Trump Administration About To Burst Wide Open
Here are a few concepts we should be keeping in mind at this surreal point in U.S. history.
There is a large and growing list of Congresspeople calling for U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, as it’s clear he committed perjury.
You’ll notice that there are no Republicans on the list. Yet.
But what happens as this heats up, and more is revealed about the role the Russians played in our election, who knew about it, and when? It’s only a matter of time before rank and file Republicans will be forced to choose between their loyalty to this failing, dishonest regime, versus their careers and reputations as decent human beings. (I’m being kind using the word “decent.”)
When it happens, which could be any day, it will look like a dam breaking.
What we are seeing seems to be a slow stripping of the administration of long time insiders. I have to wonder if this is by design or accident. At what point does it become a tipping point.
If the Russians know exactly what happened during the meetings and there is some reason that the American public would not like it would this then be giving some “blackmail” power to the Russians.
To be a member of the bar in every state ethics requires the attorney to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. An attorney might be disbarred after a conviction but that does not seem to be a requirement. I wonder if Jeff Sessions could hold the title of AG if he is disbarred.
Craig,
I think you, like many others, just can’t accept the reality of an administration you don’t like and so are left clutching at straws.
By what definition has Jeff Sessions committed perjury, (at least any legally accepted standard ) ?
It’s also unclear what all this fuss is about. Claims by the Democrats and anti-Trump forces seem to fall into three vague categories;
1) Talking to Russians (unspecified) about things(unspecified)
2) Russians (unspecified) may have by hacking uncovered illegal or at least disreputable activity by Democrats.
3) Trump maybe blackmailed by Russians (unspecified)regarding his sexual dalliances (unspecified).
Craig, here’s the thing. Among all this innuendo and weird conspiracy theories, the actual claims of wrong doing are very vague and unlikely to be illegal.
Blackmailing Donald Trump about his sexual dalliances would seem a bit futile, since he’s hardly shy and probably regard such accusations as a compliment! Nor would his electorate care.
As for Jeff Sessions, his explanation of failing to mention his heavily documented and public meetings with the Russian ambassador in his official capacity as a US Senator, was not an attempt to deceive questions about clandestine or improper meetings with “Russians”, seems perfectly reasonable.
As far as the rest goes, well it’s all very interesting, but without any actual evidence it’s all going nowhere.
I realize you may find the idea that it’s not illegal for anyone, even republicans to talk to Russians ! Likewise, it’s very dubious that overt opposition to government policy toward a foreign power constitutes any offense.
There would have to be an actual clandestine deed to harm US people or security, not just disagree with US government foreign policy initiatives.
If the actions of Jane Fonda didn’t justify prosecution, then in contrast this nonsense certainly doesn’t. (Currently, the US is not at war with Russia).
So what are you left with, eh? The idea that the Russians won the election for Trump in some obscure way? That’s very offensive to the millions of his voters who voted for issues they cared about.
The idea is arrogant in the extreme ! It presupposes that those who voted for Trump, and all those Republican candidates, are simple minded fools, and “deplorables”. It’s that sort of of elitist, contemptuous arrogance that cost HC and the Democrats the election.
Unsubstantiated vague accusations about Trump and mysterious “Russians “, only prove to the electorate how petty and irrelevant the Democrats have become.
It also distracts from his real weakness on economic policy.
Marco reports that Sessions used campaign funds for at least one of his meetings with the Russians implies that he felt at the time that he was justified in using campaign funds and it was therefore not about government business. If it was Senatorial business then it suggests inappropriate use of campaign contributions all of which are worthy of investigation.
Any other president would be asking for a resignation with no more evidence. Failing to do so reflects poorly on even an honest administration.
Sessions failure to recuse himself even prior to these disclosures further suggests an unethical approach to governance. It is only through a partisan filter that all of these inappropriate actions have been ignored or dismissed.
In retrospect his testimony at confirmation hearings, answering unasked questions sounds suspiciously like admissions. There is much here that needs answers.
Regarding Trumps personal life. Recall that Clinton’s improprieties were sexual and that was being used for its shock value with a moralistic Republican Base, the same people who voted for Trump.
Hi Breath,
“Marco reports that Sessions used campaign funds for at least one of his meetings with the Russians ”
No I didn’t ! Interesting the difference a comma makes !:)
Let’s put his in perspective shall we? Jeff sessions used two payments of $1,395 to the Sheraton Cleveland Airport to attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. These expenses were charged to campaign funds rather than rather than official Senate Armed Services Committee funds.
