Tuesday, May 26, 2020

How Much Of A Sissy Boy Is Trump?

>





We've all had a good time analyzing the narcissistic sociopath in the White House for the last few years, right? How about a serious look at the crackpots who not just voted for him in 2016-- after all, it was a lesser of two evils election-- but who still support him today? You're not a psychiatrist, so you can't. Well, neither is Tom Nichols (author of The Death of Expertise) but he gave it a try anyone-- at The Atlantic yesterday in an essay titled Donald Trump, the Most Unmanly President-- Why don’t the president’s supporters hold him to their own standard of masculinity?

"Historically," he explained to a PBS audience in 2017, "people return to valuing expert views in times of trouble or distress. We're all willing to argue with our doctors 'til our fever is out of control. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. But that's where we're headed. Unless we start accepting the limitations of our own knowledge, then each of us is failing in our obligation to participate in our democracy as involved but informed citizens." Nichols just described the derivation of the word "idiot" from the original Greek.



Nichols wrote that since Trump's first day as a candidate he's "been baffled by one mystery in particular: Why do working-class white men-- the most reliable component of Donald Trump’s base-- support someone who is, by their own standards, the least masculine man ever to hold the modern presidency? The question is not whether Trump fails to meet some archaic or idealized version of masculinity. The president’s inability to measure up to Marcus Aurelius or Omar Bradley is not the issue. Rather, the question is why so many of Trump’s working-class white male voters refuse to hold Trump to their own standards of masculinity-- why they support a man who behaves more like a little boy." Nichols is a son of the working class and the men he grew top around "came from a culture that looks down upon lying, cheating, and bragging, especially about sex or courage. (My father’s best friend got the Silver Star for wiping out a German machine-gun nest in Europe, and I never heard a word about it until after the man’s funeral.) They admire and value the understated swagger, the rock-solid confidence, and the quiet reserve of such cultural heroes as John Wayne’s Green Beret Colonel Mike Kirby and Sylvester Stallone’s John Rambo (also, as it turns out, a former Green Beret.) They are, as an American Psychological Association feature describes them, men who adhere to norms such as 'toughness, dominance, self-reliance, heterosexual behaviors, restriction of emotional expression and the avoidance of traditionally feminine attitudes and behaviors.' But I didn’t need an expert study to tell me this; they are men like my late father and his friends, who understood that a man’s word is his bond and that a handshake means something. They are men who still believe in a day’s work for a day’s wages. They feel that you should never thank another man when he hands you a paycheck that you earned. They shoulder most burdens in silence-- perhaps to an unhealthy degree-- and know that there is honor in making an honest living and raising a family."


Ann Coulter doesn't find Trump too manly either, apparently


[C]ourage, honesty, respect, an economy of words, a bit of modesty, and a willingness to take responsibility are all virtues prized by the self-identified class of hard-working men, the stand-up guys, among whom I was raised.

And yet, many of these same men expect none of those characteristics from Trump, who is a vain, cowardly, lying, vulgar, jabbering blowhard. Put another way, as a question I have asked many of the men I know: Is Trump a man your father and grandfather would have respected?

...As the writer Windsor Mann has noted, Trump behaves in ways that many working-class men would ridicule: “He wears bronzer, loves gold and gossip, is obsessed with his physical appearance, whines constantly, can't control his emotions, watches daytime television, enjoys parades and interior decorating, and used to sell perfume.”

I am not a psychologist, and I cannot adjudicate the theories of male behavior that might explain some of this. Others have tried. Two researchers who looked back at the 2016 presidential election suggested that support for Trump was higher in areas where there were more internet searches for topics such as “erectile dysfunction,” “how to get girls,” and “penis enlargement” than in pro-Hillary areas of the country. (One can only hope that correlation is not causation.) The idea that insecure men support bullies and authoritarians is hardly new; recall that one of George Orwell’s characters in 1984 dismissed all the “marching up and down and cheering and waving flags” as “simply sex gone sour.” To reduce all of this to sexual inadequacy, however, is too facile. It cannot explain why millions of men look the other way when Trump acts in ways they would typically find shameful. Nor is arguing that Trump is a bad person and therefore that the people who support him are either brainwashed or also bad people helpful. He is, and some of them are. But that doesn’t explain why men who would normally ostracize someone like Trump continue to embrace him.

In order to think about why these men support Trump, one must first to grasp how deeply they are betraying their own definition of masculinity by looking more closely at the flaws they should, in principle, find revolting.

Is Trump honorable? This is a man who routinely refused to pay working people their due wages, and then lawyered them into the ground when they objected to being exploited. Trump is a rich downtown bully, the sort most working men usually hate.

Is Trump courageous? Courtiers like Victor Davis Hanson have compared Trump to the great heroes of the past, including George Patton, Ajax, and the Western gunslingers of the American cinema. Trump himself has mused about how he would have been a good general. He even fantasized about how he would have charged into the middle of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, without a weapon. “You don't know until you test it,” he said at a meeting with state governors just a couple of weeks after the massacre, “but I really believe I'd run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that too.” Truly brave people never tell you how brave they are. I have known many combat veterans, and none of them extols his or her own courage. What saved them, they will tell you, was their training and their teamwork. Some-- perhaps the bravest-- lament that they were not able to do more for their comrades.

But even if we excuse Trump for the occasional hyperbole, the fact of the matter is that Trump is an obvious coward. He has two particular phobias: powerful men and intelligent women.


