Verbal attacks and repeated tweets slamming "fake news" don't seem to be influencing media coverage of presidential talk and actions, so the campaign has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times claiming that an op-ed column on Russian interference in the U.S. electoral process was libelous.
It's a waste of time, for three reasons, all of which are valid legal defenses against any libel accusation: It's true, it's provably true, and the story was printed without malice.
First, several government agencies have documented examples of Russian interference in the election, and that also meets the second legal defense.
As for the third defense, the column was an opinion piece, printed on the op-ed (opposite editorial) page of the newspaper, so whether there was malice or not in the piece is not relevant. It was not a news story.
The first legal defense was established in New York during the Colonial era, when a newspaper printed a story that the governor at the time was having an affair with a woman who was not his wife. The governor sued, charging it was a "false libel." The defense argued that the report of the affair was true, many people knew it was true, and therefore, if it's true, it's not libel.
The third defense was established in the 20th Century, also involving a New York newspaper, which carried an ad criticizing an anti-civil rights activist. The activist sued the New York Times news department for running the ad. It turned out that while the complaint was valid, the news department was not involved in what the advertising department accepted for printing. Separation of the two departments is common among newspapers, so neither the news department nor the editorial/opinion department was liable for what an advertiser chooses to submit.
If there was any malice, it was on the part of the group that took out the ad, not the newspaper or any of its departments. Realistically, the main reason the complainant sued the New York Times was likely because the corporation had more money than the activist group that bought the ad. And yes, that is an opinion.
It would seem, then, that the Trumpians are trying to control what American newspapers print about the current president. This is just the latest example of that strategy. But this time it means overthrowing the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Or as we say in New Jersey, it ain't gonna happen.
Also today, the president held a press conference in the White House briefing room at 6:30 p.m., the same time that TV networks broadcast their nightly news programs. The major cable news operations did carry the press conference, but the network programs did not.
It has been months since the administration formally met the press in the White House briefing room, and only the second time that the president himself has appeared there, so if this was an attempt to control the media, it didn't work.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Monday, February 24, 2020
Loyalty Oaf
The government has a new intelligence chief, whose only qualification for the position seems to be a fierce loyalty to the president. This the flip side of the "enemies list" compiled at the White House, naming people to be ousted from their high level positions.
This is part of the house cleaning undertaken by the White House since the president secured a "not guilty" decision after the Senate impeachment trial.
The list of those already ousted is quite long, according to published reports, and whose primary flaw was insufficient loyalty to the president. They are being replaced by others whose loyalty to the president overcomes any question or doubt as to their skill, ability or qualification to actually do the job.
But perhaps that's the plan. With incompetence and loyalty being the only qualification for these high level government jobs, that means any and all decisions will be made by the president himself alone.
This comes the same day that the president, on a visit to India, tweeted praise for the stock market performance as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 1,000 points.
One wonders where he gets his news reports. Must be from his newly named ultra-loyal advisors and department chiefs. Others who had a habit of speaking truth and fact to the president have all been fired.
This is part of the house cleaning undertaken by the White House since the president secured a "not guilty" decision after the Senate impeachment trial.
The list of those already ousted is quite long, according to published reports, and whose primary flaw was insufficient loyalty to the president. They are being replaced by others whose loyalty to the president overcomes any question or doubt as to their skill, ability or qualification to actually do the job.
But perhaps that's the plan. With incompetence and loyalty being the only qualification for these high level government jobs, that means any and all decisions will be made by the president himself alone.
This comes the same day that the president, on a visit to India, tweeted praise for the stock market performance as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 1,000 points.
One wonders where he gets his news reports. Must be from his newly named ultra-loyal advisors and department chiefs. Others who had a habit of speaking truth and fact to the president have all been fired.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Election Roaring
The presidential election is off to a roaring start, with Democratic candidates roaring at each other and the Republican president roaring at everyone.
As for issues such as the economy, health care and climate change, they are often lost in the uproar. It's not that they are silent, but the noise about the personalities and their fitness for office is nearing the level that many voters find deafening, so they mentally turn off their hearing as well as their TV sets.
That does not, however, lessen their importance. Sadly, they are relegated to a side room in the chamber of horrors that the election season has become.
TV commentators now spend much -- if not most -- of their time dissecting the results of the polls that are announced daily -- several polls each day.
Lost in the scramble for a brief mention on the daily news programs is the underlying truth that poll results are little more than snapshots -- a single frame in the moving picture of an election campaign.
Pollsters try to point out that their results show only what a small number of people believe for a brief time on a single day. An hour later, and for a myriad of reasons, these beliefs can change, and often do.
Nevertheless, as they struggle for material to fill time on their news programs, broadcast journalists display an enthusiasm for the veracity of poll results that is not supported or warranted by the stability of the results.
Unless a collection of poll results gathered by responsible, politically neutral independent pollsters show a pattern or a trend.
But even that can change the next day.
As for issues such as the economy, health care and climate change, they are often lost in the uproar. It's not that they are silent, but the noise about the personalities and their fitness for office is nearing the level that many voters find deafening, so they mentally turn off their hearing as well as their TV sets.
That does not, however, lessen their importance. Sadly, they are relegated to a side room in the chamber of horrors that the election season has become.
TV commentators now spend much -- if not most -- of their time dissecting the results of the polls that are announced daily -- several polls each day.
Lost in the scramble for a brief mention on the daily news programs is the underlying truth that poll results are little more than snapshots -- a single frame in the moving picture of an election campaign.
