Trump is Driving Me Crazy and the Trip gets Shorter each Day

Not exactly, but with all the thoughts he prompts with his outrageous distortions, he produces  outrage fatigue, lying so often and changing his tune so frequently, everything blurs together.  He has taken us past a “post truth” politics to a post reality politics.

If you haven’t been driven totally nuts, you may have noticed how the boy who would be king said in an interview there was nothing wrong with receiving information from foreign agents, it just being more opposition research.

He changed his tune a couple of times at least, after even a couple of Republican senators gently chided Trump for basically saying to all the world, send us your dirt on my opponents.  The last version I heard was his claiming in front of the three nodding heads on Fox and Friends that of course he would notify the FBI, because no one loves America more than he does.

I could go on and on, but that would clearly get me closer to the loony bin and prevent me from writing at all.   I just want to make this point, a suggestion as to how to interpret Trump’s words.   Whatever he says, just flip it to the opposite.   So, when Trump says “no one loves America more” than he does, just switch the “more ” to “less”.

He cares so much about himself, there can’t be much love left for the rest of us.

And when he says “believe me”, as he often does, translate it into “don’t believe me”.  And if he says it twice, really don’t believe him.  When he says he has solved a problem, it really is he hasn’t solved the problem:  he just wants us to think so, like in the case of North Korea and its nukes.   Remember how he said after that first meeting with his bosom buddy Kim Jung Un that we could sleep easier because the nuclear threat was gone?

Not only is it not gone, it is undiminished, and is likely even stronger.  But no problem, president deranged Don still believes in Kim Jung Un, and his own ability to sway him.

I just can’t wait till he tells us how he has solved the Iran problem.

Advertisements

Deconstructing “Don the Con”. Why Nancy Pelosi is My Hero.

In my April 29 post I backed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approach of “one step at a time” regarding the possible impeachment of president Trump.  I continue to applaud her tight rope walking skills between Trump, media commentators and party activists who claim the moral necessity of impeaching him right now.  As a matter of principle.  Even Trump likes the idea, but for unprincipled reasons of course.

For those who do not recognize the wisdom of her ways, Speaker Pelosi knows it would be foolish to go the impeachment route right now because there is a lack of outcry from Americans for it.  It is not for the House to demand it, but the American people.   Right now the outcry is below 50%, with a plurality of those all important “independents” being against it in a May 9 poll.  To prompt more outcry a slow pealing of the onion  of Trump’s fabrications must take place.  A course we might title:  Deconstructing Don the Con.

As Speaker Pelosi has often asserted, Trump wants the Dems to launch impeachment hearings because that would fit his narrative of victimization which he could then cap off with Republicans in the Senate rejecting the measure.  One more rationale for Trump to proclaim his innocence and decry all that wasted time, as we approach the 2020 election.

Pelosi is not saying never move to impeachment.  Only move to it as a final act after all other avenues have been exhausted while educating the American public in the process.  Let’s hope Robert Mueller will testify soon.  And let the House committees finish their investigations and a number of Trump’s phony court cases get rejected.  Also let’s see what happens when the New York legislature directs Trump’s state tax statements to the House committees.   Whatever is useful to educate the American public.

Some anti-Trumpers would argue that at least an “impeachment inquiry” could be launched for a start.  It sounds good, but to the general public there is no difference between an impeachment inquiry and impeachment itself.  And the notion of impeachment only fires up the already fervent at this time.

That’s why Nancy keeps pressing the point of finding out the facts and going where they lead, rather than talking of impeachment.   The “facts” don’t have a negative connotation as “impeachment” has right now given the mental fatigue of living in “investigation nation”.

The goal is to keep marshaling facts until the picture becomes so clear that the balance of American political opinion shifts in favor of impeachment.   The American people need to demand it, not just the Democratically controlled House of Representatives.

This Crap of Reporters Allowing Trump to Mislead, Fabricate, or Just Plain Lie Must Stop!

Having posted yesterday, I was not eager to do so again so soon, but I’m so mad watching a Trump so-called press conference provide this morning a platform for Trump to spew his twisted narrative of events, I just have to.

PRESS PEOPLE:   You know that this is happening, that he bats your feckless questions away or employs them to bring up another distortion or lie.  Then after his “speech” you sit in groups and analyze much of what he says as if any of it can be taken seriously, as if he won’t come up with something completely different later today or tomorrow.  Depending on the wisdom of his gut.

