How Dangerous Is Trump To America As A Foreign Asset?

Yesterday, in his Atlantic column, David Frum delved into a sordid piece of British history that led to the Founding Fathers including the power of impeachment in the Constitution. The recently restored Charles II of Great Britain, in need of money he couldn't get from Parliament, accepted bribes from the French Sun King, Louis XIV, in return for Dunkirk, then a British base on the coast of France (and for Charles' pledge to convert to Catholicism). "Foreign corruption inducing treason," wrote Frum, "was the core impeachable offense in the eyes of the authors of the Constitution." Trump, having never read the Constitution nor bothered studying American history, commits crimes against the Constitution daily and is undoubtably guilty of treason and should be impeached, tried removed from office and them face the most severe criminal consequences for his actions.

Frum, though, uses his intro to go in another direction: the current whistleblower report about promises Trump has made to some unnamed foreign potentate, likely either Putin, Netanyahu or bin Salman. (For example, did bin Salman transfer a billion dollars to Trump for his personal promise to attack Iran, the top priority of both Saudi and Israeli foreign policy?) Frum isn't as speculative:

Which is why a whistle-blower report filed with the inspector general for the intelligence community, reportedly concerning an improper “promise” by President Donald Trump to a foreign leader, has jolted Congress.

...Trump has been engaged in improper contacts with foreign governments for years, and built deep business relationships with foreign nationals. Russian assistance helped elect him. Money from wealthy Russians reportedly helped keep his businesses alive from 2006 to 2016. Since 2016, more and more foreign money has flowed Trump’s way. Trump literally has a hotel open on Pennsylvania Avenue to accept payments—there’s a big carpet in front, his name on the door, nothing even remotely clandestine about the flow of corruption. That corruption seeks returns. Again and again, Trump has acted in ways that align with the interests of foreign states, raising questions about his motives.

Exactly what was promised in this particular conversation, and to whom, America and the world wait to hear. Perhaps there exists a reasonable explanation for a conversation that the Trump administration is trying hard to keep from public view. But the basic grammar of all Trump scandals has been visible from the beginning: many secrets, no mysteries.

What's this all about? If you've been under a rock this week, Congress and a Trumpified intelligence community are fighting over a whistleblower complaint that Trump secretly made "a promise" to a foreign leader that, according to the Washington Post was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community... It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver."

CNN reported that "the revelations have unleashed a new firestorm in the nation's capital over Trump's perplexing foreign policy dealings and the administration's across-the-board efforts to frustrate Congress' constitutionally authorized role of oversight of the executive branch. But they will also open debate about the extent of the President's powers, which give him expansive latitude in national security."

The drama centers on the refusal of acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to hand over the whistleblower's complaint to Congress. The stalling had already prompted speculation that Trump or senior aides could be involved.

After a standoff with House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, Maguire agreed Wednesday to testify next week, in a public hearing about the affair. There is no indication that he will hand over the report-- especially in an open hearing.

Schiff had sent rumors into overdrive on Sunday when he said Maguire had cited a "higher authority" in refusing to hand over the complaint and referred to "privileged communications."

...The reports will trigger a controversy about Trump's handling of intelligence and his opaque conversations with foreign leaders.

A political duel will also rage about the whistleblower's decision to make the complaint. On one hand, the President's sweeping powers in foreign policy conferred by the Constitution and a democratic mandate give him wide latitude to say whatever he likes to a foreign leader. American presidents have been making promises to their counterparts on the world stage for generations. It's a practice that might be said to be part of their job.

...Maguire's conduct appears to be the latest manifestation of the administration's multi-front strategy to thwart Congress' oversight efforts.

If an inspector general in a government department finds misconduct or uncovers information that rises to a high level of wrongdoing defined as "urgent and credible" under whistleblowing legislation, the legal recourse is to involve Congress.

The controversy came to a head only a day after Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski put on an aggressive display in a House Judiciary Committee hearing that prompted the White House to preview a sweeping executive privilege claim even though he never worked for the federal government.

The White House has sought to prevent testimony from many other current and former executive branch officials, leading to a string of looming court clashes that in themselves fulfill Trump's goal of slowing Democratic investigations.

Maguire is a retired Navy admiral who formerly led the National Counterterrorism Center. He was chosen by Trump following a succession drama after the permanent director-- former Sen. Dan Coats, who was never seen as close to the President-- announced he would step down in July. Trump passed over the office's No. 2, Sue Gordon. Sources told CNN at the time she was not seen as the kind of loyalist Trump wanted in the role.

At the time, Maguire was seen as a force for stability. Trump's first pick to replace Coats, Rep. John Ratcliffe, stepped down after controversy over the Texas Republican's qualifications and amid concern he would be a political appointee who would first be loyal to the President, not his duty as director of national intelligence.

Does Biden Have A Place In History Waiting For Him? Yeah-- And REALLY Different From Bernie's

Cook's Amy Walter framed Biden's misguided run for the presidency slightly different from my own preference to hearken directly back to Warren G Harding's Return to Normalcy campaign; hers is Restoration Versus Revolution. That works. Think about the English Civil War (1642-1651). Charles I was executed in 1649. The restoration refers to the period from 1660 when Charles II returned from exile in Holland and was restored to the throne, which those who hated Oliver Cromwell-- who ran the show while there was no king-- called "a divinely ordained miracle." Many who participated in the overthrow of the kind were drawn and quartered, hung, beheaded, imprisoned for life, etc. The Restoration turned England into a cesspool and it was ended when Parliament invited William of Orange to invade England and help them overthrow James II in 1688 (the Glorious Revolution). He was allowed to flee and move in with Louis XIV, finally ending England's political and civil strife by confirming the primacy of Parliament over the monarchy.

