Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) can always be counted on to give the historical and or ideological perspective or any number of issues or situations but what he lacks is any sense of the practical and reality that happens to give a backhanded slap to the face of ideology. Case in point today is how the Mr. Paul outlined the violent history between the Turks and the Kurds, and our alliances. Fighting with Turkey are Arab Kurds who are part of the free Syrian Army that was a U.S. ally for seven years, he explained. He also said that the conflict had been going on for 100 years, implying that given that long messy history, the United States shouldn't be involved.
But here's the rub... The Syrian Kurds were staunch U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS and we have abandoned them to be slaughter by the Turkish army. It's happening as this column is being written. NBC's Richard Engel reported that Syrian Kurds are being executed by extremist Arabs, Al Qaeda members, who are backed by the Turks. The Trump Administration betrayed a loyal ally, and has dishonored our country. Obviously, one can disagree, sometimes strenuously, with the decisions that put the U.S. military in that place, but now that we were there, the U.S. needs to stand up for its friends. As the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan said, the president got rolled by the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. No matter the atrocities, the Trump administration will do nothing, not even sanctions. Don't think for a minute that the president hasn't thought about his substantial personal business interests in Turkey being affected.
Mr. Paul also rhetorically stated that the president has to determine what is best for the national security of the United States. Well, this is it. Thousands of ISIS fighters and sympathizers are breaking out and escaping from prisons guarded by the Kurds, but not anymore. Yet, the Trump Administration this week sent 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia. To Senator Paul's credit, he said that we shouldn't be sending armaments or troops to Saudi Arabia until they behave better.
The bottom line is that the Trump Administration pulled troops out of one country, which has facilitated ethnic cleansing and a humanitarian crisis and put troops into another country to continue the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, in Yemen. The amorality of this administration should make all Americans feel ashamed. Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY) said that he has never seen anything as disgusting as this in all his time in Congress.
Should NATO consider kicking Turkey to the curb? Most certainly.
And Rudy Giuliani? He's now under investigation for his illegal lobbying work in Ukraine by the same federal office that he once led in the Southern District of New York. He had lunch on Wednesday with two associates that were arrested that same evening. And what are they charged with? They allegedly funneled Russian money to Republican candidates, namely Pete Sessions (R-TX), and asked him to talk to the State Department, in which he wrote a letter, to remove the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Maria Yananovitch who was actually fighting corruption. Die the hero or live long enough to become the villain. Mr. Giuliani who once prosecuted the New York Mafia and its corruption only to now be superlatively corrupt himself. #nohero.
Panel: Peggy Noon, The Wall Street Journal; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Michael Schmidt, The New York Times, Cornell Belcher, Democratic strategist
One more thing...
This week at a rally in Minneapolis, Donald Trump called the impeachment inquiry illegal, unconstitutional and bull shit. Ironic given the fact that all his bull shit is either illegal and or unconstitutional.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Sunday, October 06, 2019
10.6.19: U.S. Democracy For Sale
Chuck Todd mentioned the two realities at play right now, what sixty percent of the country believes to be the facts versus what the other forty percent believes. No matter how you slice that up, one thing is overwhelmingly evident.. ah, true, and that is that Donald Trump is unfit to be president of the United States.
O. Kay Henderson, News Director at Radio Iowa, said that Republican voters went through the entire Russia investigation and there were no consequences for the president for his asking Russia for help in the election and then the obstruction that followed, and now what's happening with the president and his surrogates pressuring Ukraine, leaves them asking, "this again?"
Yes, this again...
And why? Because Donald Trump knows that the Republican-controlled Senate will let him get away with it by looking the other way, remaining silent, or dismissing it as "Trump being Trump." That last bit is most dangerous for U.S. democracy then people realize and today's panel trivialized it because if Trump loses the election next year but refuses to leave office because he says it is rigged, is that just Trump being Trump? If the president uses information that China provided him to win the election, is that Trump just being Trump?
The president, being transactional by nature, is putting up the for sale sign on American democracy. He's sent his sales people - Rudy Giuliani, William Barr and Mike Pompeo - out to solicit purchases of the president's corrupt intent. His statements this week on the south lawn asking Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden are impeachable. When you see a video clip of Marco Rubio (R-FL) saying that the president may just be trying to get a 'rise' out of the press for saying what he said, what he's really telling you is that the president's words don't matter.
But here's the rub, they do. When the president makes a statement about the trade war with China, which is causing a global recession by the way, the markets move. When the president says that he believes Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community, you get idiot Senators like Ron Johnson (R-WI) being unwilling to confirm as to whether he trusts CIA or the FBI.
Speaking of Mr. Johnson, his appearance today on "Meet The Press" was disgraceful and unworthy of the office he holds. From the outset he was defensive and practically yelling at Mr. Todd. He denigrated the FBI, CIA, the press and fmr. CIA Director John Brennan, personally. He said he wasn't defending the president nor criticizing him and that he just wanted to get to the truth, but that is is the farthest thing from what he wants. What he really wants is to hold onto his office, and speaking out against this president will cost him his seat. Mr. Brennan was correct when he said that the Wisconsin senator was running scared. Mr. Johnson said that when he confronted the president about the Ukraine call, Mr. Trump denied it and he believed him. Vladimir Putin denied it too. As fmr. under-secretary of state, Rick Stengel, explained, every answer that Mr. Johnson gave was a classic Russian disinformation tactic of 'whataboutism.'
Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) called what the president did this week appalling, and Mr. Trump tweeted that Mr. Romney should be impeached. That's how little the president knows about the law, Senators can not be impeached. And then you have people like Rich Lowry, who is not a conservative but a shill whose magazine relies on Republican contributions to maintain itself, not caring about the law. He said that it is wrong for the president to solicit a foreign government to investigate a political opponent but that it's not an impeachable offense. It's against the law so of course it's impeachable.