Whenever he is in the company of Russian President Vladimir Putin, to take the most cringe-inducing example, he visibly cowers. His attempts to ingratiate himself with Putin are embarrassing, especially given how effortlessly Putin can bend Trump to his will. When the Russian leader got Trump alone at a summit in Helsinki, he scared him so badly that at the subsequent joint press conference, Putin smiled pleasantly while the president of the United States publicly took the word of a former KGB officer over his own intelligence agencies.

Likewise, as Trump has shown repeatedly in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, he is eager to criticize China, until he is asked about Chinese President Xi Jinping. In the course of the same few minutes, Trump will attack China-- his preferred method for escaping responsibility for America’s disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic-- and then he will babble about how much he likes President Xi, desperately seeking to avoid giving offense to the Chinese Communist Party boss.

This is related to one of Trump’s most noticeable problems, which is that he can never stop talking. The old-school standard of masculinity is the strong and silent type, like Gary Cooper back in the day or Tom Hardy today. Trump, by comparison, is neither strong nor capable of silence.

And when Trump talks too much, he ends up saying things that more stereotypically masculine men wouldn’t, like that he fell in love with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. “He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump told a rally in West Virginia. “We fell in love.” One can only imagine the reaction among working-class white men if Barack Obama, or any other U.S. president, had talked about falling in love with a foreign leader. (George W. Bush once said he saw into Putin’s soul, and he has never lived it down among his critics.)

Is Trump a man who respects women? This is what secure and masculine men would expect, especially from a husband and a father of two daughters.

Leave aside for the moment that the working-class white men in the president’s base don’t seem to care that Trump had an affair with a porn star while his wife was home with a new baby, something for which many of them would probably beat their own brother-in-law senseless if he did it to their sister. Trump’s voters, male and female, have already decided to excuse this and other sordid episodes.

Women clearly scare Trump. You don’t have to take my word for it. “Donald doesn’t like strong women,” Senator Ted Cruz said back in 2016 of the candidate who attacked Cruz’s wife as ugly, but who is now his hero as president. “Strong women scare Donald. Real men don’t try to bully women.”

Trump never seems more fearful and insecure than when women question him. His anxiety at such moments—for example, when he calls on female reporters in the White House press room—is palpable. He begins his usual flurry of defensive hand gestures, from the playing of an imaginary accordion to a hand held up with a curled pinky finger like some parody of a Queens mobster, while he stammers out verbal chaff bursts of “excuse me” and “are you ready?”

I Want You To... by Chip Proser


Does Trump accept responsibility and look out for his team? Not in the least. In this category, he exhibits one of the most unmanly of behaviors: He’s a blamer. Nothing is ever his fault. In the midst of disaster, he praises himself while turning on even his most loyal supporters without a moment’s hesitation. Men across America who were socialized by team sports, whose lives are predicated on the principle of showing up and doing the job, continually excuse a man who continually excuses himself. This presidency is defined not by Ed Harris’s grim intonation in Apollo 13 that “failure is not an option,” but by one of the most shameful utterances of a chief executive in modern American history: “I take no responsibility at all.”

Trump’s defenders could argue that he is just another male celebrity whose raw authenticity offends snooty elitists but appeals to the average Joe. The analogy here is someone like Howard Stern, who has known Trump for years and has been idolized by young men across America. Stern cavorted with porn stars, said shocking and racist things, and was, in his way, the living id of every maladjusted teenager.

Whatever you think of Stern, however, he’s much more of a man, by any definition, than Trump. For one thing, Stern is often self-effacing in the extreme, which is both part of his act and a source of the charm he possesses. Stern routinely jokes about the inadequacy of his male endowment. Trump, however, went to pains to reassure the country-- in the middle of a presidential primary debate-- that his equipment has “no problem.” Stern knows how to take his lumps in public, while Trump is a wailing siren of complaints.

More important, Stern is capable of introspection and has a certain amount of self-awareness, a quality important for any mature and healthy person. Stern, who once encouraged Trump’s antics, now seems concerned. He has suggested that Trump was traumatized by his childhood and his father. “He has trouble with empathy,” Stern told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “We know that. And I wish he'd go into psychotherapy. I'd be so proud of him if he did, and he would flourish.” (Stern endorsed Joe Biden in April.)

Trump is never going to get therapy. But Stern’s observation opens the door to a better explanation of why-- despite all of his whiny complaints, his pouty demeanor, and his mean-girl tweets-- Trump’s working-class voters forgive him.


Trump’s lack of masculinity is about maturity. He is not manly because he is not a man. He is a boy.

To be a man is to be an adult, to willingly decide, as St. Paul wrote, to “put away childish things.” There’s a reason that Peter Pan is a story about a boy, and the syndrome named after it is about men. Not everyone grows up as they age.

It should not be a surprise then, that Trump is a hero to a culture in which so many men are already trapped in perpetual adolescence. And especially for men who feel like life might have passed them by, whose fondest memories are rooted somewhere in their own personal Wonder Years from elementary school until high-school graduation, Trump is a walking permission slip to shrug off the responsibilities of manhood.

The appeal to indulge in such hypocrisy must be enormous. Cheat on your wife? No problem. You can trade her in for a hot foreign model 20 years younger. Is being a father to your children too onerous a burden on your schedule? Let the mothers raise them. Money troubles? Everyone has them; just tell your father to write you another check. Upset that your town or your workplace has become more diverse? Get it off your chest: Rail about women and Mexicans and African Americans at will and dare anyone to contradict you.

