Trump the Destroyer: Trump has stuffed his cabinet with tyrants, zealots and imbeciles—all bent on destroying our government from within by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone. Highly recommended.
Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’
During the 2016 election campaign, Bill Clinton had a long conversation with FBI director James Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Later Hillary Clinton said that, if elected, she would re-appoint Lynch.
All this immediately cast suspicion on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified e-mails. Usually, when the FBI is conducting an investigation, its spokesmen say nothing until the investigation is completed, and charges are filed, or not filed.
Comey’s comments about Clinton when the FBI decided not to file charges, and his further comments, may have been an attempt to show he wasn’t a tool of Lynch or the Clintons. His motives are unknowable, of course, but that is my guess.
It didn’t work. Clinton supporters were engaged by his comments, but Trump supporters also were enraged because he didn’t charge Clinton with anything.
His disclosure that the FBI is investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence may mean as little as his disclosure of the investigation of Clinton’s e-mails. The mere fact of an investigation proves nothing. There’s no way to know until the investigation is over.
Here is something Donald Trump said during the Presidential campaign:
“We have spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, … if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems, our airports and all of the other problems we have, we would have been a lot better off — I can tell you that right now,” Trump said. “We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away, and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess.”
Source: The Huffington Post
What he said then was true. But his current policy reflects just the opposite philosophy. His infrastructure program consists of providing tax breaks for contractors, and giving control of public assets to public companies. And it’s not as if he intends to pull back on military intervention in the Middle East.
Trump’s Infrastructure Boondoggle by Mike Whitney for Counterpunch.
Alluring Infrastructure Income by Michael Hudson.
President Trump’s budget calls for tax reductions for the rich, increased spending for the military and police and austerity for everybody else except veterans.
There isn’t enough money for programs of material benefit to the American public (except veterans programs, which I favor), but there is plenty of money for the military and police if the people rise up against the government.
These would be the priorities of an unpopular Third World dictator. It reminds me of something the SF writer Charles Stross once wrote about preemptive counter-revolution.
White House Says Cutting Meals on Wheels Is ‘Compassionate’ by Eric Levitz for New York magazine.
Putting Trump’s Budget in Perspective by Ruth Cuniff for The Progressive. (Hat tip to Bill Harvey)
Here’s How Donald Trump’s Budget Screws Over the People Who Elected Him by Tim Murphy for Mother Jones.
Why Trump’s budget may be ‘devastating’ to his supporters by Peter Grier and Francine Kiefer for the Christian Science Monitor.
Trump’s budget would cut funding for Appalachia – and his allies in coal country are livid by Brad Plumer for Vox [Added 3/21/2017]
Most Wall Street activity is devoted to diverting money from one person’s pockets to another person’s pockets. Most minimum wage workers do things that are directly beneficial to people.
The past financial crash was worse because Wall Street bankers and financiers took risks with other people’s’ money. The coming financial crash will be worse for the same reason.
The Wall Street bonus system is an incentive to take risks, because the managers get to keep the bonuses when they win and they do not have to give them back when they lose.
Democratic war hawks are backing off their charges that Donald Trump’s victory was due to Vladimir Putin’s manipulations.
For war hawks, these charges may have served their purpose in making Trump back off from plans to make peace with Russia, and in casting suspicion on anybody who advocates peace with Russia.
For Democrats, the Russia conspiracy theory provided a basis for attacking Trump personally without having to propose constructive alternatives to his policies. But if investigations produce no evidence of any Trump-Putin collusion, these attacks will backfire.
Update 3/21/2017: Evidently I spoke too soon. Trump opponents seem determined to keep the investigation of Trump-Russia contacts going as long as possible, even though every article I’ve read contains a paragraph somewhere that says there is no evidence of collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence.
I suppose Democrats, war hawks and especially Democratic war hawks think they have nothing to lose by keeping the pressure on, even if nothing significant is uncovered in the end.
FBI director James Comey reported that the FBI has been investigating possible Trump-Russia connections since last July. It will be interesting to know what, if anything, the investigation discovers. The mere fact that an investigation is going on has no more significance that the fact of that Hillary Clinton’s handling of her e-mails was being investigated.
Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Not to Expect Evidence of Trump / Russia Connection by Glenn Greenwald for The Intercept.
The Democrats’ Anti-Russia Campaign Falls Apart by Moon of Alabama.