During this period he also met with the Russian ambassador.
Think about it for minute, this is really trivial nit-picking ! Had Jeff Sessions charged these expenses to official Senate Armed Services Committee account he would be accused of misusing government funds to travel on party political business to the Republican National Convention !
Maybe he should have caught one plane to meet the Ambassador, left immediately, caught back to Alabama, switching planes on arrival and flown back to the convention, just to prevent any pedantic criticism ! As it is, maybe he should be praised for saving taxpayer funds.
The fact that his meeting with Ambassador Kislyak was duly authorized and noted in his official diary, should be sufficient to end any question of his intent to deceive.
But it’s still not clear what you want investigated ? I mean so what if Republicans met with “Russians”, of what illegal activities, or conspiracy, are you alleging occurred ?
Trying to infer sinister connotations to trivial events is petty and gratuitously malicious.
The persecution of Bill Clinton was equally gratuitous, serving no useful purpose except to further lower the public opinion of politicians in general.
I don’t think anyone’s too concerned about the use of campaign funds, but there seems to be a great deal of hand-wringing about Sessions’ lying under oath = perjury. But even that’s minor compared to what’s very likely about to happen as this story unravels further. I don’t normally waste too much time predicting the future, as I’m no better at it than anyone else. But I really do believe this is going to explode over the coming couple of weeks.
We’ll see.
I wouldn’t say that I’m “alleging” anything. But what my gut tells me is that Trump was aware that the Russians were influencing our election in his favor, and when/if that’s proved, he’ll be gone in a New York minute.
Craig,
I’m intrigued, by ” the Russians ” do you mean the Russian government ?
I’m also intrigued as to how ” the Russians” could “influence” an American election fought largely on domestic issues, in his favor ?
I might be wrong, but it does sound a bit far fetched.
But considering all the interference by US government agencies over the years to influence the domestic electoral outcome of countless nations, it would be ironic if it happened to the US !
I think you gut is just indulging in a bit of wishful thinking.
No if Trump and the Republicans were discovered to have received a secret slush fund from a Russian government agency, that would be a scandal.
Even if a non-government Russian source was leaking accurate information about Democrat wrongdoing with Donald Trump’s awareness, that wouldn’t necessarily reflect badly on the President. He could just pass it off as the only way the truth could be revealed.
At the moment it’s all just innuendo and speculative fantasy. The only real evidence is Without any real the President and Cabinet members have a different attitude to Russia, and the Russian government, than his predecessors.
That’s his prerogative as President.
You’re right that at this point it’s suspicion/innuendo, but that’s the way the prosecution of all crimes begin. We’ll see.
Craig,
Not really, that how persecution begins !
Prosecution, begins with gathering evidence of wrong doing before making any accusation.
Suspicion/innuendo are just evidence of malicious gossip.
I think we’re talking about semantics here. I don’t think any crime is solved without suspicion.
Craig,
But is there a story? Perjury requires an intent to deceive, to avoid revealing the truth.
Failing to mention a very public event, an event the witness may simply believed irrelevant or already known to the questioner, isn’t “perjury”, since no attempt to deceive or conceal an improper of unknown act was intended.
I can’t tell you what the “story” is, i.e., I don’t know specially what he was trying to cover up. But it sure looks like we’re going to find out.
Craig,
It sounds like you just hope some sort of scandal exists, and in the absence of any evidence will continue to invent evidence of smoke.
The first part’s right; the second is wrong. Truth told, I DO hope a scandal exists (more than a scandal, really, a blatant act of treason), so we can expeditiously get Trump out of office, so as to minimize the damage he’s causing to the global environment, and to American democracy.
As to the second part, I’m hot inventing evidence; I’m reading about evidence, and I bet you are too.
Craig,
Suspicion/innuendo are not evidence of anything but malicious gossip and fantasy.
The danger is the desire for something to be true, becomes a delusion that it is true.
These are tactics employed by Trump, he can afford to shrug off the backlash from his often outrageous allegations as he occupies no moral high ground.
Attempting to employ such tactic’s against him, only destroys any claim you may have possessed to greater integrity and moral virtue.
The Administration has the initiative when it comes to policy. Pruitt was able to appear moderate before the Conference of US Mayors by explaining that although he was having to cope with the restrictions of cutting the EPA budget by 25% over the next three years, he was fighting to preserve grant programs.
He stated his support to improve water infrastructure and fund cleanups of waste that can lead to economic revitalization.
Pruitt went on to say that the 25% cuts would be found in improving the EPA’s bureaucratic efficiency, cutting waste and duplication.