If Republicans do not step, which they won't we're going to continue to see the eroding of our democratic principles, as Mr. Brennan put it. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said it was a 'green light' to solicit interference, but in Trump parlance, it's a FOR SALE sign.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa; Rick Stengel, fmr. under-secretary of state; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
Kristen Welker mentioned that another whistleblower may be coming forward about conversations and information about what the administration did with regard to Ukraine. That is going to happen so look out for it this week.
O. Kay Henderson, News Director at Radio Iowa, said that Republican voters went through the entire Russia investigation and there were no consequences for the president for his asking Russia for help in the election and then the obstruction that followed, and now what's happening with the president and his surrogates pressuring Ukraine, leaves them asking, "this again?"
Yes, this again...
And why? Because Donald Trump knows that the Republican-controlled Senate will let him get away with it by looking the other way, remaining silent, or dismissing it as "Trump being Trump." That last bit is most dangerous for U.S. democracy then people realize and today's panel trivialized it because if Trump loses the election next year but refuses to leave office because he says it is rigged, is that just Trump being Trump? If the president uses information that China provided him to win the election, is that Trump just being Trump?
The president, being transactional by nature, is putting up the for sale sign on American democracy. He's sent his sales people - Rudy Giuliani, William Barr and Mike Pompeo - out to solicit purchases of the president's corrupt intent. His statements this week on the south lawn asking Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden are impeachable. When you see a video clip of Marco Rubio (R-FL) saying that the president may just be trying to get a 'rise' out of the press for saying what he said, what he's really telling you is that the president's words don't matter.
But here's the rub, they do. When the president makes a statement about the trade war with China, which is causing a global recession by the way, the markets move. When the president says that he believes Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community, you get idiot Senators like Ron Johnson (R-WI) being unwilling to confirm as to whether he trusts CIA or the FBI.
Speaking of Mr. Johnson, his appearance today on "Meet The Press" was disgraceful and unworthy of the office he holds. From the outset he was defensive and practically yelling at Mr. Todd. He denigrated the FBI, CIA, the press and fmr. CIA Director John Brennan, personally. He said he wasn't defending the president nor criticizing him and that he just wanted to get to the truth, but that is is the farthest thing from what he wants. What he really wants is to hold onto his office, and speaking out against this president will cost him his seat. Mr. Brennan was correct when he said that the Wisconsin senator was running scared. Mr. Johnson said that when he confronted the president about the Ukraine call, Mr. Trump denied it and he believed him. Vladimir Putin denied it too. As fmr. under-secretary of state, Rick Stengel, explained, every answer that Mr. Johnson gave was a classic Russian disinformation tactic of 'whataboutism.'
Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) called what the president did this week appalling, and Mr. Trump tweeted that Mr. Romney should be impeached. That's how little the president knows about the law, Senators can not be impeached. And then you have people like Rich Lowry, who is not a conservative but a shill whose magazine relies on Republican contributions to maintain itself, not caring about the law. He said that it is wrong for the president to solicit a foreign government to investigate a political opponent but that it's not an impeachable offense. It's against the law so of course it's impeachable.
If Republicans do not step, which they won't we're going to continue to see the eroding of our democratic principles, as Mr. Brennan put it. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said it was a 'green light' to solicit interference, but in Trump parlance, it's a FOR SALE sign.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa; Rick Stengel, fmr. under-secretary of state; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
Kristen Welker mentioned that another whistleblower may be coming forward about conversations and information about what the administration did with regard to Ukraine. That is going to happen so look out for it this week.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
9.29.19: Well, Ain't This An (Im)Peach?
Despite what Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) says about no collusion on the part of President Trump and Russia, there indeed was collusion, which is not a legal term. When then candidate Donald Trump said during the campaign, "Russia if you're listening..." Mr. Mueller's investigation stated clearly that collusion was not a legal term, whereas conspiracy is and fortunately for Mr. Trump, conspiracy was not proven. Obstruction of justice? There were only 11 proven instances. However, that is not germane to what has transpired over the past week. If you read the transcript of the phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky, the mere mention of Joe Biden is an indication that Mr. Trump wants his main political rival to be sullied before the 2020 election; this is conjunction with the "I want you to do us a favor though" statement, which Mr. Todd emphasized throughout today's program makes it clear that the now President of the United States abused the power of his office for personal political gain. Mr. Scalise refused to answer the direct question of whether this obvious fact should be condoned. Most all Republicans have been loathe to directly refute these charges.it himself, "Don't look at what was call."
Whether or not you think there is any grey area here, the president has breached his oath of office and a formal impeachment inquiry is warranted.
As Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA), explained if individuals from the administration are called to testify and do not cooperate because of executive privilege then those individuals are obstructing justice. And the gall of Hugh Hewitt to say that Mr. Schiff is not a fair arbiter of this process, may we remind him of one word, "Benghazi." There were no fair arbiters in that process.
The stench of most Republican hypocrisy is what has been most damaging to this country, and not the opening of an impeachment inquiry to hold a corrupt president accountable. This along with another falsehood that Mr. Scalise with his revisionist history outlined was the Obama Administration's unwillingness to investigate Russian meddling in 2016 as it was Mitch McConnell who dismissed the intelligence community's findings and warnings.
But this latest impropriety is not about 2016, it's about what the president has done moving forward to 2020. Unlike the Mueller investigation, this is much easier for the American people to wrap their heads around. The president wanted the Ukrainian government to reopen an investigation of his political rival to ensure aid to the country - leveraging U.S. foreign policy for personal political gain. Hard stop. The Trump Administration put out Republican talking points, which they were sufficiently incompetent enough to also send to Democrats, it stated that there was no quid pro quo so there is no need for an impeachment inquiry. Well, ain't that a peach? As fmr. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, explained there are no 'favors' in diplomacy, it's all a quid pro quo.
Mr. McFaul also outlined very clearly the timeline of how this all transpired:
Most notable in the outline of all this is that the administration announced a freeze on $391 million of military aid to Ukraine on July 18, 2019 and then the call occurs on the 25th of the month.