The guy has no respect for the truth, so why believe anything he says.

What you are doing is providing this scoundrel with yet another platform for his fabricated narrative.   His propaganda.  Hey, I am empathetic.  I don’t have any marvelous suggestions.  I just know Trump has beaten you at the traditional journalistic game and you need to stop playing that game and create a new one.

Maybe like a labor union you can go on strike.  In your case making a group statement that you will not attend these charade sessions any more unless you can challenge Trump (and his mouthpieces) on his lies.   Of course, he wouldn’t allow that……………………

…..so what’s next?  I don’t know.  That’s your job to figure it out.

Still Waiting for Mueller to Testify to Congress

The Trump extravaganza of issues keeps expanding exponentially, but short of a noteworthy military conflict, I’m still most concerned if and when Special Counsel Robert Mueller will testify to Congress.  I’ve heard May 15 bandied about for a testimony date, but nothing from Mueller about that.

At the moment, my sense is Trump is winning the message game, asserting that the report’s lack of indictments clear the president.  From what I’ve gleaned from many who have read the report, the actual picture is much less flattering.  Even incriminating if you believe over 700 federal prosecutors who have signed a joint letter to that effect.

But we need Mueller to testify in order to substantiate that, as well as showing Attorney General Barr has misinterpreted the findings to the public.  Which in turn has allowed Republicans to parrot it’s a done deal.  Let’s move on.

Linked here is a story from CBS news that delve’s into the question of whether Trump can stop Mueller from testifying once he leaves office (no public date set yet).

I would say the basic conclusion is that while Trump might be able to limit Mueller’s comments to only what he said in the report on the basis of executive privilege, even that argument might not prevail.  In any case, it looks like it comes down to Mueller’s willingness to testify and I can only hope he wants to set the record straight enough to overcome his preference to remain out of the public eye.

Will McGahn and Mueller Testify Before the House?

Trump loves walls, so now he is trying to build another one sealing off his office from Congress.   He has told his people to ignore subpoenas from the committees in the House that are trying to fulfill their constitutional role of oversight, a role the previous Republican controlled House thought was optional.

Of course the Trumpeters are arguing that this is old news made ancient by the completion of the Mueller report, but there is a problem there:  The Mueller report does not come up with the clear cut conclusions the Trumpsters assert.   It is more complicated than that, requiring Mueller to clarify a number of things to Congress.

My first question would be:  Did you believe that you could not actually indict Trump because of a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president?  If Mueller did feel constrained it sheds much light on why no obstruction of justice charges were filed.  Not because Trump was innocent, but because Mueller believed department policy prohibited indictments of the president.

I do not know if Mueller is willing, but I certainly hope he is.  Otherwise the summation of the report made by Trump’s disappointing pick for AG, Robert Barr, may be allowed to stand in many a voter’s mind.  “No Collusion.”  “No Obstruction.”

The report is much more nuanced than that, but those nuances must be fought for in order to survive in a Trumptopia where nuances are ignored or blurred or lied about and in the process critical thinking deformed.  Despite all that he lacks, Trump has proved himself a genius at sloganeering and other tricks to fabricate a false world of “alternative facts.”  He has already gotten the jump on the latest Dem presidential candidate, Joe Biden, labeling him “sleepy Joe,” a guy who lacks the smarts to be president.

The Dems should hold a contest for just the right  label to nail Trumpty Dumpty with.   “Deranged Donald” isn’t bad, borrowed from tweets of conservative George Conway, once a backer of Trump and now one of his harshest critics and, YES!, also the husband of Trump’s Queen of Spin, Kelly Anne.  The perfect couple for a Loony Tune Land (see bottom).

Anyway, I’ve Googled around looking for an indication that 1) Mueller and/or former White House counsel Don McGahn are willing to testify before the House and 2) whether Trump can prevent them from doing so.  I can’t find anything clear cut about that.  However, since neither work for the president anymore and he has already allowed McGahn to testify fully to Mueller (without claiming executive privilege),  I’m thinking both will eventually testify to Congress.

Or should I say I hope to high heavens that is the case.   Ah, but yesterday I heard that Trump helped make McGahn’s testimony more likely, as the Trumpster has accused McGahn of lying to Mueller………..which would be a crime, so I would think McGahn would want to testify again under oath refuting Trump’s claims to the public at large.

