle.

But hey, be optimistic, the other news this week was that Mr. Trump announced his reelection bid this week as well.


Panel: Katy Tur, NBC News; Tom Brokaw, special correspondent NBC News; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, Republican Strategist

2.25.18: Arming Teachers Is Colossally Stupid/ The Russia Investigation Under The Radar

The debate on firearms dominated the interviews today so major developments in the Russia investigation were subordinated to a brief end game conversation on today's "Meet The Press," but justifiably so.

David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network made the point that people in the heartland [of America] don't care about the Mueller probe and memos and convoluted talk of Russia oligarchs, which makes total sense. Fmr. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest lent the perspective that they may not care now, but when the investigation is finished and Mr. Mueller reports his findings then people will be listening. Basically, what they're telling you is that the American people aren't paying attention to the investigation and because it doesn't effect their daily lives, they don't care. Fair enough.  It does remind me of how the American people came around on their collective opinion of the invasion of Iraq. At one point, many people were lead to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and that the dictator had weapons of mass destruction. When the heartland started really paying attention to things, it came to conclude that the Iraq War was a terrible decision.  People will come around.

But for the readers of a blog such as this, the intrigue of the Russia investigation continues and this week saw the Special Counsel level more charges against Paul Manafort, a cooperation with Rick Gates, and the release of the Democratic memo, which refutes the political motivations of the FBI as outlined in the Nunes memo. (You can read the entire memo below):

U.S. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MINORITY MEMO

It's also worth noting, American Enterprise Intitute's Danielle Pletka's point that the connection between Trump and the Russia investigation is constantly reinforced by Trump himself, and that the Special Counsel hasn't come forth with any such evidence. But given what the evidence that Mr. Mueller's investigation has presented, we know that the same Russian oligarch that we mentioned in last week's column, Yevgeny Prigozhin, that owns the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg is also running a mercenary army made up of Russian soldiers in Syria. As Chuck Todd flatly stated, these Russian mercenaries attacked American soldiers and American-backed troops.

This is a grave matter and the president has no stated position, opinion or plan in light of this revelation. Nor does he acknowledge any sort of need to protect our elections - more examples in an endless line of instances where presidential leadership is need and is absent from this Administration.

Despite the Administration's inaction, it's good to know that individuals in congress, like Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are putting legislation forward the puts some regulatory measures on advertising placed on social media, a minimal first step, but absolutely necessary. There are regulations for advertising in all other media spaces, why not on social media?

I don't even want to get started on the whole conversation about where Republican Congressional leaders have been in all this, which is nowhere to found.

But...

As Mr. Brody explained, the people of Peoria aren't concerned about the Russian investigation, and I guess by extension Russian soldiers under no flag attacking American soldiers or that a foreign power launched a cyber-war against the United States. (I know, that's not necessarily true, but...)

What they care about is the gun debate, Mr. Brody mentioned, and really it is no less important so understandably it took over today's conversation because we're witnessing the beginning of a political change in this country on guns. The biggest loser will be the NRA, whose own defensive rhetoric is working against itself.

As the panel noted, the NRA's rhetoric is outdated and tone-deaf [David Brody], showing little to no sympathy for the victims, and people are turned off by it as they should be. After so many mass shootings, the argument for every other factor except for the availability of the gun, assault weapons especially, no longer holds up.

When NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch says that the mainstream media loves mass shootings for the ratings and the organization's head, Wayne LaPierre, blames Democrats and their socialist agenda about eliminating the Second Amendment, there is no reason to take you seriously anymore because of its uncompromising extremism.

Corporations who had partnership deals with the NRA are now walking away. Apparently, many companies gave discounts to NRA members and by them walking away, NRA memberships are less enticing because you don't get all those discount benefits that are promised. The question is why did these companies have these discount programs with the NRA in the first place? You get a special discount because you own a gun? How American.

And hardening schools... What does that even mean? The big idea from the right is to arm teachers as President Trump suggested, nay - the NRA suggested and the president repeated. If teachers were armed then they could confront a shooter and protect students, hence needing more guns in the equation to solve the problem. Arming teachers is idiotic on so many levels.

For Mr. Trump, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and anyone else who thinks it's a good idea to arm teachers, they have no idea what they're talking about. It's a terrible proposal. Teachers are at school to teach, not to be an armed guard. There really aren't enough columns one could write on why this is such a bad idea. The tragic hypotheticals are endless and the questions about how these guns would be handled in the school leave no one feeling comfortable, to say the least. But ludicrous ideas like this advocated by figures on the national stage like the president and Senator Toomey say leave it to the school districts and states to decide. That's what is called passing the buck so that you can stand by ideology without having to take responsibility.