It's been reported that there is rising anxiety within the West Wing, and there should be. It looks like one of the scapegoats is going to be the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) calls a free-range chicken. As a side note, Mr. Giuliani, mentioned over 30 times in the whistleblower complaint as a private citizen is representing the United States government in the eyes of the Mr. Zelensky's administration, which begs the question - Is Mr. Giuliani conducting his own personal foreign policy? And doesn't that violate the Logan Act? Maybe not, but it sure does come close.
Republicans office holders are tired Mr. Giuliani's antics and absurdities, they're fatigued. As Mark Leibovitch mentioned, there is a general fatigue with Trump, deemed Trump exhaustion. No doubt. Let the inquiry proceed.
Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Mark Leibovitch, The New York Times Magazine; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network
Whether or not you think there is any grey area here, the president has breached his oath of office and a formal impeachment inquiry is warranted.
As Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA), explained if individuals from the administration are called to testify and do not cooperate because of executive privilege then those individuals are obstructing justice. And the gall of Hugh Hewitt to say that Mr. Schiff is not a fair arbiter of this process, may we remind him of one word, "Benghazi." There were no fair arbiters in that process.
The stench of most Republican hypocrisy is what has been most damaging to this country, and not the opening of an impeachment inquiry to hold a corrupt president accountable. This along with another falsehood that Mr. Scalise with his revisionist history outlined was the Obama Administration's unwillingness to investigate Russian meddling in 2016 as it was Mitch McConnell who dismissed the intelligence community's findings and warnings.
But this latest impropriety is not about 2016, it's about what the president has done moving forward to 2020. Unlike the Mueller investigation, this is much easier for the American people to wrap their heads around. The president wanted the Ukrainian government to reopen an investigation of his political rival to ensure aid to the country - leveraging U.S. foreign policy for personal political gain. Hard stop. The Trump Administration put out Republican talking points, which they were sufficiently incompetent enough to also send to Democrats, it stated that there was no quid pro quo so there is no need for an impeachment inquiry. Well, ain't that a peach? As fmr. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, explained there are no 'favors' in diplomacy, it's all a quid pro quo.
Mr. McFaul also outlined very clearly the timeline of how this all transpired:
 |
| Click to watch outline of the timeline |
It's been reported that there is rising anxiety within the West Wing, and there should be. It looks like one of the scapegoats is going to be the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) calls a free-range chicken. As a side note, Mr. Giuliani, mentioned over 30 times in the whistleblower complaint as a private citizen is representing the United States government in the eyes of the Mr. Zelensky's administration, which begs the question - Is Mr. Giuliani conducting his own personal foreign policy? And doesn't that violate the Logan Act? Maybe not, but it sure does come close.
Republicans office holders are tired Mr. Giuliani's antics and absurdities, they're fatigued. As Mark Leibovitch mentioned, there is a general fatigue with Trump, deemed Trump exhaustion. No doubt. Let the inquiry proceed.
Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Mark Leibovitch, The New York Times Magazine; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network
Sunday, September 22, 2019
9.22.19: If... The Ukraine Mess and Trump's Self-Interest
According the whistleblower statute, the Director of National Intelligence must turn over the complaint to Congress, in this case the Intelligence Committee. However, the acting DNI Joseph MacGuire is blocking the House Intelligence Committee from seeing the complaint.
In the alleged quid pro quo between the president and the government of Ukraine, there are a lot of ifs. If Mr. MacGuire complied with the law instead of breaking it, clarity would be provided and there would be no need to turn over the transcript of the call, which Treasure Secretary Steve Mnuchin stated that it would set a bad precedent if done so. Congress doesn't need the transcript, they need the complaint. If they have the complaint then they would be in position to subpoena the transcript. If...
The complaint, as reported has to do with President Trump demanding that the Ukraine investigate presidential candidate fmr. VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Where the quid pro quo comes in is if Mr. Trump demanded that investigation in exchange for U.S. to Ukraine, the sum of $250 million.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that he had met with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky and said that Mr. Zelensky was puzzled as to whether the pending aid was contingent upon opening up an investigation into Mr. Biden and his son. Overtures by the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, compounded the confusion for the Ukrainian government because it was not clear whether Mr. Giuliani was acting on behalf of the administration. To digress for a moment, Mr. Giuliani should no longer be considered 'America's Mayor' or a hero. His statements and acts since that time has completely disqualified him forever from any such designation. The confusion on the part of the Ukrainians is understandable, however, for those of us paying attention in the United States it's clear. Mr. Giuliani is not part of the Administration so his actions are taken on behalf of the Mr. Trump himself, not the United States. With that in mind, he was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, which is soliciting help from a foreign government in a U.S. election. Apparently, Mr. Giuliani's meetings were set up by the State Department which also calls into question their accountability in all of this, specifically Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated that if that is the case, it is inappropriate and wrong. One can easily postulate that if the president did this and was acting in his own personal interest, which is in line with Mr. Trump's modus operandi writ large.
The fact that Mr. MacGuire is not turning over the complaint, the administration will not turn over the transcript of the call, that several officials have resigned or have been forced out since this call and that last week the administration finally released the aid to Ukraine all speaks to a corrupt intent. If...
Not to mention that not only did the Ukraine receive the $250 million but also received another $140 million that they didn't expect. Why? As Secretary Mnuchin of course said, there is no connection between the timing of the aforementioned events and the extra money to Mr. Trump's call.
As Robert Costa reminded us, the administration is intent on not cooperating with any Congressional oversight. Because of this the Democratically-controlled House needs to step up and not just threaten contempt of Congress orders but issue them. Unequivocally, Congress needs to step up.