The Missing Logic of Russia-gate by Robert Parry for Consortium News [Added 3/21/2017]
The GOP is going to try to rush the Russian investigation | Democrats shouldn’t let them by Alex Shephard for The New Republic. The politics of the investigation. [Added 3/21/2017]
His connections with racketeers in the construction business in New York City and in casino gambling in Atlantic City, N.J., were well-known before the election, so it wouldn’t be surprising that he would have dealings with Russian racketeers and oligarchs as well.
I don’t claim—and none of the writers of the linked articles below claim—that there is proof that Donald Trump broke any specific law. The significance of his associations and business deals are as evidence by which the public can judge his character. Of course we voters had plenty of evidence about his character before the 2016 election.
I think it’s possible that Trump’s views about Russia prior to the election were influenced by his Russian cronies. I favor an impartial investigation into whether Trump had any improper ties with Russia.
But I also think this investigation would be pretty much a footnote to what is going on now. We don’t have to speculate about what Trump’s policy toward Russia will be. We see it in action. Trump caved in to the anti-Russia war hawks. Regardless of what Trump’s motives may or may not be, this is a bad thing, not a good thing.
The Curious World of Donald Trump’s Private Russian Connections by James S. Henry for The American Interest.
Did Russian Oligarch Rybolovlev Bailout Trump? an interview of James S. Henry for the Real News Network. (Hat tip to O)
The Florida mansion that Donald Trump sold to a Russian billionaire now torn down by Glen Garvin for McClatchy newspapers.
Donald Trump’s Worst Deal by Adam Davidson for The New Yorker.
How Did an Alleged Russian Mobster End Up on Trump’s Red Carpet? by David Corn and Hannah Levintova for Mother Jones.
The best way to deal with the suspicions and charges that the Trump election campaign colluded with Russians is to appoint a bi-partisan commission of respected individuals to investigate.
This commission should have full authority to read secret transcripts collected by U.S. intelligence agencies and any other classified information relevant to the case, and authority to publish such information as can be done with jeopardizing sources and agents.
It should have full authority to subpoena witnesses and require testimony under penalty of perjury.
It is a federal crime for a foreign national to contribute to a candidate in a U.S. election, or for anyone to solicit or accept such a contribution. This would most definitely include the contribution of secret intelligence information.
If a Presidential candidate knowingly accept foreign help, I would say it is an impeachable offense.
The charter of the bi-partisan commission should be to determine whether there is any evidence that the Trump administration violated federal election law.
Evidence would include transcripts of communications of Russian agents and testimony by Americans regarding secret meetings of Trump operatives and Russian agents, or documents and records in the Trump campaign acknowledging Russian help, or testimony of Trump campaign operatives.
Routine contacts between Trump supporters and Russian diplomats or business people, especially if in public or in front of witnesses, would not be evidence of violation of election laws.
Even past business relationships of Trump operatives or even Trump himself with corrupt Russian oligarchs or business operations would not be such evidence—although very interesting to know.
I think it important that such an investigation be carried out by respected individuals in a bipartisan commission, and not by a special prosecutor who would consider himself or herself a failure if they didn’t find grounds to indict somebody.
During the election campaign, I wrote that Donald Trump is intellectually, temperamentally and morally unfit to be President of the United States. Nothing since then has changed my mind.
But it is not as if Trump overturned a well-functioning system. The United States was already committed to perpetual war and rule by Wall Street.
My friend Bill Elwell called my attention to an article by Tom Engelhardt, who wrote in part:
Odd as it may seem under the circumstances, Trump’s presidency came from somewhere, developed out of something. To think of it (as many of those resisting Trump now seem inclined to do) as uniquely new, the presidential version of a virgin birth, is to defy both history and reality.
Donald Trump, whatever else he may be, is most distinctly a creature of history. He’s unimaginable without it. This, in turn, means that the radical nature of his new presidency should serve as a reminder of just how radical the 15 years after 9/11 actually were in shaping American life, politics and governance.
In that sense, to generalize (if you’ll excuse the pun), his presidency already offers a strikingly vivid and accurate portrait of the America we’ve been living in for some years now, even if we’d prefer to pretend otherwise.
After all, it’s clearly a government of, by and evidently for the billionaires and the generals, which pretty much sums up where we’ve been heading for the last decade and a half anyway.