Conversely, None of the proposed regulations such as raising the purchase age or prohibiting bump stocks or requiring universal background checks or banning assault weapons like Mr. Massie argued would stop a mass shooting unto itself, which is an effective argument that gun advocates make because it's true. However, each put the responsibility on a single segment of the society when we all have to be responsible. As a society we haven't been and several measures need to be taken. "Well regulated" doesn't impede "not infringed" which are two phrases used in the Second Amendment. So we should be able to accommodate both.


Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Josh Earnest, fmr. White House Press Secretary; David Brody, Christian Broadcast Network

2.18.18: From Parkland To St. Petersburg, America Under Attack

Sometimes one can just sit here undecided as to where to start the weekly column because of the unbelievably dire things that happened this week, namely the mass shooting in Parkland, FL at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School and the Special Counsel's filed indictment of a Russian company in St. Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency. Not to mention the God-awful responses by the president on both.

But gnawing fact: 14 year olds.

How many times can it be said in this column, we as a society have failed to act responsibly with our Constitutional rights so laws need to be enacted to protect Americans from gun violence.

Here's the Second Amendment verbatim from the U.S. Constitution:
(Never mind the fact that it's called an Amendment, meaning it can be changed; couldn't agree more with NBC's Carol Lee's opinion of conservative columnist for The New York Times Brett Stephens' call for a repeal of the Second Amendment, and that it was an academic exercise.)

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you fight for the Second Amendment, you have to fight for all parts of it, and "well regulated" we are not.

Extrapolating that out, the president and congress are derelict in their oath to protect the American people. As NBC's Carol Lee pointed out, in the wake of this latest mass shooting, the political response has been standard from all sides, with the noted exception of the student victims who are speaking up and shaming politicians on social media. And it is important to note that at the very end of the Mr. Todd's interview with Broward Country Superintendent Robert Muncie, Mr. Muncie said that he was going to support giving a platform to students to speak out on this issue. These students can make a difference if they're empowered by the adult community, and in Florida that certainly seems to be the case. So Rick Scott and Marco Rubio are definitely on notice. In all these mass shootings, the particular circumstances are all a bit different, but the underlying fact remains the gun. Republican politicians and the president, as evidenced by his 7-minute speech, not only do not account for guns in the equation but don't even acknowledge their existence.

As Emma Gonzalez succinctly and appropriately put it: We call B.S.

In Florida, you can buy an AR-15 at eighteen years of age, but you have to wait until you're 21 to buy a handgun. Despite Senator James Langford (R-OK) quoting statistics that outline how more murders are committed with handguns in an attempt to make sense of this law, it simply doesn't measure up. And let not forget that neither does Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It's commendable that Mr. Langford is working on fix the background check, but it's not enough. Mr. Langford was also very clear that there shouldn't be any changes in the ease to purchase firearms, including the AR-15 because according to him they are used for hunting. For the record, any self-respecting hunter doesn't use an AR-15, period. The Oklahoma senator also calmly pass the buck at one point saying that only the courts can change gun laws, which is not the case. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for his part, clarified that he is against such weapons being for public purchase.

CNBC's Rick Santelli said that gun laws need to be made on a local level, but the suggestion is short-sighted because it doesn't account for buying guns in one state and bringing them to another. He also suggested a point system as the background check where everything you've done is taken into account. Again short-sighted in conservative doctrine as it creates a national database registry system. 

For those who say it's not the appropriate time to talk about policy, you would have to wonder whether they're waiting for these tragedies to occur with enough frequency that there is no appropriate time and space to speak about them. It's ridiculous.

As for the NRA... Here's where wish list gets tied to reality.

The other big story of course is the Special Counsel's indictment of 13 Russians. You can read the entire 37 pages right here:

SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE INDICTMENT, FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. vs. INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY, LLC




One of the indicted individuals is a Russian oligarch named Yevgeny Prigozhin, known as Putin's chef, who provided significant funding to the Internet Research Agency, all but implicating the Kremlin in the decision to undertake such an operation as outlined in the indictment.


As Chuck Todd outlined at the very top of the program, the week started out with the heads of all the U.S. intelligence agencies testifying to Congress that Russia committed a cyber attack against the United States, something Russian operatives termed 'warfare,' and it ended with the Mueller indictment confirming it. Yet, the president can only view this attack through a lens solely focused on himself, ignoring the larger implications of what this means for the country. Sadly, we've come to expect as much from Mr. Trump.

But damned if he does and damned if he doesn't comment on Russia, according to Mr. Santelli, who by the time we got to this point in the program should have just kept his mouth shut, spouting shallow opinions. The president shouldn't comment on an attack against the United States?  OK, Rick...