In this instance, just like the other subject broached today, guns, Republicans refuse to do anything without the president's say so. Republican fecklessness knows no limits. Senate Republicans are on record as saying that they have no position or will not endorse any legislation that the president doesn't back. Doesn't Congress make the laws? As Mr. Toomey did on today's program, they are blaming Beto O'Rourke on stalling any gun legislation because Mr. O'Rourke said that if he were president he would institute a mandatory buy-back program for assault rifles. This is the lamest of excuses as Mr. O'Rourke is a candidate and does NOT hold any public office. Republicans aren't moving on gun legislation because a private citizen made a proposal that in reality carries on wait? Please.
Lastly, on the issue of Iran, Donna Edwards explained it plainly that Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Iranian nuclear agreement with no plan B. Let's face if the administration has a plan B for any foreign policy initiative, the Iranians would feel so emboldened in reeking havoc in the Middle East. Or if there were a plan B for the trade wars with China, U.S. farmers wouldn't be potentially losing the market for soybeans permanently.
Aside from punishing immigrants in variously different ways, this administration has no policies at all. It's only about keeping a man in power who has no regard for the United States' interest, only his own.
Panel: Donna Edwards, Fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Kristen Welker, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman (R-FL)
In the alleged quid pro quo between the president and the government of Ukraine, there are a lot of ifs. If Mr. MacGuire complied with the law instead of breaking it, clarity would be provided and there would be no need to turn over the transcript of the call, which Treasure Secretary Steve Mnuchin stated that it would set a bad precedent if done so. Congress doesn't need the transcript, they need the complaint. If they have the complaint then they would be in position to subpoena the transcript. If...
The complaint, as reported has to do with President Trump demanding that the Ukraine investigate presidential candidate fmr. VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Where the quid pro quo comes in is if Mr. Trump demanded that investigation in exchange for U.S. to Ukraine, the sum of $250 million.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that he had met with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky and said that Mr. Zelensky was puzzled as to whether the pending aid was contingent upon opening up an investigation into Mr. Biden and his son. Overtures by the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, compounded the confusion for the Ukrainian government because it was not clear whether Mr. Giuliani was acting on behalf of the administration. To digress for a moment, Mr. Giuliani should no longer be considered 'America's Mayor' or a hero. His statements and acts since that time has completely disqualified him forever from any such designation. The confusion on the part of the Ukrainians is understandable, however, for those of us paying attention in the United States it's clear. Mr. Giuliani is not part of the Administration so his actions are taken on behalf of the Mr. Trump himself, not the United States. With that in mind, he was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, which is soliciting help from a foreign government in a U.S. election. Apparently, Mr. Giuliani's meetings were set up by the State Department which also calls into question their accountability in all of this, specifically Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated that if that is the case, it is inappropriate and wrong. One can easily postulate that if the president did this and was acting in his own personal interest, which is in line with Mr. Trump's modus operandi writ large.
The fact that Mr. MacGuire is not turning over the complaint, the administration will not turn over the transcript of the call, that several officials have resigned or have been forced out since this call and that last week the administration finally released the aid to Ukraine all speaks to a corrupt intent. If...
Not to mention that not only did the Ukraine receive the $250 million but also received another $140 million that they didn't expect. Why? As Secretary Mnuchin of course said, there is no connection between the timing of the aforementioned events and the extra money to Mr. Trump's call.
As Robert Costa reminded us, the administration is intent on not cooperating with any Congressional oversight. Because of this the Democratically-controlled House needs to step up and not just threaten contempt of Congress orders but issue them. Unequivocally, Congress needs to step up.
In this instance, just like the other subject broached today, guns, Republicans refuse to do anything without the president's say so. Republican fecklessness knows no limits. Senate Republicans are on record as saying that they have no position or will not endorse any legislation that the president doesn't back. Doesn't Congress make the laws? As Mr. Toomey did on today's program, they are blaming Beto O'Rourke on stalling any gun legislation because Mr. O'Rourke said that if he were president he would institute a mandatory buy-back program for assault rifles. This is the lamest of excuses as Mr. O'Rourke is a candidate and does NOT hold any public office. Republicans aren't moving on gun legislation because a private citizen made a proposal that in reality carries on wait? Please.
Lastly, on the issue of Iran, Donna Edwards explained it plainly that Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Iranian nuclear agreement with no plan B. Let's face if the administration has a plan B for any foreign policy initiative, the Iranians would feel so emboldened in reeking havoc in the Middle East. Or if there were a plan B for the trade wars with China, U.S. farmers wouldn't be potentially losing the market for soybeans permanently.
Aside from punishing immigrants in variously different ways, this administration has no policies at all. It's only about keeping a man in power who has no regard for the United States' interest, only his own.
Panel: Donna Edwards, Fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Kristen Welker, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman (R-FL)
Sunday, September 01, 2019
9.1.19: Republicans Could Act But Choose Not To
Hurricane Dorian and another mass shooting in Texas...
Though we can not do anything about a hurricane, we can and must prepare for it eventually making landfall. What we also know is that storms like Dorian and becoming more frequent and more intense.
This is where was can do something. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) speaks sensibly on the topic of hurricanes, having a lot of experience in dealing with them as governor of the state, which is more than we can say for his answers on gun legislation. The senator explained that residents now have to build their houses up to standard, a standard we presume means that the houses should be elevated and not built in high-risk areas.
But these are patches on the bigger problem that Mr. Scott and other Republicans will not acknowledge, which is a changing climate. How far do you pull back from the coast until it's safe? The answer is farther and farther back as time goes on, and until there is common consensus or just any sense of the part of Republicans, things will continue to get worse and the money for disaster relief will become any even more contentious issue. Mr. Todd asked Mr. Scott about 'adaptation and mitigation, to which Mr. Scott answered with building standards but this is just the adaption part. Mitigation is to address climate change and the warming of the oceans that cause these storms to become more intense. Individuals can do their part but it's only government that can move on policy to address this growing threat. Congress could do something but they choose not to.
Speaking of another instance in which Congress, namely Republicans in Congress could do something but choose not to is on gun legislation. The second mass shooting in Texas (Midland/ Odessa area) this month occurred yesterday leaving 7 dead and over 20 injured. Today's panel was divided on whether they can now see Congress doing something with regard to gun legislation when it comes back in session.