Let’s start with those generals. In the 15 years before Trump entered the Oval Office, Washington became a permanent war capital; war, a permanent feature of our American world; and the military, the most admired institution of American life, the one in which we have the most confidence among an otherwise fading crew, including the presidency, the Supreme Court, public schools, banks, television news, newspapers, big business and Congress (in that descending order). […]
The Watergate investigation was to determine responsibility for a definite crime—the Watergate burglary and its cover-up. Its result was the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon under threat of impeachment.
The Whitewater investigation was a fishing expedition to find a crime for which President Bill Clinton could be blamed. Its result was a failed impeachment of Clinton for lying about his sex life.
The investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russians is more like the Whitewater investigation than the Watergate investigation.
What you have is reports of conversations between Russian diplomats and politicians and Trump supporters. It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. It is not even suspicious behavior. Talking to foreigners and diplomats is something that Washington politicians and officials do all the time.
The biggest harm the Russian red herring does for progressives is to give Donald Trump a free ride on creating a government of militarists and Wall Street plutocrats.
And his actual policies—tax cuts for the rich, increased spending for the military and austerity for everybody else, privatization of public education and infrastructure, covert attacks on Medicaid, free rein to polluters, attacks on science, climate change denial, and much more..
The following is an open letter to Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, signed by David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and others. The Bertrand Russell Society, of which I am a member, endorses it.
In a dramatic recent decision, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved its iconic Doomsday Clock ahead from three minutes to only two-and-a-half minutes to midnight.
Humankind faces two existential challenges of global and potentially apocalyptic scope: nuclear weapons and climate change.
Our focus here is on nuclear dangers, but we strongly encourage you, Presidents Trump and Putin, to undertake in a spirit of urgency all necessary steps to avert further global warming.
As the leaders of the United States and Russia, the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, you have the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not used — or their use overtly threatened — during your period of leadership.
The most certain and reliable way to fulfill this responsibility is to negotiate with each other, and the other governments of nuclear-armed states, for their total elimination.
The U.S. and Russia are both obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in such negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for complete nuclear disarmament. Your success in this endeavor would make you heroes of the Nuclear Age.
The New Yorker ran a long article about Russian propaganda and how the Russian government sees propaganda as a weapon of war.
The article, though one-sided, contains interesting information. My problem with it is that the writers treat propaganda—including truthful propaganda—as the equivalent of war.
The U.S. government during the past 15 years has waged war by means of aerial bombardment, targeted assassinations, economic sanctions, arming terrorists and warlords and actual invasions of foreign countries that do not threaten us. Russia has done some of the same things, although on a smaller scale.
There is a strong possibility of a military confrontation between Russia and the United States that could risk a nuclear war.
Russian attempts to influence American and European public opinion seem fairly benign in contrast.
Hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer bailed out the Trump campaign last summer when it hit its low point, but that was not the most important thing he did.
The most important thing was to teach Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Jason Miller how to use computer algorithms, artificial intelligence and cyber-bots to target individual voters and shape public opinion.
The Guardian reported that Mercer’s company, Cambridge Analytica, claims to have psychological profiles on 220 million American
voters based on 5,000 separate pieces of data. [Correction: The actual claim was 220 million Americans, not American voters.]
Michal Kosinski, lead scientist for Cambridge University’s Psychometric Centre in England, said that knowing 150 Facebook likes, he can know a person’s personality better than their spouse; with 300 likes, better than the person knows themselves.
Advertisers have long used information from social media to target individuals with messages that push their psychological buttons.
I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked or surprised that political campaigners are doing the same thing.
Bloomberg reported how the Trump campaign targeted idealistic liberals, young women and African-Americans in key states, identified through social media, and fed them negative information about Hillary Clinton in order to persuade them to stay home.
This probably was what gave Trump his narrow margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The other way artificial intelligence was used to elect Trump was the creation of robotic Twitter accounts that automatically linked to Breitbart News and other right-wing news sites.
This gave them a high-ranking on Google and created the illusion—or maybe self-fulfilling prophecy—that they represent a consensus.
Rolling Stone had a good article on how Donald Trump’s policies are go against not only the wishes of a majority of the American public, but also many (not all) of the wishes of a majority of Republican voters.
I think this is interesting, but the fact is that leaders of both political parties have gone against the wishes of the American public for a long time without suffering fatal consequences.
The American public didn’t want the government to bail out Wall Street, but it happened just the same.