He claimed his administration would re-focus and intensify EPA resources on it’s core values and mission.
He also would bring all the EPA’s expenditure and revenue int the purview of the independent Government Accountability Office.
It’s difficult to argue with that.
Trump’s administration isn’t vulnerable on environmental issues, nor foreign policy. Mass demonstration and apocalyptic hype don’t hurt him. He can always regain the initiative.
His vulnerability is his virtually non-existent economic policy. Even his staunchest Republican allies will desert him if he’s seen to be floundering economically.
So far his opponents have been his best asset ! By providing endless absurd distractions he managed to get away without any real focus on the economy.
Craig,
I’ve been giving your fantasy a little more thought.
I wonder what could really constitute a “a blatant act of treason”, for a President ?
Neither the Russians, or the Chinese, have anything to offer Trump for him to commit an overt act of “treason”.
What would the Russians gain from such an act? The President hasn’t much to offer. At the most it could be corruption, but without offing to give Alaska back, it’s hard to see what couldn’t be simply construed as legitimate foreign policy.
No, it’s all just nonsense. Obviously, the Russians government would prefer a more sympathetic and pragmatic US President, who understood things realistically, not idealistically.
No doubt the Russians would do whatever they could to assist that occurring, just as US agencies do to effect outcomes favourable to US interests.
I’m sure they understand US Presidents don’t have the kind of power enjoyed by the Putin regime.
Trump’s campaign showed how little real support he received from major corporate sponsor. Oddly, for a nominally Republican President, he’s far less beholden to Party, Lobbyist or Corporate support than Clinton would have been.
I think that’s the struggle the media and the left are finding difficult, all the old political dynamics and rationales have soddenly disappeared. The old terms of reference just don’t apply.
It’s difficult to come to terms with the new political environment.
Marco, sadly my typing is sometimes not as quick as my thinking. Kind of you to notice. I was a bit more accurate in my days of dictation as it forced one to consider such things more carefully. I have no excuse for a failure to edit.
But “cut to the chase.” I don’t know if British or Australian ethics requires the avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety. In the US that is the very high standard. So while some may “infer sinister connotations” I have only pointed out an ethics violation. As a once legal mind you should grasp the distinction.
Marco in an administration constantly troubled by allegations of lies and perjury, which has even caused the firing of one member of the administration, your parroting of EPA head speeches with the comment “it is difficult to argue with that” comes off as a bit Pollyannic.
Breath
“an administration constantly troubled by allegations of lies and perjury”.
I don’t think the administration is bothered in the slightest !
The media and critics may bleat obsessively, but ineffectively since they’re still playing by the old rules where the media dictated the agenda.
The new administration doesn’t fear the media. The new administration has worked out a method of making everyone look equally bad. It’s quite a clever strategy.
The Trump administration has four years to outlast all the hype and moral indignation from it’s opposition. Eventually the public will grow weary of the hype, especially as most of the hype will prove to be either relatively trivial, inconsequential or non-existent.
In contrast, speeches like Pruitt’s sound sensible and reassuring. I don’t for a moment suggest his speech was any more than a deliberate effort to deflect attention from a negative agenda, but at face value, it’s hard to argue with the wisdom of cutting government waste and unnecessary expenditure from a bloated bureaucracy, while retaining and increasing the effectiveness of the agencies primary mission.
The administration has the advantage of never having occupied the high moral ground. Even small improvements will play well with the public.(prodigal son)
In contrast, for those who trumpet their occupation of the high moral ground are in a far more precarious position. Like those Republicans who persecuted Bill Clinton, after the initial excitement dies down, Clinton’s opponent’s came off looking like mean spirited hypocrites.
Nixon made the mistake of telling tangible lies, Trump is different, he prefaces each of his more outrages claims with, “I’m informed” or ” I believe” or even ” it’s my opinion”, .
This allows a line of retreat. “I was misinformed” etc,.. even a defiant, ” I don’t care, I still hold to my belief, opinion etc “.
This makes it difficult to prove the legal definition of “lying, or perjury”, since establishing intent under such circumstances requires speculation and unavoidable bias. In such cases no safe verdict could be achieved.
Trumps success is his faults are very human. He cheerfully admitted he pays little tax, rightfully pointing out that the rich employ very skilled accountants and tax lawyers to ensure that they legally avoid paying tax. He even boasted this proves he’s “smart” !
His largely working class constituency don’t resent his candid admissions, they’re honest enough to admit they’d do the same in his position. If Trump now says he’s changed his mind about revealing his tax returns, he won’t lose votes.