Fmr. Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson felt that it's different this time and that since there is a campaign coming up, Republicans will want to show that they have done something on guns. However, some on the panel cited the upcoming election season as the very reason that Republicans running for reelection won't do anything. They'll cater to their respective conservative bases and won't go 'soft' on guns. Conversely, fmr. HUD Secretary and Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro (D-TX), said that if he were president he would push for limiting high-capacity magazines, banning assault weapons and instituting universal background checks. These is standard in terms of the Democratic platform on guns though a majority of Americans are in favor of these measures. However, even on background checks, little, if anything, will change.
The president, Mr. Castro noted, has said after Parkland and after El Paso and Dayton that he would push for universal backgrounds but has since walked that back and will inevitably follow the intransigence of congressional Republicans, which would be Rick Scott who said that he was focused on mental illness. Mr. Scott, like other Republicans, mentioned red-flag laws, in which firearms can be taken from an individual if the person presents a danger to others or oneself. However, how many times do we find out after the fact of these mass shootings that the perpetrator had a manifesto or that friends thought something was 'wrong' with the person? Mr. Scott and other Senate Republicans will not bring a universal background check bill to the floor. That would be a slippery slope to an assault weapons bans or limiting magazine capacity.
In both cases, when Congress comes back from the August recess, these are two issues that Mr. Trump will dutifully distract us away from.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Homeland Secretary; Shawna Thomas, Vice News; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute
Though we can not do anything about a hurricane, we can and must prepare for it eventually making landfall. What we also know is that storms like Dorian and becoming more frequent and more intense.
This is where was can do something. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) speaks sensibly on the topic of hurricanes, having a lot of experience in dealing with them as governor of the state, which is more than we can say for his answers on gun legislation. The senator explained that residents now have to build their houses up to standard, a standard we presume means that the houses should be elevated and not built in high-risk areas.
But these are patches on the bigger problem that Mr. Scott and other Republicans will not acknowledge, which is a changing climate. How far do you pull back from the coast until it's safe? The answer is farther and farther back as time goes on, and until there is common consensus or just any sense of the part of Republicans, things will continue to get worse and the money for disaster relief will become any even more contentious issue. Mr. Todd asked Mr. Scott about 'adaptation and mitigation, to which Mr. Scott answered with building standards but this is just the adaption part. Mitigation is to address climate change and the warming of the oceans that cause these storms to become more intense. Individuals can do their part but it's only government that can move on policy to address this growing threat. Congress could do something but they choose not to.
Speaking of another instance in which Congress, namely Republicans in Congress could do something but choose not to is on gun legislation. The second mass shooting in Texas (Midland/ Odessa area) this month occurred yesterday leaving 7 dead and over 20 injured. Today's panel was divided on whether they can now see Congress doing something with regard to gun legislation when it comes back in session.
Fmr. Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson felt that it's different this time and that since there is a campaign coming up, Republicans will want to show that they have done something on guns. However, some on the panel cited the upcoming election season as the very reason that Republicans running for reelection won't do anything. They'll cater to their respective conservative bases and won't go 'soft' on guns. Conversely, fmr. HUD Secretary and Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro (D-TX), said that if he were president he would push for limiting high-capacity magazines, banning assault weapons and instituting universal background checks. These is standard in terms of the Democratic platform on guns though a majority of Americans are in favor of these measures. However, even on background checks, little, if anything, will change.
The president, Mr. Castro noted, has said after Parkland and after El Paso and Dayton that he would push for universal backgrounds but has since walked that back and will inevitably follow the intransigence of congressional Republicans, which would be Rick Scott who said that he was focused on mental illness. Mr. Scott, like other Republicans, mentioned red-flag laws, in which firearms can be taken from an individual if the person presents a danger to others or oneself. However, how many times do we find out after the fact of these mass shootings that the perpetrator had a manifesto or that friends thought something was 'wrong' with the person? Mr. Scott and other Senate Republicans will not bring a universal background check bill to the floor. That would be a slippery slope to an assault weapons bans or limiting magazine capacity.
In both cases, when Congress comes back from the August recess, these are two issues that Mr. Trump will dutifully distract us away from.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Homeland Secretary; Shawna Thomas, Vice News; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute
Sunday, August 25, 2019
8.25.19: Standing with Hong Kong, and If Not Joe Biden, Who?
When the discussion turned to foreign policy, presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg immediately brought up the issue of Hong Kong and the protests going on there, not to make it another Tiananmen Square, clarify that America maintains a firm pro-democracy stance inline with the people of Hong Kong and that it is factor in all discussions.
It's a significant first place to start this week and kudos to Mr. Buttigieg for being immediate because this is a clarifying statement on administration's view of human rights and a founding American principle to China and everyone else in the world. The repercussions of any type of action (e.g. military) Mr. Buttigieg said would be China's 'isolation from the democratic world,' which will take a tremendous amount of diplomatic repair work first.
If the president insists of a trade strategy that consists of continually poking China in its eye, as the Mr. Buttigieg described, then the president could poke President Xi in the eye with this as well. The Administration's foreign policy consists of Mr. Trump's interactions and personal relationships with foreign leaders, mostly through Twitter. The shelf life for such diplomacy is quickly moving toward its expiration date.
This column, like Eugene Robinson, still think it's early in the race and hence why we a bit loathe to comment on it right now, especially given everything else that is going on, namely the G7 Summit in France, or the G6+1 as it has been deemed, with the six doing gentle push, as Mr. Robinson described it and also pointed out the important that Mr. Trump has not actually struck any deals, nothing signed. We've come to the point where we just want the summit to pass without major international incident.
Where last week's program dropped the ball, this week proved redemptive for "Meet The Press," with a high-bar panel consisting all of journalists and op-ed columnists, i.e. meet the press, all of whom provided quick key insights on the 'temperature in the room," so to speak.