Many Americans are so disillusioned with American politics that they no longer are indignant about politicians who break their promises. In the 2016 election, more voters stayed home than voted either Democratic or Republican.
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned after the FBI or NSA revealed that he talked to the Russian ambassador about economic sanctions prior to President Trump being sworn in.
He reportedly asked the Russian ambassador to ask his government hold back on retaliating against President Obama’s economic sanctions because the Trump administration would have a new policy.
President Obama’s actions, taken during his lame-duck period, could have put Russia and the USA on a path of tit-for-tat retaliation that would have made it harder from the Trump administration to improve U.S.-Russian relations later on.
De-escalating was a good thing, not a bad thing.
I agree that General Flynn was not a good choice for the post of national security adviser. He was evidently a brave and honorable commander in the field, but he did not function well at headquarters, for which reason he was fired by President Barack Obama as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
He thinks the West is in a war with the whole Islamic world, not just the Islamic State (ISIS), Al Qaeda and their sympathizers. He is a war hawk regarding Iran. He would have been likely to get the United States into pointless wars—just not a pointless war with Russia.
I would consider his departure, in and of itself, a good thing, but for the fact that he will almost certainly be replaced by someone else just as bad or maybe worse.
The problem is that he was forced out for (1) trying to stop the slide toward military confrontation with Russia, and that the forcing out was done (2) by intelligence agencies with policy agendas different from the White House.
Steve Bannon is President Trump’s most trusted adviser. He is the second most powerful person in the Trump administration.
He is guided by a dangerously wrong philosophy.
He thinks that Judeo-Christian civilization is at war with the Moslem world abroad, and with secularists and Muslims at home.
He expects a shooting war with China and as well as a shooting war in the Middle East.
He sees himself as part of a global nationalist movement that includes the United Kingdom Independence Party, the National Front in France and similar movements across Europe.
Trump owes him. He and Jared Kushner, through their skilled use of data mining and social media, are responsible for Trump’s victory in the 2016 Election.
His idea that Americans are engaged in both a civil war and a global war could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Steve Bannon, born in 1953, has had a varied career as U.S. Naval officer, mergers and acquisitions specialist for Goldman Sachs, and executive producer in Hollywood. He has degrees from Virginia Tech, Georgetown University and Harvard University.
He was a little-known but influential figure even before he joined the Trump campaign. Among his films are documentaries on Ronald Reagan, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin and an expose of Occupy Wall Street. He was on the board of directors of Breitbart News and became executive chair when founder Andrew Breitbart died in 2012. Another Bannon organization sponsored opposition research on Hillary Clinton which resulted in the book, Clinton Cash, and many articles in mainstream newspapers about the Clintons’ conflicts of interest.
Hillary Clinton was not defeated by a white working class uprising in favor of Donald Trump.
And she was not defeated by the defection of liberals and progressives to Jill Stein.
It is important to remember this because merely attacking President Trump (as justified as these attacks may be) will not, in and of itself, bring back the Democratic vote.
You can’t beat something with nothing. Unless Democrats offer a path to prosperity and peace, they will very likely lose and, even if they win, their victories won’t matter.
An interesting behind-the-scenes look at the Donald Trump election campaign, which I just now got around to watching. Click on this for a transcript.
During the election campaign, Donald Trump rightly denounced Hillary Clinton for her ties to Goldman Sachs, the predatory Wall Street banking firm, and especially the three $225,000 speaking fees she took for giving one-hour talks to that company.
Now Trump has put two former Goldman Sachs executives in charge of economic policy—Steve Mnuchin, former Goldman partner, as Secretary of the Treasury, and Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman, as his top economic adviser.
President Trump has put a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the great enemy of concentrated financial power, in his office. But his appointments show that he will be a champion of the moneyed establishment. Those who voted for him in hope he would be a friend to working people are going to be disappointed.
The Goldman Sachs effect: How a bank conquered Washington by Nomi Prins for TomDispatch.
The Vampire Squid Occupies Trump’s White House by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone.
The noteworthy things about President Trump’s decree on Muslim immigration were how unnecessarily cruel it was, how incompetently it was drawn and how it caught everyone by surprise.
The other noteworthy thing was how mass protests against his decree pressured him to back down from one of the worst parts of it—the forbidding of Green card holders and other legal foreign residents from returning to the country if they are out of it.