Those opposed to him may scream loudly, but they wouldn’t vote for him anyway so why should he bother ? The louder they scream, the more they look like petty bullies and his supporters will defend him even more strongly.
This President is a new phenomenon, a “51 per center” strategist.
Trump has changed all the rules. Old fashioned observers like Frank and Craig, are left behind, floundering with concern for issues no longer relevant.
That’s not to say the rules have changed for the better, but they have changed.
Marco: “I don’t think the administration is bothered [by allegations in the media] in the slightest !…” does not seem consistent with your previous comment that Trump shows narcissistic tendencies. Perhaps you are suggesting that reports of outrage and anger in the administration or his staff reporting “he has never been this angry” are incorrect.
But that leads to another observation. It seems you have an unusual view of this administration. Should all of your predictions and observations prove inaccurate I get the sense you would simply react with shock and horror saying that the events are wrong. I wonder if your bullet proof confidence will allow any evidence that refutes your opinions. And if you are not arguing from a position of inquiry then is it to promote a perspective.
Hi Breath,
I don’t recall suggesting that the President is a narcissist. He’s certainly egotistical, but that not the same thing at all.
I would take any reports of “he has never been this angry” with a measure of salt.
My “bullet proof confidence” doesn’t exist. My opinion is based on a simple observation of the known facts. Obviously if new, or any, “evidence ” appears, I would re-evaluate my opinion in accordance.
I just happen to believe that any inquiry should start with a measure of evidence, at least an accuser, a victim, and identifiable perpetrator, or at least an indefinable crime.
At the moment all that exists is wishful thinking, and vague innuendo.
It’s all a bit reminiscent of Joe McCarthy…..
Marco, while you allege that Trump uses the guarded speech that would be advised by a lawyer, none of his Tweets over the Weekend demonstrated that reserve.
If we are following the facts rather than speculation we should also be accurately describing events rather than what we expect or would like to see happen.
Rachel Maddow has laid out an entirely new potential violation of US law that has been associated with the Trump organization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgRdTD1t9rI
Breath,
Tweets are ,…well just tweets ! It’s a whole new dimension, untested and untried. I guess the defense would be that they lack to intent of a full statement and therefore must be read as headlines, or incomplete texts when determining intent. (although, it’s an interesting subject).
Racheal Madow is correct, the allegations about the Trump organization’s international business dealing will continue to plague the administration.
IMO, it’s will be a waste of time. Those who already hate Trump will continue to fume at his commercial connections, while those who support the administration will ignore the allegations.
There will be Republican opponents of Trump who will see an opportunity to hurt the President, but they must be very careful. Since getting elected Trump has gained some powerful supporters among the string pullers of the American right. These forces are quite capable of removing party support from Republicans whom they consider liabilities.
In the end, these scandals and side shows, are exactly why the American people are growing sick of the spectacle of politicians obsessing about issues that don’t concern the daily lives of the American people.
It’s time the Democrats and anti-trump forces started to enunciate alternate policies and plans that can capture the imagination of the US voters, not just endless bleating about how bad Trump is, while offering nothing as an alternative.
Marco, I am not entirely sure that what is going on here lacks direction and organization. While people are fuming about Trump there are bills in the House to completely eliminate the EPA and the department of Education. The latest iteration of the “health care” has a provision to defund planned parenthood, puts a cap on what those with the highest income must pay into the system, and allows the eldest to pay more than the youngest. Essentially it is a formula for bankrupting health care and those in most need of medical attention.
Breath,
The US Congress like every legislative body always has a plethora of crazy bills proposed, all of which have one thing in common. They all disappear at committee never to be heard from again.
Marco: “I don’t think the administration is bothered [by allegations in the media] in the slightest …” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEcKGQrYEtM
Marco has some “fringe” ideas, but this one takes the cake.
Craig,
Really ? The one lesson that should have been learned from Trump’ campaign and government, is his willingness to alienate the media almost recklessly.
Trump is the first President to master alternate media, and openly defy mainstream journalists.
This is hardly a fringe observation, indeed it’s supported by nearly every major mainstream journalist.
He won government in the teeth of a barrage of negative media commentary, in fact it worked in his favour, so why should he worry now ?
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if he isn’t deliberately manipulating a new media frenzy to deflect from his more serous economic problems.
Well, I’m sure we can agree that he never would have been “a thing” at all if it weren’t for the mainstream media. Without the zillions of dollars of free coverage, all it it amiable, he would have been laughed off as a supremely unqualified candidate and an obvious sociopath.