As NBC's Hallie Jackson explained, the White House undercut the statement from National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and really has no coherent response to what to do about the actions of these Russian individuals. And no mention of punishment or prevention. This is something that everyone sees, with the lone exception of the president, or not... Cornell Belcher took us to that logical place, asking where are Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to take the lead? If these two can not do anything on gun regulation, they have to at least do something on this. If not, then what the point of them? They'd both prove themselves utterly useless by doing nothing on both.

As Ms. Lee explained, this indictment is very narrow, does not implicate or exonerate the president, and is only the beginning. If you've read the indictment and followed the investigation, you know that we haven't even gotten to the financial part of the investigation, which we're sure is coming from Mr. Mueller.

This financial part could include Russian money funneled through the NRA then contributed to the Trump campaign. (It's been out there in the press, from Axios: https://www.axios.com/report-fbi-investigating-whether-1516308991-1efd1e3d-3774-4e6b-abf2-39dff9d6f1d0.html). Name checking a Warren Zevon song, it's all about lawyers, guns and money, but if this is proven to be true there won't be enough of any of them for the NRA to salvage them.



Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Carol Lee, NBC; Rick Santelli, CNBC; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Pollster

2.11.18: What Kinda Unit You Running Here, Soldier?

Lots of discussion on today's program was devoted to White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and his performance. More importantly, what's President Trump's opinion of his handling a series of issues such as his statement about the wall contradicting the president or his 'DACA applicants are lazy' admission that complicated the administration's stance. Last but not least of the performance questions is General Kelly's handling of Staff Secretary Rob Porter's domestic abuse history, his comments from from day to the next, and Mr. Porter's subsequent firing/resignation.

Here's one obvious but neglected question that needs to be asked of General Kelly:
What kinda unit you running here, soldier?

Someone get Colin Powell in here to give him a dressing down.

The Trump Administration is an utter mess. How many times can you say, "This was the worst week for the Administration?" Seriously. Chuck Todd used the words 'spinning out of control' while The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan repeated the phrase 'chaos and disorder' to describe the administration. What happened to the president hiring 'the best' people? Where's there even a sense of rudimentary professionalism? White House Communications Director Hope Hicks is dating Mr. Porter, and she is the one to write the official statement. White House Counsel Don McGahn has known about Mr. Porter perpetrating domestic abuse for a year. General Kelly we come to find knew about all this in November. All the while neither the president nor (of course) the vice-president knew anything about any of this.

Then...

Marc Short comes on today's program and says the president has 'confidence' in General Kelly. Mr. Short continued that the FBI clearance process for National Security has taken this long to complete, when it was the FBI who had informed Mr. McGahn back in January 2017, and essentially blaming the FBI for slow vetting and that's why they haven't acted until now. After all that, he say that he isn't blaming the FBI. Jared Kushner hasn't been approved for the highest security clearance and he is reading the president's daily briefing, Chuck Todd explained. Mr. Short doesn't, couldn't possibly, have a good answer for any of this.

NBC's Kristen Welker explained that the president isn't going to replace General Kelly because he 'doesn't want more drama' in the administration, which is laughable if it weren't so serious. Understandable questions of character brought by Mr. Gaude unavoidably have to be considered. Ms. Noonan pointed out that many qualified people just didn't want to get Trump's political cooties on them.

The Resurgent's Erick Erickson provided some consolation explaining that under General Kelly, the Administration did get tax reform done. Whether you agree with the policy or not, it's fine to agree that it's good the administration can function on some level. That's what he's really saying. Mr. Erickson said later in the program the President Trump is not a role model. Coming from him, that strikes a chord, be it a soft one.

But here's the rub. Given all the ridiculousness described above, there are more serious matters afoot, namely the Administration denying release of the Democratic rebuttal memo on the Russia investigation. There is no hypocrisy, as Mr. Short charged, in that the Democrats didn't vote for release of the Mr. Nunes's memo while both Republicans and Democrats voted for the release of the rebuttal memo. No... The reason Republicans members of the Intelligence Committee voted for the rebuttal's release is because they're all sick of Mr. Nunes's stupid, nakedly partisan antics, in a committee that shouldn't be partisan.

So when fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts comes on the program and discusses Russian meddling in our elections, of which the aforementioned memo release plays a part, there's little faith in anything being done. With the president trying to block the truth of the matter and his base going along with the notion of 'there's nothing to see here,' the two most important words Mr. Watts uttered: Paper ballot.


Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Eddie Gaude, Jr., Princeton University; Erick Erickson, The Resurgent

One More Thing...
At the end of Mr. Todd's Olympics segment, there was a coming together of which sport both liberals and conservatives could come together on. Without going back, I can't remember what it was because I didn't care. Point is, do us a little favor a do a profile on an athlete or an interview with a former Olympic great instead of having to feel the need to do tongue-in-cheek politicizing of everything. I know, what a Debbie Downer I am.