Trump’s a Problem, But We Have Worse

30127584_2015034815403683_7693209260989087744_nSome people are upset that the President of the United States is a pathological liar.  Others, and I think they have an even stronger cause for alarm, are distraught that about 40% of Americans either believe his steady stream of complete crap, or think that there’s nothing wrong with a pathological liar in the White House.

To both I offer this element of solace: this will be over soon.  Of course, no one knows for sure, though it certainly appears that the net of justice is tightening around Trump, and that there is no path for escape.

 

Tagged with:
18 comments on “Trump’s a Problem, But We Have Worse
  1. craigshields says:

    Btw, I live in California, I’ve voted here every two years since 1980, and I can tell you how completely preposterous Trump’s statement is.

  2. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    I’m curious, is it just the simple acting of voting that makes you so secure in your knowledge or do have some more insightful knowledge into the voting process ?

    I mean, we all vote, but that doesn’t make us experts in the absence or presence of voter fraud ? Like you, I don’t believe widespread voting fraud in US federal elections is widespread, certainly not the scale of election fraud that occurred in 1960 which may have seen JFK elected by a narrow margin.

    It’s clear the Presidents opinion is erroneous, but having a mistaken belief doesn’t make him a “pathological Liar”, just stubbornly persisting in a mistaken belief.

    Outside the US (and with many Americans) the President is gaining sympathy and popularity as the Mueller inquiry, which commenced as a counter-intelligence measure to determine the extent of Russian interference in the US electoral process, evolved into a wandering, permanent inquiry into the President generally. The inquiry seems to have descended into a “get Trump at any cost” crusade. Rightly or wrongly, Mueller has cast himself in the role of a fearless prosecutor using any means to bring him down an “Al Capone” sort of crime figure and a mafia type operation.

    This was a disastrous development when Starr persecuted President Clinton, and is potentially even more harmful in the present environment media frenzy.

    The saddest aspect of the whole sorry saga, is none of the principles seem to be thinking of the good of the American people.

    Those baying for the President’s blood regardless of any evidence, the less than reputable antics of senior FBI personnel, Mueller’s runaway inquiry into trivial aspects of the President’s personal life years ago, the obsessive hunger by the media for scandal, are all gratuitous distractions for a first time President with little political experience at a time when serious issues are at stake.

    It time for the media to stop bribing, financing and encouraging salacious allegations of porn actresses and other non entities. For the good of America, Mueller must speedily conclude the investigation he was appointed to conduct.

    Mueller was provided with a fairly comprehensive terms of reference for his inquiry. He wasn’t provided a permanent roving brief to examine every aspect of the Presidents life and discover any possible past scandals involving the President or his associates.

    Mueller is accountable. He’s accountable to the DOJ, the delegate for the Attorney-general, and ultimately the President. The President is accountable to Congress and the American people.

    It’s time for Mueller to indicate when he expects his inquiries to be concluded, stretching the investigation out must inevitably destroy the credibility of the investigation by tainting Mueller and his team with allegations of prejudice, bias and political opportunism.

    There are no American “winners” in this sorry saga, only “losers”. The only “winners” are rivals and enemies of the USA who are watching with glee as the US tears itself apart in a bitter internecine political squabble.

    Honestly Craig, do you really care if President Trump did or did not have a consenting adult sexual encounter for a couple of hours with some minor porn actress 12 years ago ?

    So far the Mueller investigation has only uncovered what was already known.

    1) Interests connected to Russia (and possibly the Russian government) interffered in a fairly inept manner with the US elections.

    2) Some fairly low level approaches were made by “Russians” offering to supply information detrimental to the Democrats to Trump Campaign staff without involving the President. No evidence exists involving the President in any form of “collusion” took place.In fact no evidence exists any information was supplied.

    3) The Democrats also used Russian sources and paid a UK ex-spy to compile a dirt dossier on the Republican candidate. The dossier, and payments, were authorized by the Democrats candidate herself.

    4) in office the President has proved to be a tough Russian adversary, but is rightfully wary to not drive Russia into alliance with the PRC.

    All the rest is not the business of Mueller. The purpose of his inquiry is to uncover the methods of Russian interference so US agencies can counter such measures. This important mission seems to have been forgotten in all the hyperbole and scandalous excitement.