Trump’s media enablers do their best to shore up the fiction that Trump and the men who follow him are the most macho of men. The former White House aide Sebastian Gorka, one of Trump’s most dedicated sycophants, has described Trump as a “man’s man,” despite the fact that Trump has no hobbies or interests common to many American men other than sex. In this gang of Sweathogs, Gorka is the Arnold Horshack to Trump’s Vinnie Barbarino, always admiring him as the most alpha of the alphas. To listen to Gorka and others in Trumpworld, the president can turn his enemies to ash through sheer testosterone overload. Some Trump voters have even airbrushed the president’s face onto the bodies of both Rambo and Rocky Balboa. (The president himself approvingly retweeted the Trump-as-Rocky meme.)

Gorka tries to cosplay the same role himself. The photographs of him carrying guns, wearing a suede vest, and posing next to his underpowered suburban Mustang are now internet legends, precisely because they are so ridiculous. But he is a good example of how so many of the men who support Trump have morphed into childish caricatures of themselves. They, too, are little boys, playing at being tough but crying about their victimization at the hands of liberal elites if they are subjected to criticism of any kind.

I do not know how much of this can explain Trump’s base of support among working-class white women. (Those numbers are now declining.) But perhaps these women, too, regard Trump as just one more difficult and mischievous man-child in their lives to be accommodated and forgiven.

The best example of women giving him a pass was after the Access Hollywood tape came to light in the fall of 2016. Trump had been caught on audio bragging about being able to grope women because he was famous. Republican leaders panicked; surely this level of vulgarity, they reasoned, would kill Trump’s chances with female voters.

Instead, women showed up at rallies with shirts featuring arrows pointing right to where Trump could grab them.



...In the end, Trump will continue to act like a little boy, and his base, the voters who will stay with him to the end, will excuse him. When a grown man brags about being brave, it is unmanly and distasteful; when a little boy pulls out a cardboard sword and ties a towel around his neck like a cape, it’s endearing. When a rich and powerful old man whines about how unfairly he is being treated, we scowl and judge; when a little boy snuffles in his tears and says that he was bullied-- treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, even-- we comfort.





Donald Trump is unmanly because he has never chosen to become a man. He has weathered few trials that create an adult of any kind. He is, instead, working-class America’s dysfunctional son, and his supporters, male and female alike, have become the worried parent explaining what a good boy he is to terrorized teachers even while he continues to set fires in the hallway right outside.

I think that working men, the kind raised as I was, know what kind of “man” Trump is. And still, the gratification they get from seeing Trump enrage the rest of the country is enough to earn their indulgence. I doubt, however, that Trump gives them the same consideration. Perhaps Howard Stern, of all people, said it best: “The oddity in all of this is the people Trump despises most, love him the most. The people who are voting for Trump for the most part... He’d be disgusted by them.” The tragedy is that they are not disgusted by him in return.



Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 08, 2020

A Timely Adaptation Of The Passover Seder Song

>


-by Princess Ozma

Dayenu

If he were only a racist
Dayenu!

If he were only a misogynist
Dayenu!

If he were only a xenophobe
Dayenu!

If he were not such a twit
Dayenu!

If he didn’t assault women
Dayenu!

If he didn’t brag about it
Dayenu!

If he didn’t put children into cages
Dayenu!

If he didn’t pardon war criminals
Dayenu!

If he didn’t praise child molesters
Dayenu!

If he didn’t mock the disabled
Dayenu!

If he didn’t coddle dictators
Dayenu!

If he didn’t trash allies
Dayenu!

If he didn’t abandon friends
Dayenu!

If he didn’t threaten civil servants
Dayenu!

If he didn’t threaten lawmakers and judges
Dayenu!

If he didn’t threaten the press
Dayenu!

If he didn’t lie constantly
Dayenu!

If he were only a thug
Dayenu!

If he didn’t need fixers
Dayenu!

If he were only a parasite
Dayenu!

If he were only the king of debt
Dayenu!

If he didn’t bankrupt the country
Dayenu!

If he really cared about anyone besides himself
Dayenu!

If he protected the vulnerable
Dayenu!

If he were only a con artist
Dayenu!

If he were only a coward
Dayenu!

If he were only a bully
Dayenu!

If he were only corrupt
Dayenu!

If he didn’t stiff his contractors
Dayenu!

And use “charities’ as scams
Dayenu!

If he didn’t exploit the vulnerable
Dayenu!

If he didn’t trash science
Dayenu!

If he didn’t trash the truth
Dayenu!

If he didn’t trash the planet
Dayenu!

If he had a shred of decency
Dayenu!

If he didn’t ignore the warnings
Dayenu!

If he didn’t insult everyone
Dayenu!

If he believed in democracy
Dayenu!

If he believed in a free press
Dayenu!

If he didn’t believe he was above the law
Dayenu!

If he were only Putin’s puppet
Dayenu!

If he didn’t lie to the American people every day
Dayenu!

If he were not such a selfish pig
Dayenu!

If he weren’t such a poor excuse for a human being
Day Dayenu, Day Dayenu, Day Dayenu, Dayenu, Dayenu!


MAGA by Chip Proser

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 07, 2020

Leadership?

>


-by Dan Levitin

I am a neuroscientist and a musician. An odd combination, perhaps, but one I come by honestly. I played in a series of punk and new wave bands, including The Mortals, which is how I met Howie Klein in 1981, when he came to see us perform at The Mabuhay Gardens, the On Broadway, and other clubs.