I hope Amy Walter is a fan of English history was wasn't referring to furniture or restoration theater in her title. As for revolution... we all know what that is and many of us are aware that we're not talking about shining the turds on the edges but about fundamental change that would impact the lives of all Americans. "The leaders of the ‘revolution’ wing, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren," wrote Walters, "aren’t running to simply replace President Trump, but to bring serious, structural change to the country. This week, the leader of the ‘restoration’ wing-- Vice President Joe Biden-- announced his candidacy. To Biden, it’s not the system that’s broken as much as it is the person in charge of the system who is broken. 'I believe history will look back on four years of this president and all he embraces as an aberrant moment in time,' Biden says in his opening video. Biden is only running because of Trump. Sanders and Warren would be running even if another Republican were in the White House."

Biden is running because he's always felt he should be president-- divine right-- and he's failed at it 6 times before. Now he claims he's running because of "the white supremacy march in Charlottesville." He's so full of shit you can smell it on the West Coast. Status Quo Joe Biden would be as good for America as Charles II was for England.

Meanwhile, it is highly likely that Warren and Sanders would be running for president, even if it were President Ted Cruz or President Marco Rubio running for re-election. In his February presidential announcement video, Sanders says that his campaign is not only "about defeating President Trump, the most dangerous president in history...It is about transforming our country and creating a government based on principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Our campaign is about taking on the powerful special interests that dominate our economic life.”

At her presidential kick-off in Lawrence, Massachusetts in February, Warren makes clear that she’s not just running against Trump, she’s running against the system.

"Because the man in the White House is not the cause of what’s broken, he’s just the latest--  and most extreme--  symptom of what’s gone wrong in America. A product of a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else. And so, once he’s gone, we can’t pretend that all of this never happened. It won’t be enough to just undo the terrible acts of this administration. We can’t afford to just tinker around the edges--  a tax credit here, a regulation there. Our fight is for big, structural change."

There are a bunch of other candidates in the race, of course. But, most fall closer to the ‘restoration’ wing than the ‘revolutionary’ one. For example, while Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are running as agents of change, they are still coloring within the lines and with a caution that Warren and Sanders do not display.

To me, the big question for these next few months is if Biden will take the fight directly to the "revolutionaries" in a way the other candidates have not.

Biden gave us some hints as to his thinking back in early April. Asked by a reporter to explain why he called himself the most progressive candidate in the race, Biden took a not-so-veiled swipe at Sanders.

"..But my point is, is the definition of 'progressive' now seems to be changing. That is, “Are you a socialist? Well, that’s a real progressive.” Or you believe in, whatever. So I was talking about up until this last time around the traditional judgments of whether or not you were, quote, a 'liberal,' was whether or not-- what your positions on race were; on women; what’s your position on LGBT community; what’s your positions on civil liberties, you know. I’ll stack my record on those things against anybody whose even run, who’s running now, or who will run.”

To be sure, there are plenty of Democrats who’d be happy to stack up their records on women and race with Biden. After all, Biden’s forty-year track record on these issues is littered with inconsistencies. Just this week, those inconsistencies came into stark relief at the "She the People" presidential forum in Houston. Interviews with women of color attending the event by the AP, found a lot of ambivalence to a Biden candidacy, as "black women repeatedly pointed to a singular issue plaguing Biden's candidacy: his handling of the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas and the Senate Judiciary Committee's treatment of Anita Hill.." They also balked at the early conventional wisdom of Biden as a 'safe' and 'electable' choice. "I know that we have been cultured to feel that only the white man can save us," the LaMarque, Texas organizer said Wednesday. "I just don't feel like Biden is our answer."

Before today, Biden has spent most of his pre-candidacy apologizing for and explaining;  his work on the 1994 Crime Bill, his handling of the Anita Hill hearings and his (literally) hands-on style of personal interaction. Now, he has a chance to pivot to the offense. And, to reset the rules and terrain of the game that have, until this point, been set by Bernie Sanders. Let’s see if-- and how-- he does it.

Early Friday morning, Chuck Todd and his team at NBC noted that a Bernie versus Biden race "represents one heck of an ideological contrast." Leaving aside Biden's penchant for the corrupt swampy politics of the status quo DC establishment, the two are at loggerheads over

• health care (Sanders is for a single-payer system; Biden likely will work to protect/strengthen Obamacare);
• trade (Sanders opposed the TPP trade agreement; Biden backed it as Barack Obama’s VP);
• and their vision for 2020 (Sanders is once again calling for a political revolution; Biden is running on a political restoration project).

Team Todd noted that Thursday night "Elizabeth Warren took a swipe at Biden’s entry when she was asked about his record on Wall Street and bankruptcy, per MSNBC’s Shirley Zilberstein. 'At a time when the biggest financial institutions in this country were trying to put the squeeze on millions of hard-working families who were in bankruptcy because of medical problems, job losses, divorce and death in the family, there was nobody to stand up for them,' she said. 'I got in that fight because they just didn't have anyone. And Joe Biden was on the side of the credit card companies.' Ouch."