    Not all of this is necessarily Mueller’s fault. He may be genuinely mistaken as to his terms of reference and purpose. He may be excited to be “back in harness” and feel any form of wrong doing, even if not covered by his original brief, should be followed in pursuit of justice.

    Sometimes and honest zealot can do more harm than good. The old terms “the operation was a huge success, but he patient died” and “a House divided shall inherit only the wind” is becoming increasingly applicable.

    The question you must ask yourself is even if you got your dearest wish and over the next two years the Trump administration could be rendered ineffective and fell, but in the meantime great harm befell the nation, how would you feel ? vindicated ? Is the President’s removal worth any price ?

    • craigshields says:

      I shouldn’t have made that comment. My voting experiences really prove nothing about the fairness of our elections generally. There could have been millions of people in the surrounding precincts stuffing the ballot boxes for Hillary. Obviously, there weren’t, but my experiences don’t prove that.

      • marcopolo says:

        Craig,

        Please don’t misunderstand me, I meant no criticism ! I just thought you may have been involved as a scrutineer, electoral volunteer or similar, and would have been interested in hearing about the experience in a US election.

    • craigshields says:

      Re your question: (what if) the Trump administration fell, but in the meantime greater harm befell the nation?

      I’m 100% convinced that our removing Trump from office asap will be a blessing for this country, and for the world at large. It’s right around the corner, and it can’t come too soon, IMO.

      Now, are there a few extremely unlikely scenarios in which this process could make matters worse? (Note: Pence is ideologically worse than Trump, but at least he’s sane). I can’t think of any such scenarios, but let’s assume there are some.

      This reminds me of my teaching my daughter to drive many years ago. When she went charging through a stop sign and I almost had a seizure, she said, when she realized nothing horrible had happened, “Dad! Calm down! Nothing was coming.” As if our not killing someone and not getting killed ourselves was proof that running a stop sign was a good idea.

      Doing the right thing is always the right thing to do, regardless of some unlikely and unforeseeable outcome. Doing the wrong thing may occasionally and accidentally result in a good outcome, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong.

      Bottom line: stop at stop signs, and remove sociopaths from office asap.

      • marcopolo says:

        Craig,

        Really, the removal of sitting President would be enormously traumatic for the US.

        It sad to see a section of the US population so desperate to defy the electoral process in order to cripple sitting US President’s authority, plunge the nation into a bitter civil divide while adding and abetting US rivals and enemies.

        The allegation President Trump is “sociopath” is absurd. As a citizen of the US you have a duty to accept the result of the electoral process.

        The Mueller investigation is in danger of turning into a witch-hunt. You may be eager to cheer on the enemy of your enemy, but you are damaging the very bedrock foundations of US democracy.

        The US President will this year face making a series of decision which will decide the fate of the US, and possibly the Western world for decades to come. The President must bring to the table the prestige and resolute power of the US and force other national leaders to accept American determination and strength of purpose.

        This can’t happen while the President is detracted by sections of the US media and populace unwilling to accept the legitimacy of a resolute US.

        Like it or not, Donald Trump will remain President until the next election.

        • craigshields says:

          No one’s saying that it won’t be traumatic. In fact, no one has any idea how traumatic it’s going to be, because unlike Nixon who a) had an escape plan, b) was quite intelligent, and c) had a realistic assessment of what was going on and what he was capable of, the **** is totally going to hit the fan here.

          No one with any sense of patriotism or decency is looking forward to any of this, except having it over.

    • craigshields says:

      Your assertion that Americans are growing tired of the Mueller investigation rests in your definition of “growing tired.” Almost everyone wants this to be over soon, but very few of us want it to end before the truth is revealed.

      I join most Americans in saying that I’ll be stunned if this ends without clear proof of high level criminal activity on Trump’s part, whether it’s collusion, obstruction, or violations of the emoluments clause.

      Until recently, I was less certain, but at this point it appears to be a matter of time before one of these people currently under indictment or soon to become so flips and rats Trump out in a stunning manner. I could be wrong. Has happened before.

      • marcopolo says:

        Craig,

        Even Bernie Saunders and the Guardian don’t believe Trump was involved in any collusion with Russians. (Nor so far does Mueller ).