When I produced our first record, Deserted Eyes, he enthusiastically played it on his radio show at KUSF.

I had always been interested in science, and when I started working for the great producer Sandy Pearlman (Blue Oyster Cult, The Clash) I found a kindred spirit. We drove over to Berkeley and down to Stanford whenever we could and sat in on neuroscience lectures. When the music business started to implode, I decided to actually enroll in college and eventually earned my doctorate.

In my music and my science, I have tried to avoid being political. I believe science exists as a public trust and should be politically neutral, providing a reliable source of information from which people should draw their own conclusions. And I always wanted my music to be a source of emotional expression that would potentially reach everyone (although I have occasionally written and recorded some political songs). My efforts to remain politically neutral occasionally collide with firmly held beliefs. This is one such moment.

Around the world, I am stunned by the stark disparity in how different leaders are responding to the corona virus crisis. The largest chasm is between President Trump and Queen Elizabeth. Think about that: the man who wishes he were a monarch or dictator (he has made a number of assertions to prove this point, previously documented in DownWithTyranny) is being completely outclassed by an actual monarch. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to watch the Queen's address to the nation. It was so moving, my wife and I cried while watching it.

Her majesty begins by applauding health care workers, workers in the food delivery chain, and calls upon all Britons to face the challenges together, and to help one another through this. She references a similar radio address she made 80 years ago, in 1940.

This reminded me of Jimmy Carter's "sweater" speech from 1977 during the energy crisis, when he called upon Americans to help their neighbors, and to make sacrifices for the common good. And he set an example: rather than wearing the suit that all presidents before him had worn for presidential addresses, he wore a cardigan, while asking us to work together through the energy crisis. "Simply by keeping our thermostats at 65 degrees in the daytime, and 55 degrees at night."

The visual image of the president setting an example is a powerful one.

And it's not just Democratic presidents who have set a positive example for us. After the Challenger explosion in 1986, Ronald Reagan postponed his state of the union address to bring the country together to honor not just the seven astronauts who died then, but to honor the wonders of science, of exploration, "the process of discovery, of expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted." [If he were making the speech in 2020, he would certainly replace "man's horizons" with "humans' horizons.")





I'm contrasting that with Trump's selfish, and outlandish refusal to wear a mask. Rather than setting an example for the country, he is concerned about his image, about what other people will think of him. This is the opposite of leadership. A leader puts the interests of everyone else ahead of them. My friend Stan McChrystal, when he was a four-star general and head of the Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and Afghanistan went out with his troops kicking down doors and capturing terrorists. He was among them, setting an example, not hiding behind a desk. "That beautiful, Resolute desk" as Trump describes it, in the oval office, a desk that official diaries show he rarely actually uses (insiders say he spends most of his time watching television). He goes on to say, in this remarkable video, "I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens... I don't see if for myself, I just don't." What he's saying in essence is that he is more concerned about vanity than about the 330 million people he supposedly leads.

(Did he really say that he welcomes dictators into the Oval Office? I had to watch this twice because I couldn't believe what I was hearing. But of course he does—he is trying to learn from them. Can you imagine any other president bragging about meeting with dictators?)

The Queen offers reassurance and a steady hand. Trump provokes uncertainty, he wavers, and he contradicts his own experts, ultimately firing them if they don't become the sycophantic yes men he craves. This approach has tanked the stock market, of course, and this is not just an issue for the wealthy: many working class Americans-- government workers, truckers, teachers-- have their pensions and retirements funds managed by large organizations that have invested in the stock market. I was curious to know if the last major disaster to hit the U.S. had a similar effect on the market. After 9/11, the market took a hit, but rebounded completely within a month. I, and most presidential biographers and historians I know, do not consider George W. Bush to have been a particularly good president. But in his address to the nation on 9/11, Bush offered a steadying message in a defining moment when Americans may have turned on many of our own.





Rather than looking to blame others as Trump always does, Bush called for us to work together and not to blame.

"The American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world... When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race-- out of every race... This is a great country... because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do. I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all."

There is a humility to Bush (I never thought I'd be writing those words) and a graciousness that we never see in Trump. And he emphasizes meeting with leaders who feel the same way he does, in embracing liberty, compassion, peace, and rationality.

As a musician, I always tried to take the stage with a sense of gratitude and humility. I knew that people had paid money to be there, that they had planned an evening around the performance, and that I had to do the best job I could in order to help them to get the most out of their interactions with me. I was in a great band once with a fantastic songwriter who somehow sabotaged every concert by insulting the audience. He was not there for them, he was there for himself. The band did not last long. Not nearly as long as the Trump presidency. But we can all come together as a nation in November and say "this is not good enough. This is not leadership. This is not the country we love." 

 --30--

 Daniel Levitin is a neuroscientist, musician, and best-selling author of a number of books including This Is Your Brain on Music and his anti-Trump, pro-rationality book, A Field Guide to Lies. His newest album is available free on most streaming platforms and his anti-Trump song, "Turnaround." is here:





Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 26, 2020

A President Cannot-- Not Even An Illegitimate One-- Be Impeached For Character-- No Matter How Bad It Is

>





I don't think anyone in the House thinks they're going to get 20 Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office. They'll be lucky if they can keep Joe Manchin, Doug Jones and Kyrsten Sinema on the reservation and get even one Republican, presumably Collins or Murkowski. Instead, I think what the Democrats are trying to do is create a record for posterity and make a case against Trump's reelection. And they're been very successful in doing just that. Attacking Trump's character is certainly an indictment for voters to consider, both when they decide for whom to vote in the presidential election and for how to look at Republicans how chose to back Trump in the impeachment and subsequent trial.