Thanks for your help on this Mr. president.


P. S. – By now I would think most if not all of you are aware of how the Trump presidency has placed a lot of stress on the family life of George and Kellyanne Conway.   Both were Trump supporters at the beginning of his presidency, but while Kellyanne defends Trump’s actions daily, George has turned completely against the president, skewering him often on Twitter, even calling for his impeachment.  Want to know more?  Check out this piece from the BBC.

Fox News Found Trump’s Border Crisis Dubious, too. Surprised?

Since the government shutdown continues, with more pressure put on both sides, I figure it is useful to support my blasting of Trump’s phony border crisis with comments from Fox News.  I mean the real news, not the propaganda side of the network headed up by Sean Hannity.

Fox News  is a four letter word, so to speak, to most liberals.   I share some of that feeling.  However, few liberals seem to realize there are also serious news people at Fox whose work equals the best around in my opinion.   News Director Sheppard Smith and prime time interviewer Chris Wallace head up that list.

To give you a sense of  how each stands, Smith has said he didn’t think he would be able to work on the opinion side of the network, while Hannity has called Smith likable but “clueless”.  Meaning, I guess, he doesn’t feel comfortable with “alternative facts.”

I believe Smith actually tries to live up to the “fair and balanced” motto that appears a joke when Hannity and his ilk speak.   And Wallace is arguably the most probing interviewer on television.  His interview of Vladmir Putin was the toughest I’ve ever seen (google it), and such a stark contrast to toady Trump’s fawning over Putin, impressed that the ruthless dictator “denied strongly” Russian interference in our elections.

I like both Smith and Wallace enough to usually tape their programs,  Smith’s at noon PST week days and Wallace’s Fox Sunday News at 11:00 or 4:00 PST Sunday afternoons.

Now let’s look at how they reacted to Trump’s fictional facts about the border emergency.

 

Theatre of the Absurd: The Trumped Up Border Crisis

It’s a new year but the only thing new about the president is his willingness to place even more weight on the phony facts he and his rabid right wing cohorts, like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, have made up.

Some of these “alternative facts” support the idea that we now need a southern border wall so much that Trump has been willing to shut down much of the federal government for weeks, displacing hundreds of thousands of workers and weakening key services in hopes the Democrats will submit to his demands for wall funding.

That’s Trump’s idea of deal making:  You succumb to his demands or get blamed for an unwillingness to negotiate.

Trump hasn’t acted like the wall was an emergency through his first two years in office.  It’s an emergency now because the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter are calling him a phony for failing to act.  Since he can’t get his way with Congress,  calling the building of a wall an emergency may be his only way to escape the box he has placed himself in.

The matter would likely head straight to the courts, the government could be reopened and Trump can tell Rush and Anne and his base in general he really tried.

We don’t need a southern wall.  Trump needs one to quiet his critical supporters.  The Democrats are right to refuse to succumb, for the wall makes no sense.

Here are a few of facts from government sources that undermine his arguments for a wall:

1)  The overwhelming quantity of drugs come across the border at points of entry not through the wilderness that Trump wants to fence off.  Better search methods are needed, not a fence.

2)   Despite Trump’s claim of thousands of terrorist suspects coming across the southern border, federal government reports suggest it was more like six in the first half of 2018.  Yes, six.  Forty-some came across the northern border that nobody talks about.   Should we build a wall there, too?  And first?

3)  Most foreign terrorist suspects come into the country legally and then just overstay their visas.

4)  Since 9/11, the large majority of terrorists attacks in the U. S. have come from home grown types who have become radicalized not from foreigners infiltrating our borders.

Certainly we could use better border security, not to mention a more humane way of treating  the large increase of those simply seeking political asylum, but Trump’s wall seems to address none of these issues.  It is a fake answer to our real border problems, not only a wasted effort but one that distracts from real needs to be addressed.

The five billion or so dollars he is demanding to start the wall is really, just a start.  Estimates from 40 to 80 billion or more have been made for the total cost.  So, this fake answer to a phony problem is also going to cost us a fortune.

By the way, I watched a clip of Trump at the border being given a briefing by border security.  The officer was showing slides of a tunnel they recently discovered under a section of the wall already built.  Trump just sat there nodding as if unaware the border agent had just provided one more tunnel undermining his argument for a wall.

No matter to him.  It is all a Trump fabrication to shore up his base with a false solution to a mischaracterized problem.