        As for ” most Americans”, CNN and the guardian polls indicate only 35% of Americans think the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia should be a “top priority” for Congress. (Another 18% says it should be “a lower priority.”).

        As the left academic and author of ‘Populism: A Very Short Introduction and The Far Right in America’, wrote in the Guardian:

        ” The Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country. Just four in 10 Americans believe the Russia investigation is “extremely” or “very” important to them, while issues like immigration, taxes and health care are all considered much more important, also by most Democrats. These are the issues that will bring them out to vote, not the Russia investigation”

        Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders commented on NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers:

        “Americans are not staying up every day worrying about Russia’s interference in our election” and called upon his colleagues to “focus on the bread and butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans”.

        Most American might agree the Trump campaign had contact with “Russians” , very few believe it involved the President “colluding”.

        Mueller is not supposed to be investigating issues regarding emoluments, (if he is, he should be fired).

        It’s a simple legal principle that no charge of obstruction can be sustained without a primary claim. It’s not enough to prove some campaign officials may have colluded, it needs real hard evidence the President approved or was a party to collusion.

        “Collusion” requires an overt act to form a conspiracy and some deed performed that benefited both parties before collusion can established”.

        So far, no evidence has been produced of any wrong doing, except some old and irrelevant matters involving the alleged misdeeds of some Trump campaign staff occurring long before the campaign.

        Are you really so anti-Trump that you want the Mueller inquiry to drag on interminably. or worse, produce a manufactured, biased, prosecution with coerced witnesses testifying under duress ?

        If Mueller can produce evidence he should do so or close the investigation. This farce is damaging US interests for worse than anything the Russians could dream up.

        • craigshields says:

          Even I wouldn’t call it a “top priority for Congress”; I would call it a top priority for Mueller et. al., at the conclusion of which it either goes away (doubtful) or then becomes a top priority for Congress. Most American agree, FWIW.

          • marcopolo says:

            Craig,

            Your comment illustrates how badly the Mueller inquiry has run off the tracks.

            The inquiries original brief was not to “get Trump”, but to discover the extent and methods by which foreign nations covertly interfered in the US electoral process. The inquiry was to make recommendations to implement preventative measures to counter such activities.

            Mueller’s inquiry has improperly wandered into areas totally unrelated to the original purpose and assumed a new direction. Mueller needs to focus on his original brief and not assume he’s a sort of Elliot Ness crusading to bring down the White House.

          • craigshields says:

            Mueller’s charter is extremely broad. You may wish it weren’t, but it is.

    • craigshields says:

      No one cares if President Trump did or did not have sex with a porn actress. He proudly admitted to far worse, i.e., that he was a habitual sex criminal, before the election and he won nonetheless. If there is merit to proceeding with this, it resides in the lies that Trump and his Complete Moron lawyer told about it.

      • marcopolo says:

        Craig,

        It may not have been the edifying conversation (especially since Trump doesn’t drink) but I heard a lot worse from some very highly regarded public figures.

        What he actually said, was “And when you’re a star, THEY LET YOU DO IT, yeah, .
        you can do anything. Grab them by the p***y, you can do anything.”

        Nothing in that conversation suggests criminal behavior ! Lecherous, sure, not terribly respectful of women, and definitely immature, but consensual and harmless.

        You are confusing your moral code, with Misdemeanors or Felonies as described by US and Californian law.

        In all likelihood, Trump was simply bragging, telling the equivalent of locker room or bar room stories. “Hitting on married women” isn’t very moral, but not illegal (unless you literally hit them).

        Of particular interest is the conversation was secretly recorded which is electronic eavesdropping for malicious purpose, which is a serious crime, and happened many years ago back in 2005.

        It’s disturbing to note how willing you are to overlook the criminal behavior of Trump’s enemies in using the criminally obtained tapes, to embarrass a political candidate you dislike.

        • craigshields says:

          It has nothing to do with my moral code. Grabbing a woman’s genitalia without her consent, i.e., sexual battery, is a crime in all 50 states.

          • marcopolo says:

            Craig,

            In your sanctimonious outrage you persist in a falsehood.

            The whole point of Donald Trump’s boast, all those years ago, was, THEY LET YOU DO IT. “Consent” is the whole point of his boast ! The boast being some women actually throw themselves at celebrities offering sexual favours.