Yesterday, Washington Post reporters Elise Viebeck, Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis wrote that the Democrats argued that Trump's behavior towards Ukraine "reflected a dangerous reflex toward political expediency and a lack of character that will backfire on Republicans if they do not help remove him from office. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) and his colleagues attempted to drive this argument home Friday.

The trio of reporters wrote that the purpose was "to sway a handful of Republican senators whose position on gathering further evidence will determine the arc and scope of the trial." In other words, will the Democrats be allowed to call witnesses this week. Mitt Romney said he would probably vote to allow witnesses. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins may have found the excuse they wanted-- Adam Schiff's aggressiveness-- to vote against calling witnesses. As our trio of Post reporters asserted, "there were few signs that any Republican was persuaded, leaving open the matter of possible witness testimony and further dampening Democrats’ already meager hopes of a conviction in the GOP-controlled Senate.





Schiff’s pointed and increasingly personal approach was an attempt to go beyond the specifics of House Democrats’ case to make the broader argument that Trump is an untrustworthy president who is likely to repeatedly flout the Constitution if allowed to stay in office.

“It goes to character,” Schiff said. “You don’t realize how ­important character is in the highest office in the land until you don’t have it.”

The Democrats’ closing statements were their final appeal to senators before the next phase of the trial: an aggressive rebuttal from Trump’s lawyers that will kick off Saturday and continue in earnest on Monday.

Speaking Friday on the Senate floor-- hours after new evidence emerged of Trump’s campaign to oust the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine starting in 2018-- Schiff predicted that Trump’s future behavior would vindicate Democrats’ claim that he abused his power, and he warned Republicans the president, now their ally, could ultimately turn on them.


“Do you think for a moment that any of you-- no matter what your relationship with this president, no matter how close you are to this president-- do you think for a moment that if he felt it was in his interest, he wouldn’t ask you to be investigated?” he asked.

...Democrats need four Republicans to join them in any attempt to secure new testimony or evidence, and the senators being targeted have been careful to say that they have made no decision-- while giving no indication they are moving closer to supporting any subpoenas.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), one of the most closely watched Republican senators, said Friday that the House managers had “presented us with a mountain of overwhelming evidence,” though it was unclear which way he was leaning on the question of hearing more.

Alexander told reporters that he will make his decision on admitting witnesses and other new evidence only after the White House defense team makes its case.

“I think that question can only be answered then,” he said. “We’ve been polite to the House managers, listened to them carefully, and now we’re going to do the same with the president’s lawyers. I think the House managers have done a good job of making their arguments. But that doesn’t mean I will agree with them.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) raised the prospect that a Senate trial could drag on for months if Trump administration witnesses are called, arguing that the issue of executive privilege would have to be litigated in the courts.

“This could tie up the Senate through the election and even beyond as the courts litigate these claims,” Cornyn said during an appearance on conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt’s syndicated radio show. “We’ll wait and see, but right now, I’m not for extending this for months and months while claims of privilege and the like are litigated in the courts.”

The question of whether the Senate will seek more evidence was heightened Friday by a new Washington Post-ABC News poll revealing that a majority of American adults, 66 percent, support the Senate calling new witnesses to testify, as opposed to 27 percent who don’t.

ABC News also reported Friday that it reviewed a recording of Trump at a private dinner telling associates that he wanted then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gone, a reminder of the evidence yet to be uncovered about Trump’s actions.

“Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it,” Trump is heard saying, according to ABC News.

Schiff challenged the Senate to call the administration’s bluff on whether witnesses would be limited from testifying by executive privilege and let Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial, make those calls.

Calling executive privilege “the last refuge of the president’s team to conceal the evidence from the American people,” Schiff argued that Roberts should “decide issues of evidence and privilege” whenever witnesses or the president claim it, but that the assumption Trump will try to silence certain witnesses by claiming executive privilege should not keep the Senate from calling them to testify.

“The Senate will always have the opportunity to overrule the justice,” Schiff said to reporters, adding that “you cannot use executive privilege to hide wrongdoing or criminality or impeachable misconduct, and that is exactly the purpose for which they seek to use it.”

After Roberts scolded both sides for overheated rhetoric late Tuesday night, Democrats took pains to tone down their accusations against Trump and his supporters in the Senate.

Yet Schiff also sharpened his case on Friday, arguing that Republicans trust Trump at their own peril.

He invoked the late senator John McCain (R-AZ) in arguing about the strategic importance of Ukraine as a U.S. ally and quoted him as saying, “We are all Ukrainians.”

And he made a lengthy case that Trump’s skepticism about the conclusions of U.S. intelligence services-- particularly about Russian interference in the 2016 election-- represents a “coup” for Russia.

“Has there ever been such a coup? I would submit to you that in the entire length of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no such success. No such success,” Schiff said. “I hope it was worth it. I hope it was worth it for the president. Because it certainly wasn’t worth it for the United States.”

...Schiff concluded his remarks Friday night with a different message as he urged senators to support hearing more evidence.

“I ask you. I implore you: Give America a fair trial,” he told senators. “Give America a fair trial. She’s worth it.”