The panel discussed the state of the presidential race in terms that we're insightful replacing the annoyingly mundane as sometimes occurs. The New York Times conservative columnist Brett Stephens described a Joe Biden campaign ad as potential poisonous for using polling data graphics, polls which are certain to change.
They continued to the larger question of if not Joe, who? The Daily Beast's Betsy Woodruff described Democratic strategists divided into two camps of thought, consisting of playing it safe with Joe Biden and others thinking an 'edible arrangement' could win. Both are poor strategies as neither answer that critical question for Democrats. Who?
This column, like Eugene Robinson, still think it's early in the race and hence why we a bit loathe to comment on it right now, especially given everything else that is going on, namely the G7 Summit in France, or the G6+1 as it has been deemed, with the six doing gentle push, as Mr. Robinson described it.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, Washington Examiner; Betsy Woodruff, "The Daily Beast;" Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Brett Stephens, The New York Times
It's a significant first place to start this week and kudos to Mr. Buttigieg for being immediate because this is a clarifying statement on administration's view of human rights and a founding American principle to China and everyone else in the world. The repercussions of any type of action (e.g. military) Mr. Buttigieg said would be China's 'isolation from the democratic world,' which will take a tremendous amount of diplomatic repair work first.
If the president insists of a trade strategy that consists of continually poking China in its eye, as the Mr. Buttigieg described, then the president could poke President Xi in the eye with this as well. The Administration's foreign policy consists of Mr. Trump's interactions and personal relationships with foreign leaders, mostly through Twitter. The shelf life for such diplomacy is quickly moving toward its expiration date.
This column, like Eugene Robinson, still think it's early in the race and hence why we a bit loathe to comment on it right now, especially given everything else that is going on, namely the G7 Summit in France, or the G6+1 as it has been deemed, with the six doing gentle push, as Mr. Robinson described it and also pointed out the important that Mr. Trump has not actually struck any deals, nothing signed. We've come to the point where we just want the summit to pass without major international incident.
Where last week's program dropped the ball, this week proved redemptive for "Meet The Press," with a high-bar panel consisting all of journalists and op-ed columnists, i.e. meet the press, all of whom provided quick key insights on the 'temperature in the room," so to speak.
The panel discussed the state of the presidential race in terms that we're insightful replacing the annoyingly mundane as sometimes occurs. The New York Times conservative columnist Brett Stephens described a Joe Biden campaign ad as potential poisonous for using polling data graphics, polls which are certain to change.
They continued to the larger question of if not Joe, who? The Daily Beast's Betsy Woodruff described Democratic strategists divided into two camps of thought, consisting of playing it safe with Joe Biden and others thinking an 'edible arrangement' could win. Both are poor strategies as neither answer that critical question for Democrats. Who?
This column, like Eugene Robinson, still think it's early in the race and hence why we a bit loathe to comment on it right now, especially given everything else that is going on, namely the G7 Summit in France, or the G6+1 as it has been deemed, with the six doing gentle push, as Mr. Robinson described it.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, Washington Examiner; Betsy Woodruff, "The Daily Beast;" Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Brett Stephens, The New York Times
Sunday, August 18, 2019
8.18.19: Missing the Wider Implications, Today's "Meet The Press" Dropped the Ball
Today's "Meet The Press" missed the mark. The fallback position of dissecting Democratic presidential candidates was frankly a waste of time for more important things that only get a passing statement.
Granted, there was sufficient focus on the economy and Mr. Todd did interview the president's chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow, however, wider implications were not addressed. For example, the trade war with China is an unmitigated disaster. As fmr. Congressman Beto O'Rourke stated, the trade standoff with China is 'hammering the hell out of farmers in this country,' and the once robust market for American agricultural products may not come back as China looks to other countries for soybeans and other agricultural products.
The wider implication is that President Trump is so desperate to get a trade deal with China, who is basically playing a long game versus his transactional nature, that he has no leverage to speak out for the citizens of Hong Kong and the protests against Beijing's tactics of repression. The Trump Administration has said that America shouldn't get involved, which is completely wrong-headed inasmuch as not only are democratic freedoms threatened but the stability of a global financial center are being put at risk.
If the Trans-Pacific Partnership had moved forward, something that the president was against, the United States would have had tremendous leverage over China and this tariff folly that the president continues on could have been resolved already. As Mr. O'Rourke pointed out, some of the finer points of the TPP needed to be worked out, but overall it was a short-sighted mistake that the United States didn't proceed with this to open up even more markets for U.S. agriculture.
Going forward with such a deal was traditionally a no-brainer for Republicans, which is part of the 'conversation' that fmr. Congressman Mark Sanford was touching on. Setting aside the poisonous rhetoric the president constantly spews, Mr. Sanford has a point that the once fiscally-stingy Republican party is now following a cult of personality figure that is running up trillion-dollar deficits year over year. With that said, as soon as a Democrat is elected president, the Republicans will miraculously regain their ever hypocritical fiscal sanity.
Speaking of wider implications, Mr. Todd only briefly touched (and that's being generous) on the fact that at the president's urging, Israel denied entry for two duly elected United States Congresswomen. This is an unprecedented act in American foreign policy. This should have been a focal point of today's discussion and how the president is politicizing the United States' traditional bipartisan support for Israel. That Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave into the president's badgering and statements that once again dishonor the office of the presidency, shows his fecklessness as a leader. This topic alone could have taken up the entire hour and even though Mr. Netanyahu reversed his government's decision with regard to Congresswoman Tlaib, on principle she was correct to reject the invitation. Mr. Netanyahu and Israel had an opportunity to show the open arms of their democracy but instead chose narrow-mindedness over openness.
Lastly, we return to Mr. Kudlow who stated multiple times during the interview that we shouldn't be afraid of optimism, which seriously worried Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan and if you share that worry, you'd be right. Carol Lee noted that despite his statements of optimism, he gave no real concrete answers to how the administration would deal with an economic slowdown. We'd be remiss if we didn't point out that Mr. Kudlow has an awful record on predicting this country's economic future. When confronted with the statements that Mr. Kudlow made before the 2008 economic meltdown, in which he said the economy was strong, he admitted that he blew that call. We'd say so...