            That doesn’t make him a “sexual criminal” , in fact, the conversation doesn’t even suggest he’s ever did such things, it’s merely an observation on the behaviour of some women toward celebrities.

            From my personal observation, I would say his boast is not only an accurate but commonplace description of behaviour at that time among the peculiar attendees of certain places of entertainment and social gatherings in which Trump was moving at during that period of his life.

            So why do you persist in a lie ? That’s the trouble with being sanctimonious, sooner or later a lie becomes preferable to the truth.

            Invariably sanctimonious people’s moral compass becomes so distorted with fanatical hatred, they convince themselves it’s okay to lie about others, because the victim is so “deplorable” they deserve persecution.

            Naturally, the targeted victim not only “deserves” such treatment, but csn be blamed for forcing you to act in this way. This allows for a process of de-humanising victims, thereby granting a “moral authority” to continue pursuing immoral behavior in a “righteous” fashion.

            It’s hard to remain objective and fair-minded about enemies, it’s all too easy to repeat lies and join a lynch mob.

            A slippery slope indeed……

          • craigshields says:

            There are at least 16 women accusing him of sexual battery.

          • marcopolo says:

            Craig,

            You just can’t stop can you ? In fact here are no women who have accused the President of “sexual battery”. Nor is there any current police investigation.

            The story originated in the NYT and spread like wild fire in the anti-Trump media but only after the misquoted articles concerning the Billy Bush tapes.

            The most damning was a particularly prurient and salacious report by Harry Hurt who has made a career out of reviling the President.

            Here’s Harry Hurt’s version;

            “Ivana confided her husband raped her after a doctor she recommended gave him an unexpectedly painful “scalp reduction” operation to eliminate a bald spot. Hurt claimed Ivana describing her husband yanking out a handful of her hair, holding her hands back, and tearing her clothing.

            He then jammed ams his penis inside her for the first time in more than 16 months. Ivana was terrified by the violent assault, Ivana told me, “he raped me”’

            Now compare this with Ivana’s statement;-

            ” I’ve recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit, and without any truth. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible President.

            I do not remember, but it is possible I may have met harry Hurt at a social occasion, he is not a confidant and his lies are ridiculous.

            Hmmm,… How about the testimony of another accuser, Lisa Boyne. (mid-1990s)

            Lisa Boyne alleged “some time in the 1990’s” a mutual friend invited her to dinner with Trump.. She claims she was picked up in Trump’s limousine, and during the ride he made disparaging comments about women he’d slept with or wanted to sleep with. Boyne said that during the dinner, several models were called over and instructed to walk over the table to Trump.

            “As the women walked across the table, Donald Trump would look up under their skirt and comment on whether they had underwear or didn’t have underwear and what the view looked like,” Lisa Boyne said.

            “It was the most offensive scene I’ve ever been a part of,” Boyne added. She said she claimed she wasn’t feeling well and left the restaurant.

            Lisa Boyne can’t recall the restaurant (after naming three all of which proved false) she can’t recall the driver or the names of any other females at the party. Nor can she explain how she returned home.

            No one , not even the “mutual friend” has come forward to corroborate her story.

            The owner of the model agency referred to by Lisa Boyle and his staff all denied such an event ever occurred.

            And so it goes on, and on, take the accusation of Mindy McGillivray referring to an event allegedly occurred 25 years ago: (it must be noted Mindy was a paid employee for the Hillary Clinton campaign)

            McGillivray claimed she attended a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, when Trump groped her butt.

            “I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.’’

            Davidoff said moments later, McGillivray pulled him aside and said, ‘’Donald just grabbed my ass!’’

            25 years later, McGillivray told the Washington Post she felt it was her patriotic duty to speak out. “What pisses me off” she said ” is that the guy is now president President”

            When questioned at to why others attending the concert with Trump didn’t notice her in his vicinity, McGillivray admitted she hadn’t seen Trump touch her, and admitted his security at all times was between her and Trump, but she knew he had, at the very least, “psychically” assaulted her !

            The rest of the allegations are in the same vain, none constitute “sexual battery” all are very ancient stories, while some are just plain ludicrous.

            But hey, you’ll be happy to repeat and exaggerate such nonsense, deceiving yourself that you are doing so from moral virtue instead of political opportunism.