This morning, Philip Bump did an insightful analysis of the Trump tape that the Senate will never subpoena and that Fox isn't likely to broadcast. "Parnas, wrote Bump, "would become tightly integrated into Trump’s circle, though the distance at which he was kept varies depending on who you ask. Trump insists that Parnas, an eventual business associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, was only given access to the president because he’d contributed to Trump’s campaign or to America First. Parnas, the argument goes, was simply one of hundreds of such people who take photos with the president. To hear Parnas tell it, though, his work for Giuliani in late 2018 and in 2019 was well-known by Trump and was integral to the effort to get Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a possible opponent of Trump’s in the upcoming election... [A]t one point, Parnas tells Trump that then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch had disparaged the president, prompting Trump to say that she should be removed from her position. It’s a response that seems to conflict with the idea that Trump was simply interacting with a random donor, seemingly bolstering Parnas’s insinuations that his relationship with Trump was substantial.
It comes down to a question with no good answer: Is the president lying about his relationship with Parnas or is he prone to endorsing rash personnel changes based on unfounded assertions from strangers?

It’s oddly easy to believe that either might be the case. Trump’s predilection for seeking out the opinions of random nearby individuals is well-documented. This is a president who held a discussion with a foreign leader about an international crisis in the middle of the dining room at one of his properties. This is also a president who has made more than 16,000 false or misleading statements during three years in office. Frankly, it’s easy to see a way in which both could be true: Parnas was just a donor then but eventually made his way into Trump’s inner team.

Bear in mind, this dinner, where one attendee recorded the entire discussion, was not organized by the Republican Party. It was instead for a pro-Trump super PAC, a group to which Parnas allegedly made contributions illegally. Once in the room, he got the president to endorse his opinion of the ambassador to Ukraine.

That exchange has been known for a while; the Washington Post first reported it in November. Given what we know about where Parnas wound up and the extent to which he was involved in the successful effort to oust Yovanovitch that picked up steam in early 2019, it’s worth asking: How does Parnas’s request fit into what we know about Yovanovitch’s firing?

Parnas was not yet working for Giuliani during that April 30 event; Giuliani had himself only begun working for Trump two weeks prior.

A few weeks after the dinner, though, Parnas and a colleague met with then-Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), at which point the two advocated for Yovanovitch’s ouster and, according to the later indictment of Parnas, agreed to raise money for Sessions. The day they met, Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calling for Yovanovitch to be removed. This, again, appears to have occurred before Parnas and Giuliani were connected.

That effort expanded in early 2019, in part at the encouragement of Yuri Lutsenko, then Ukraine’s prosecutor general and someone who viewed Yovanovitch with hostility. By then, Parnas and Giuliani were connected, with Parnas joining Giuliani’s interviews of Lutsenko in January of that year. While Giuliani clearly embraced the idea of firing Yovanovitch (which took place in late April 2019), it’s still not clear what spurred the idea. Parnas, enacting a long-standing desire? Lutsenko, recognizing an opportunity? Something else entirely?

Photos provided to the House Intelligence Committee complicates the matter of Parnas’s role and relationship to Trump. One image shows a copy of the Sessions letter. Two others show someone, presumably Parnas, holding an envelope addressed to the president and identified as coming from Sessions’s office. The flap is sealed, with Sessions’s signature written across it. A later photo, apparently taken during an America First event in June 2018 shows Trump near Parnas as the president puts something in his pocket that appears to match the shape of the envelope.

What Trump is putting in his pocket may not be Sessions’s letter. But Parnas appears to have had control of the letter at some point. Why? Was it a function of his relationship with Trump? Did it relate to his conversation with Trump in April?

At another point in that April conversation, the group is discussing military aid to Ukraine. One comment from Trump raises a question: How familiar was he with the aid being given to Ukraine?

The same day of the event, then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko confirmed the delivery of American antitank missiles to his country. This is an act of enormous significance to Trump at the moment, since his attorneys have made his support of arming Ukraine a central part of their defense in the impeachment trial underway in the Senate.

“While it’s true that the United States has stood by Ukraine since the invasion of 2014,” Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said during the trial on Saturday, hours before the release of the recording, “only one president since then took a very concrete step. Some of you supported it. And that step included actually providing Ukraine with lethal weapons, including Javelin missiles. That’s President Trump.”

On the recording, one of the attendees-- perhaps Donald Trump Jr.-- mentions the Javelin missiles.

“I guess there’s supposed to be an order of Javelin missiles over there, right?” he says. “They’re the antitank missiles. I saw that go through today.”

“Today?” Trump responds.



“I saw-- I read about it today,” the person replies. “I don’t know when it happened. It must have happened in the last couple of days.”

This does not suggest that Trump is intimately familiar with the transmission of the weapons. Reporting the prior year suggested that Trump was wavering on authorizing lethal arms sales to Ukraine, something that he eventually approved.

We do know what happened when military aid to Ukraine was announced in mid-June 2019. When Trump saw news coverage of a Defense Department announcement that it would provide $250 million in aid to that country, Trump intervened with questions. A few weeks later, the aid was placed on hold, an act that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

Trump’s team has argued that the hold was an outgrowth of his skepticism about foreign aid while claiming that his support for Ukraine was steadfast. In that meeting in April 2018, in conversation with a donor he’d met a few times before, Trump seemed unclear on the timing of a major component of his administration’s policy about Ukraine.