I think these things will be hallmarks of his administration—that is, cruelty, stupidity and unpredictability, but also vulnerability to public opinion and public pressure. Trump does not have the power of a dictator, although he would like to have it.
Even conservatives who strongly believe in keeping out unauthorized immigrants and immigrants from the Muslim world thought Trump handled this wrongly.
But the most dangerous trait that Trump revealed was unpredictability.
Being unpredictable is a strength when you’re fighting against adversaries, whether on the battlefield, the marketplace or an election campaign. It also is a strength of a showman, which Trump most definitely is.
It is, however, a dangerous trait in the head of government of a great nation. The most important defining characteristic of a free country is the rule of law. People who live in a free country need to be able to know what the laws are, and to know that they are safe so long as they obey the law.
President Donald Trump has banned Syrian refugees from coming to the USA.
But there wouldn’t be any refugees from Syria if the U.S. government hadn’t intentionally destabilized their country.
It is shameful to treat the refugees as if they themselves were to blame for being persecuted and homeless.
Ten years ago, Syria was a country where Middle East refugees fled to, not away from. What changed it was the rebellion, instigated by the U.S. government and spearheaded by the Islamic State (aka ISIS) and the al-Nusra Front, the heirs to Al Qaeda, to overthrow Bashir al-Assad.
People who once led normal lives have been made homeless and exiles by warlords and armed religious fanatics.
The saving grace of President Trump’s order is to make exceptions for religious minorities and Syrians in danger because they worked for Americans.
Christians comprise 10 percent of the population of Syria. The Christian community there goes back to the time of St. Paul. Although Christians are targeted by ISIS and other jihadists, they comprise fewer than 10 percent of refugees—possibly because they’re in danger from Muslim fanatics in the refugee camps. It would be shameful for a nation that is more than 70 percent Christian to turn its back on them.
What needs explaining is not why Donald Trump and his staff tell lies. Many recent leaders have lied.
What needs explaining is why Trump and his staff tell obvious and easily disprovable lies, such as the claim that record numbers of people came to see his inauguration.
My own thought was that it served two purposes. One was to confuse the issue, because most people don’t have the time or resources to check facts. As long as you stick to what you’re saying and never back down, a certain number of people will believe you.
The other purpose was to distract the attention of the press from more serious issues. The time spent by reporters in covering arguments over crowd sizes is time spent not covering things such as Trump’s infrastructure plan.
But economist Tyler Cowen has a more sinister explanation.
By requiring subordinates to speak untruths, a leader can undercut their independent standing, including their standing with the public, with the media and with other members of the administration. That makes those individuals grow more dependent on the leader and less likely to mount independent rebellions against the structure of command. Promoting such chains of lies is a classic tactic when a leader distrusts his subordinates and expects to continue to distrust them in the future.
Another reason for promoting lying is what economists sometimes call loyalty filters. If you want to ascertain if someone is truly loyal to you, ask them to do something outrageous or stupid. If they balk, then you know right away they aren’t fully with you. That too is a sign of incipient mistrust within the ruling clique, and it is part of the same worldview that leads Trump to rely so heavily on family members.
Source: Tyler Cowen – Bloomberg View
During the past six or eight months, it seems as though every conversation on a general topic that I’ve engaged in has come around to the topic of Donald Trump.
Yesterday morning I led a discussion at First Universalist Church on the topic of spirituality. It was a good discussion overall, but the conversation soon drifted to the lack of spirituality of Donald Trump and how people’s spirits were lifted by taking part in protest demonstrations against Trump.
Yesterday evening I took part in a group that is reading and discussing Henryk Sienkiewicz’s Quo Vadis. Sure enough, we soon started talking about the resemblances between Donald Trump and the Emperor Nero.
I don’t hang out with pro-Trump voters on a day-to-day basis, but my guess is that they also are talking about Trump and his opponents.
It is amazing to me how President Trump has managed to dominate public discourse, and on his own terms.
The Washington press yesterday was talking about estimates of crowd sizes. It wasn’t talking about what Trump’s policies will be concerning the economy, the environment or foreign wars. Still less was it talking about what we Americans ought to be doing concerning these issues.
No, the national press—as well as all my friends who get their information from network television—were reacting to Trump’s tweets and sound bites—that is, to an agenda set by Trump. And so is most of the national press, even though in their own minds they are opposed to Trump.
I feel as if I am the target of psychological warfare, intended to induce despair and fear.