Yes, right now he’s alienating the media, and who knows where this is going to take him. Maybe there won’t be some sort of earth-shattering epiphany that gets him summarily expelled from his position. But I doubt it.
Craig,
“mainstream media. Without the zillions of dollars of free coverage, all it it amiable ”
Amiable !!?? WTF ? He was mocked, attacked, despised, vilified and derided by the mainstream media throughout his campaign !
I don’t think you want to understand or believe the profound changes in political dynamics that occurred during the campaign.
He not only didn’t care about the derision of the mainstream media, he deliberately provoked hostility. No previous candidate has deliberately set out to alienate the media.
Trump quickly realized a huge number of voters had grown weary of being talked down to, sneered at and ignored by a media grown arrogant from hubris. The media itself ignored the new alternate media designed for the “everyman” where ideas and ‘facts’ could be reduced to slogans and simple concepts.
The rejection of conventional media and the election of a populist
candidate, is a profound change in political dynamics.
In one hit, millions of Americans told the traditional left “you no longer represent us” . Millions of Americans sent a message to the traditional power brokers,” we don’t care for your elitist BS, we don’t care about your ideology, we want to be represented by someone who talks directly to us, someone whose flaws we understand, someone whose aspirations we understand. We don’t care if his idea’s are a bit vague and crazy, anything is better than you!”.
The tragedy for the American left,political and media elite, is they can’t grasp what’s hit them.
Both the old right, left and traditional political elite can’t grasp the change. Like you, and the traditional media they’re lost, still desperately trying to find excuses to go back to their old smug illusions.
It’s got to be all some kind of aberration, ….it can’t have been years of not paying attention, of supercilious disdain, of policies decisions built on ideology, not reality of listening only to yourselves.
In the word’s of Bob Dylan,
‘The vagabond who’s rapping at your door
Is standing in the clothes that you once wore’
Like all revolutions, Trump’s will fizzle out with time, but the world of politics will have changed profoundly and permanently.
Well, to complete that phrase from Dylan in the most appropriate way given the demise of the current presidential administration:
“Strike another match (pal), start anew
Cause it’s all over now, Baby Blue.”
Sorry for the inside joke for those who aren’t Dylan fans. Bottom line: Trump is toast; it’s only a matter of time.
Btw, this WILL change the world of politics forever, as it’s a reminder that I suppose we needed as to how wrong things can go for a country that’s lost a good deal of both it’s educational and moral standards. Most of us (I for one) didn’t think a Trump presidency could happen in a million years.
Craig,
Perhaps I should have quoted from, “For the times they are a-changing” !
While I understand, and even empathize with your desire to return to more certain times, they’re forever changed.
Trump is only a portent of a new political dynamic,. His election broke the old mold and the effects can never be reversed. The dynamics released can’t be re-papered over or ignored.
Today I observed a leftist politician denouncing the US President for risking a trade war with the Peoples Republic of China ! I was astounded, where had she been living for the last twenty years ?
The PRC has been locked in a trade war with the US for twenty years, and the US has been steadily losing ! Globalization’s fine as long as everyone plays by the same rules, but they don’t !
Domestically, those Americans who can move to take advantage of the new economy did just fine under Obama, but at the expense of a vast underclass of Americans who got left behind and forgotten.
This has been a fundamental shift in the economy that can’t be repaired by old fashioned simplistic thinking, of “tax the rich” or “let’s all be nicer”, The economy it’s self is changing recognizably .
The new economic dynamics are so complex that even the definition of “wealth creation” is difficult for an older generation to comprehend.
Even financial professionals like myself, find themselves baffled and lacking a true appreciation of what’s coming next. The forces of change are moving with much greater speed and have gathered a momentum that is beyond the ability of older institutions to control or even contain.
Even “revolutionary’ movements like “Occupy Wall Street!” etc, are strangely nostalgic anachronisms. The “Wall Street” of their imagination disappeared many years ago into the electronic ether.
President Trump is a curious phenomenon, both an agent of change and nostalgic reactionary.
The Obama Presidency was the apex, the last halcyon days of American (and Western world) idealistic economic management. Fortunately, most of the baby boom generation will soon die off, leaving another generation to deal with the problems of economic and social change.
Oh, our generation will still demand control over the dynamics long after we are all dead because we don’t believe we, or our values, will ever become irrelevant. It’s in our nature to strive against the spectre of death.
Little do we realize, our generation is already irrelevant, except to ourselves.