No question, though, is more significant than this, at least for Republican senators: What other tapes might exist? The release of this recording spawns new questions related to Ukraine and the actors involved in Trump’s efforts there. Parnas’s attorney told The Post that Parnas had turned other recordings over to House investigators.
If you want to feel how tough this is-- electorally speaking--for a handful of Republican senators who could conceivably vote against Trump's interests-- and, for example, agree to subpoena witnesses and documents-- let's take a look at Alaska, where a more independent-minded Lisa Murkowski is not up for reelection but where 100% Trump puppet Dan Sullivan is. Alaska Survey Research polled the state on both senators and how their votes on impeachment are likely to impact their careers. "Murkowski," they concluded, "has more to lose politically from what decision she makes in the trial because of her diverse base of support... [A]round 20% of people who view Murkowski positively are Democrats and another 20% who view her positively are Republicans. The remainder identified as another party or no party at all. Overall, she has a 51% positive rating and a 35% negative rating according to this poll. That same poll shows that Senator Dan Sullivan (R) has an easier decision to make, since his supporters widely support the president as explained by pollster Ivan Moore."
Moore said at the end of this impeachment trial, Murkowski will be hard pressed to not upset at least some of the people who voted for her.

“She has a 51% positive, but they’re not 50% Republican at all,” he said, “They’re kind of balanced. Much more non-partisan, and they’re 20 plus points in favor of removing the President right? So if she acquits, there’s a lot of political risk.”

Moore said once it comes down to decision making time, he believes that Murkowski will vote in favor of Trump. However, it can’t be completely ruled out since she’s broken rank before.

...From a strictly political strategy view, Moore expects that Murkowski will end up supporting the President in the impeachment trial in a Senate with a Republican majority.

“At the end of the day, if what you’re thinking about is the end result of this thing, it’s not significant at all,” he said, “because the Senate is not going to vote to convict right? So whatever Murkowski votes, whatever she does with her vote is irrelevant to the end result. Where it is relevant is to the people who support her, and to her, and to her election chances.”
Imagine how much tougher that is for Susan Collins who, is up for reelection in November and who has seen her popularity in the state collapsing in the state to the point that she is now the least liked senator in her own state than anyone else in the country-- including Moscow Mitch!





And you almost feel sorry-- almost-- for desperate Colorado sad sack Cory Gardner-- "weak, frightened, impotent... a small man terrified of a political bully." And that's what conservative Republicans are saying about him, not Democrats, who wouldn't dare be that blunt. This is just an internet ad today. Can you imagine the Lincoln Project putting it on television!





Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 26, 2019

How Old Was Trump When He Started Lying Incessantly?

>




On CNN yesterday, Jake Tapper reminded CNN viewers that regardless of White House claims to the contrary, Trump doesn't have a "communications problem," he has "a facts problem and the facts are bad for the president, so he seems to be trying to change them by lying." The describes more than just the Ukraine scandal. And it describes more than just his presidency. It describes the man's entire life. He's been lying about everything-- big and small-- since the first time he appeared in the New York Times, October 16, 1973. Trump was 27 years old then and the headline was Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias in City. "The Department of Justice, wrote Metro reporter David Dunlap, "had brought suit in federal court in Brooklyn against Mr. Trump and his father, Fred C. Trump, charging them with violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the operation of 39 buildings. The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals 'because of race and color.' It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.


Donald Trump’s first quoted words in the New York Times expressed his view of the charges:

“They are absolutely ridiculous.”

“We never have discriminated,” he added, “and we never would.”

Two months later, Trump Management, represented by Roy M. Cohn, turned around and sued the United States government for $100 million (roughly $500 million in today’s terms), asserting that the charges were “irresponsible and baseless.”

“Mr. Trump accused the Justice Department of singling out his corporation because it was a large one, and because the government was trying to force it to rent to welfare recipients,” The Times reported.

Decades later, Trump, hero at Palmyra

Under an agreement reached in June 1975, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a list of all apartment vacancies, every week, for two years. It was also to allow the league to present qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

Trump Management noted that the agreement did not constitute an admission of guilt.

Mr. Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not “compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.”


It was, literally, one lie after another. It was Trump then and it is Trump now. Did anyone think otherwise during the 2016 campaign? Unfortunately, yes. There is no IQ test to exercise the right to vote. I wish more people understood that the "emoluments mess," as Professor Robert Reich calls it, is a bribery case. That's easier for a Trump supporter to understand.





Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Trump Wants To Be Seen As...

>

"No Political Appetite To Ban..." by Nancy Ohanian

Rebecca Ballhaus, Andrew Restuccia and Natalie Andrews reported for the Wall Street Journal yesterday that "Trump’s public push for gun-control measures is causing consternation among conservatives and some of his advisers, who have privately raised concerns about the political and policy fallout of the approach. At least so far, Mr. Trump doesn’t appear to have been swayed by the concerns, and the president has indicated privately to aides that he wants to be seen taking action in response to back-to-back mass shootings earlier this month. Aides said he remains interested in pushing for legislative action to expand background checks and prevent mentally unstable people from possessing guns." Yes, "wants to be seen." That he doesn't care about actually accomplishing any policy changes means two things:
1- he will run towards whichever side inflicts the most pain-- i.e., the NRA vs the public
2- lots and lots of room for p.r. stunts and gaslighting
Just to begin, we're talking about pretty weak background checks here-- and certainly not banning the sale of military weapons. The White House is dragging sincere gun control advocate Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) into this strictly for show, preferring to work with conservatives Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), the former desiring 'to be seen" doing a little something (for suburbanites) but not "too much" (for his rural base) and the latter looking to shore up his credentials with the NRA-types by preventing anything remotely effective going into a deal. And remember the 40 38 House Democrats who have still refused to sign onto David Cicilline's legislation to ban the sale of assault weapons.