He blew that call then, and today, "Meet The Press" dropped the ball.
Yamiche Alcindor, PBS NewsHour; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Carol Lee, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
Granted, there was sufficient focus on the economy and Mr. Todd did interview the president's chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow, however, wider implications were not addressed. For example, the trade war with China is an unmitigated disaster. As fmr. Congressman Beto O'Rourke stated, the trade standoff with China is 'hammering the hell out of farmers in this country,' and the once robust market for American agricultural products may not come back as China looks to other countries for soybeans and other agricultural products.
The wider implication is that President Trump is so desperate to get a trade deal with China, who is basically playing a long game versus his transactional nature, that he has no leverage to speak out for the citizens of Hong Kong and the protests against Beijing's tactics of repression. The Trump Administration has said that America shouldn't get involved, which is completely wrong-headed inasmuch as not only are democratic freedoms threatened but the stability of a global financial center are being put at risk.
If the Trans-Pacific Partnership had moved forward, something that the president was against, the United States would have had tremendous leverage over China and this tariff folly that the president continues on could have been resolved already. As Mr. O'Rourke pointed out, some of the finer points of the TPP needed to be worked out, but overall it was a short-sighted mistake that the United States didn't proceed with this to open up even more markets for U.S. agriculture.
Going forward with such a deal was traditionally a no-brainer for Republicans, which is part of the 'conversation' that fmr. Congressman Mark Sanford was touching on. Setting aside the poisonous rhetoric the president constantly spews, Mr. Sanford has a point that the once fiscally-stingy Republican party is now following a cult of personality figure that is running up trillion-dollar deficits year over year. With that said, as soon as a Democrat is elected president, the Republicans will miraculously regain their ever hypocritical fiscal sanity.
Speaking of wider implications, Mr. Todd only briefly touched (and that's being generous) on the fact that at the president's urging, Israel denied entry for two duly elected United States Congresswomen. This is an unprecedented act in American foreign policy. This should have been a focal point of today's discussion and how the president is politicizing the United States' traditional bipartisan support for Israel. That Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave into the president's badgering and statements that once again dishonor the office of the presidency, shows his fecklessness as a leader. This topic alone could have taken up the entire hour and even though Mr. Netanyahu reversed his government's decision with regard to Congresswoman Tlaib, on principle she was correct to reject the invitation. Mr. Netanyahu and Israel had an opportunity to show the open arms of their democracy but instead chose narrow-mindedness over openness.
Lastly, we return to Mr. Kudlow who stated multiple times during the interview that we shouldn't be afraid of optimism, which seriously worried Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan and if you share that worry, you'd be right. Carol Lee noted that despite his statements of optimism, he gave no real concrete answers to how the administration would deal with an economic slowdown. We'd be remiss if we didn't point out that Mr. Kudlow has an awful record on predicting this country's economic future. When confronted with the statements that Mr. Kudlow made before the 2008 economic meltdown, in which he said the economy was strong, he admitted that he blew that call. We'd say so...
He blew that call then, and today, "Meet The Press" dropped the ball.
Yamiche Alcindor, PBS NewsHour; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Carol Lee, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
Sunday, August 11, 2019
8.11.19: Timing Depends On What Side of the Aisle You're On
Acting Dept. Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said that the timing of the ICE raid in Mississippi was unfortunate, given the mass shooting in El Paso where the gunman specifically targeted Hispanics. We'll stipulate that White House senior advisor Stephen Miller doesn't want to see people killed but we can not say for sure that he also thinks the timing of the raids were unfortunate.
We now have an entire demographic of Americans effectively scared that the current administration doesn't care about their welfare. As Chuck Todd kept asking throughout the program, why weren't there any charges brought against the companies for illegal hiring practices? Mr. McAleenan explained that there haven't been any charges as the DHS is the middle of an ongoing investigation. However, Mr. Trump's DOJ isn't interested in the companies as much as the number of undocumented workers that are arrested. The Administration's goal was to send a signal and as the president said himself, he wanted it to be a deterrent, and the companies involved weren't the focus despite the explicit citation that ICE will target the employers first over the employees. We can sympathize with Mr. McAleenan for the fine line he has to rhetorically walk, but it's telling that he knew exactly the amount of those arrested who had criminal records, but couldn't say how many had green cards. And once again as Kristen Welker pointed out, the administration didn't have a plan in place for the kids separated from the parents.
In a month's time, we'll still remember the raid as the largest single day ICE round-up of undocumented immigrants, but the companies that broke the law will fade in relevance from the story. Also, in a month's time upon the return of Congress from their summer recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will have hoped that no other mass shooting incidents will have occurred so that he can shelve any gun control measures. It's almost guaranteed that President Trump will supply the news media with enough new outrages to distract from working on any legislation. Mr. Todd commented to the panel that it isn't often that Mr. McConnell pledges to do anything let alone pass legislation. However, just because he said that during a radio interview doesn't mean it will still hold any weight when Congress is back in session.
Timing is a matter of perspective and for those lamenting the fact that these mass-shooting tragedies occur just a Congress is heading for recess. One thing Mr. McConnell wouldn't say is that the timing was bad.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
We now have an entire demographic of Americans effectively scared that the current administration doesn't care about their welfare. As Chuck Todd kept asking throughout the program, why weren't there any charges brought against the companies for illegal hiring practices? Mr. McAleenan explained that there haven't been any charges as the DHS is the middle of an ongoing investigation. However, Mr. Trump's DOJ isn't interested in the companies as much as the number of undocumented workers that are arrested. The Administration's goal was to send a signal and as the president said himself, he wanted it to be a deterrent, and the companies involved weren't the focus despite the explicit citation that ICE will target the employers first over the employees. We can sympathize with Mr. McAleenan for the fine line he has to rhetorically walk, but it's telling that he knew exactly the amount of those arrested who had criminal records, but couldn't say how many had green cards. And once again as Kristen Welker pointed out, the administration didn't have a plan in place for the kids separated from the parents.