A White House source told the NY Times that the conversation between Trump and Murphy "was positive, with Trump indicating that he was serious about persuading Republicans to act... [T]he two agreed to set up a staff-level dialogue this week between their offices and those of Toomey and Manchin, who are working feverishly to revive the background check legislation they wrote after the Sandy Hook massacre."

Elected officials don't really give a damn about this and just tend to bend to wherever the most pain is coming from. And that's not just Trump. Two mushy moderates, New Dems Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA) and Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX) had previously refused to sign on as co-sponsors of Cicilline's legislation to ban the sales of assault weapons. Tuesday-- right in the middle of the summer recess-- they both reacted to pressure and asked that their names be added to the list of nearly 200 co-sponsors. The big problem is how much pressure it's going to take to persuade the biggest roadblock of all.



On Monday, Sean Colarossi reported for Ben Shapiro's right-wing propaganda website that "It appears that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s apparent openness to background check legislation is just a short-term strategy meant to quiet his critics in the aftermath of the dueling massacres in El Paso and Dayton. Washington Post reporter Robert Costa told Chris Matthews on Monday that McConnell is just running out the clock until the gun control debate fades away again. In other words, he doesn’t really intend to take meaningful action on the issue. “McConnell’s play, I’m told, is to just let it peter out,” Costa said. “Talk about being open to background checks and let it play out.” Costa:
The NRA has been weakened by the scandals with Wayne LaPierre. Listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show on Friday. He spent hours saying that if the president moves on background checks-- they know they’re dealing with a president who’s not ideological at the core and that he may be looking for a win, especially as the trade deal stalls with China. And if he starts looking for a background check win, you already have people beyond the NRA trying to boost that gun rights activism. They’re telling the White House behind the scenes, don’t move an inch, we’re not going to give anything, and McConnell’s play, I’m told, is to just let it peter out. Talk about background checks and let it play out.
"The media," continued Colarossi, "pounced on the news last week that McConnell appeared open to joining Democrats and supporting legislation to expand background checks for gun sales. But he never actually committed to supporting such a bill or even bringing it to the Senate floor for a vote... McConnell and other GOP lawmakers don’t deserve a single ounce of credit until they actually do something. The further we get away from the shooting massacres in El Paso and Dayton, the more it looks like Republicans-- led by Mitch McConnell-- are hoping to run out the clock until nobody is talking about this issue anymore. It’s up to the American people to make sure that doesn’t happen. Not this time."

Trump-- in full gaslighting mode-- said on Tuesday that "I am convinced that Mitch wants to do something. I’ve spoken to Mitch McConnell. He’s a good man. He wants to do something. He wants to do it, I think, very strongly. He wants to do background checks, and I do too, and I think a lot of Republicans do. I don’t know, frankly, that the Democrats will get us there." And off to his 228th day as "president" spent golfing.

And speaking of how Trump wants to "be seen," he also wants to be seen as a generous granter of pardons. Slyly thinking ahead when he will be pardoning half his cabinet, his cronies and his family, he is busy building a record as the "Pardoning President." What a humanitarian! Although, CNN reports that he's backed off his decision to commute Blogojevich's sentence. Easy to do since he doesn't really care and can find someone else to pardon instead.

Trump, who had given Blogojevich a $7,000 campaign contribution, fired him in 2010 for screwing up a question about Harry Potter on Celebrity Apprentice


CNN reported that "Trump was on the cusp of commuting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's sentence late last week... but then Republican members of Illinois' congressional delegation began flooding the White House with calls. Now, Trump appears to have backed off his plans to commute Blagojevich's sentence. Several Republican lawmakers called acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the sources told CNN, and the Republican members of Illinois congressional delegation issued a joint statement opposing the move. At least two of them, Reps. Darin LaHood and Mike Bost, made their case directly to the President on Thursday night, urging him not to go forward. They laid out the litany of crimes Blagojevich committed while in office and argued it would send the wrong message to voters about corruption by public officials. Trump's response: 'I wish I had the perspective before,' according to Bost, who served on the Illinois House's impeachment committee to remove Blagojevich from office in 2009. 'Those charges were so outrageously bad,' Bost said. That same evening, LaHood-- a former federal and state prosecutor-- called Trump as well and laid out in detail the brazen charges against Blagojevich, including allegations he threatened to cancel millions in state dollars for a children's hospital if its CEO did not write him a $25,000 campaign check. Among the charges was that Blagojevich attempted to sell former President Barack Obama's Senate seat that he resigned in order to become president. And Trump was informed on the call that Blagojevich-- whom Trump knew from his role on Celebrity Apprentice-- didn't offer any remorse for his crimes, sources said... A White House official downplayed the idea anything had changed, insisting there is 'no pumping the brakes' on Blagojevich and that Trump is still looking at a handful of possible pardons and commutations... Jared Kushner had been funneling messages of support for Blagojevich's commutation to the President, two sources said, and the disgraced governor's wife had also taken her appeals for a commutation directly to Trump through appearances on Fox News. Trump adviser and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also made it clear to Trump that Blagojevich's sentence was too harsh... Multiple sources familiar with the calls said Trump and Mulvaney both did not seem aware of the details of Blagojevich's case, even though the President had decried the former governor as being treated 'unbelievably unfairly.'"

Labels: , , , , ,