In a month's time, we'll still remember the raid as the largest single day ICE round-up of undocumented immigrants, but the companies that broke the law will fade in relevance from the story. Also, in a month's time upon the return of Congress from their summer recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will have hoped that no other mass shooting incidents will have occurred so that he can shelve any gun control measures. It's almost guaranteed that President Trump will supply the news media with enough new outrages to distract from working on any legislation. Mr. Todd commented to the panel that it isn't often that Mr. McConnell pledges to do anything let alone pass legislation. However, just because he said that during a radio interview doesn't mean it will still hold any weight when Congress is back in session.
Timing is a matter of perspective and for those lamenting the fact that these mass-shooting tragedies occur just a Congress is heading for recess. One thing Mr. McConnell wouldn't say is that the timing was bad.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
Sunday, August 04, 2019
8.4.19: The Last 24 Hours in America...
The last 24 hours...
20 dead and 26 injured in El Paso, Texas; 9 dead and 20 injured in Dayton, Ohio.
(More people died in a 13-hour span in two American cities than had died in the last two years in Afghanistan.)
Let's just start with this: this column like Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude Jr. could give a damn what White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has to say. That he would condemn the statements of Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Mr. Glaude as being political in a time when we should be grieving is morally bankrupt. How many people have to die in mass shootings in this country to accept that the president's words matter and that Congressional inaction is inexcusable. The double standard that this White House holds is painfully and tragically obvious, inasmuch as if this white domestic terrorist had been of Muslim faith or Hispanic we would be watching the president on television right now dispensing even more vitriol against those groups than he already has.
Politico's Eliana Johnson who said she is loathe to blame politicians clearly stated that the president has to acknowledge that this country has a white nationalist, domestic terrorism problem. Fmr. Governor Pat McCrory's 'whataboutism' is shameful. He did say that the rhetoric needs to be lowered, but insisted that the term 'invasion' should still be used for the refugee crisis occurring at our southern border. Kasie Hunt correctly pointed out that 'invasion' is threatening where as 'refugee' is not. The rhetoric matters.
What was very telling throughout this week's hour of "Meet The Press" was the different postures people were taking: Defensive on the part of Republicans - Mick Mulvaney and Pat McCrory; Anguish of the faces of the Democrats and progressives - Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Eddie Glaude Jr., Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (D-TX). Ms. Escobar stated that we have to speak the truth in Congress, which is that there is a gun and hate epidemic in this country. The anguish comes from the fact that Republicans writ large, lead by the president, refuse to acknowledge this truth. One... one elected Republican, George P. Bush (R-TX) has come out to call what happened in El Paso what it is: white terrorism.
The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, has stated before Congress that domestic terrorism is a growing problem in the United States, yet the White House has cut funding to combat this problem and diminished it as an issue. Mr. Mulvaney said that the president is the president of all Americans in this country, even though he never acts like it.
"Very fine people on both sides," the president said with regard to Charlottesville. He not just lacks it, but simply does not have the moral clarity or authority to heal this nation in times like these. There hasn't been a single day that the man holding the office of the presidency has been able or willing to bring this country together. Is he to blame for these shootings, no of course not, but has he provided the rhetoric and policies to facilitate these tragedies, absolutely.
This column is so disgusted today that we simply refuse to write his name.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton Univesity; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor North Carolina
20 dead and 26 injured in El Paso, Texas; 9 dead and 20 injured in Dayton, Ohio.
(More people died in a 13-hour span in two American cities than had died in the last two years in Afghanistan.)
Let's just start with this: this column like Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude Jr. could give a damn what White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has to say. That he would condemn the statements of Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Mr. Glaude as being political in a time when we should be grieving is morally bankrupt. How many people have to die in mass shootings in this country to accept that the president's words matter and that Congressional inaction is inexcusable. The double standard that this White House holds is painfully and tragically obvious, inasmuch as if this white domestic terrorist had been of Muslim faith or Hispanic we would be watching the president on television right now dispensing even more vitriol against those groups than he already has.
Politico's Eliana Johnson who said she is loathe to blame politicians clearly stated that the president has to acknowledge that this country has a white nationalist, domestic terrorism problem. Fmr. Governor Pat McCrory's 'whataboutism' is shameful. He did say that the rhetoric needs to be lowered, but insisted that the term 'invasion' should still be used for the refugee crisis occurring at our southern border. Kasie Hunt correctly pointed out that 'invasion' is threatening where as 'refugee' is not. The rhetoric matters.
What was very telling throughout this week's hour of "Meet The Press" was the different postures people were taking: Defensive on the part of Republicans - Mick Mulvaney and Pat McCrory; Anguish of the faces of the Democrats and progressives - Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Eddie Glaude Jr., Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (D-TX). Ms. Escobar stated that we have to speak the truth in Congress, which is that there is a gun and hate epidemic in this country. The anguish comes from the fact that Republicans writ large, lead by the president, refuse to acknowledge this truth. One... one elected Republican, George P. Bush (R-TX) has come out to call what happened in El Paso what it is: white terrorism.
The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, has stated before Congress that domestic terrorism is a growing problem in the United States, yet the White House has cut funding to combat this problem and diminished it as an issue. Mr. Mulvaney said that the president is the president of all Americans in this country, even though he never acts like it.
"Very fine people on both sides," the president said with regard to Charlottesville. He not just lacks it, but simply does not have the moral clarity or authority to heal this nation in times like these. There hasn't been a single day that the man holding the office of the presidency has been able or willing to bring this country together. Is he to blame for these shootings, no of course not, but has he provided the rhetoric and policies to facilitate these tragedies, absolutely.
This column is so disgusted today that we simply refuse to write his name.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton Univesity; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor North Carolina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)