Pollsters try to point out that their results show only what a small number of people believe for a brief time on a single day. An hour later, and for a myriad of reasons, these beliefs can change, and often do.
Nevertheless, as they struggle for material to fill time on their news programs, broadcast journalists display an enthusiasm for the veracity of poll results that is not supported or warranted by the stability of the results.
Unless a collection of poll results gathered by responsible, politically neutral independent pollsters show a pattern or a trend.
But even that can change the next day.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Pardon Me?
Roger Stone has joined the list of presidential buddies facing prison for misdeeds perpetrated while in office. But after the president's rash of pardons issued earlier this week, the question now is whether Stone will also join the list of those drawing a get out of jail free card.
The federal judge who sentenced Stone emphasized that her decision was not political, but was based on the facts of the case. Nonetheless, presidential allies quickly called it just that -- political.
The day before the sentence was given, the president pronounced himself the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Technically, this may be true, but the Constitution refers to the president as the chief executive officer, which means he is responsible for carrying out laws approved by Congress, and applies only to federal laws. The president cannot pardon or commute punishments imposed by state courts.
Already, about a dozen people were cut loose earlier this week, prompting speculation that the president will also pardon another half-dozen senior administration officials who were convicted of or admitted to various federal offenses.
So now what? Commentators pointed to the connections those already jailed have with other senior officials close to the president, and suggested that even the president himself is involved with the machinations engineered by those already convicted.
Another question: When it comes down to a worst case, can the president pardon himself?
The federal judge who sentenced Stone emphasized that her decision was not political, but was based on the facts of the case. Nonetheless, presidential allies quickly called it just that -- political.
The day before the sentence was given, the president pronounced himself the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Technically, this may be true, but the Constitution refers to the president as the chief executive officer, which means he is responsible for carrying out laws approved by Congress, and applies only to federal laws. The president cannot pardon or commute punishments imposed by state courts.
Already, about a dozen people were cut loose earlier this week, prompting speculation that the president will also pardon another half-dozen senior administration officials who were convicted of or admitted to various federal offenses.
So now what? Commentators pointed to the connections those already jailed have with other senior officials close to the president, and suggested that even the president himself is involved with the machinations engineered by those already convicted.
Another question: When it comes down to a worst case, can the president pardon himself?
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Pardon Ruckus
The president blitzed the news media with eleven pardons, including for several high profile people known to be his buddies. To be fair, several of those getting out of federal prison early were deserving of the early release, such as a woman sentenced to a lengthy prison term because her apartment was used by others to sell marijuana.
But it was the national names that got the most attention, including that of Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor who appeared on television when the president was doing that show, as well as Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner. Also getting a get out of jail card were financier Michael Milken and Edward DeBartolo Jr., the former owner of the San Francisco 49ers pro football team.
But it was the national names that got the most attention, including that of Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor who appeared on television when the president was doing that show, as well as Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner. Also getting a get out of jail card were financier Michael Milken and Edward DeBartolo Jr., the former owner of the San Francisco 49ers pro football team.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Diss Barr
When the attorney general stepped in to tell federal prosecutors their sentence recommendation for a Trump buddy was too high and should be lowered, more than a thousand former DOJ officials went ballistic and called on AG William Barr to resign.
No one should get "special treatment because they are a close political ally of the president," they said in a letter to the AG made public Sunday.
"Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice," they wrote, adding that when governments use their "enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies, they are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies."
A week ago, the Justice Department urged a prison sentence of up to nine years for Roger Stone, a Trump ally, on charges of witness tampering.
That was immediately followed by a tweet from the president calling the recommendation "horrible and very unfair."
The next day, the DOJ intervened and called for a lighter sentence. That led the four prosecutors assigned to the case to quit.
And the day after that, the president praised Barr for "taking charge" of the case.
This week, the federal judge overseeing the case will decide on punishment.
No one should get "special treatment because they are a close political ally of the president," they said in a letter to the AG made public Sunday.
"Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice," they wrote, adding that when governments use their "enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies, they are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies."
A week ago, the Justice Department urged a prison sentence of up to nine years for Roger Stone, a Trump ally, on charges of witness tampering.
That was immediately followed by a tweet from the president calling the recommendation "horrible and very unfair."
The next day, the DOJ intervened and called for a lighter sentence. That led the four prosecutors assigned to the case to quit.
And the day after that, the president praised Barr for "taking charge" of the case.
This week, the federal judge overseeing the case will decide on punishment.
Vindictive Kingdom Coming?
"So who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- President Groucho
Let's hope that reports of a vindictive president firing anyone who dares tell truth about him under oath to Congress are, in one of his favorite phrases, "fake news."
These reports are not true, they didn't really happen, but were made up by some small-minded people in a back room of the New York Times or the Washington Post and spread by a conspiracy of dunces to every other newspaper, magazine, radio and television operation, not just in the U.S. but also in Canada, Britain, Ireland and other nations and languages worldwide.
Can you say, "paranoid"?
As if the Wall Street Journal and USA Today were also part of the conspiracy. As if the Associated Press and the BBC were also in on the plot.
This all means that the events millions of people see on live television are all figments of bruised imaginations, and the only real truth is on the president's own Twitter feed.
Just as there is real news and "fake news," apparently there can also be "real truth" and "fake truth."
Let's hope that reports of a vindictive president firing anyone who dares tell truth about him under oath to Congress are, in one of his favorite phrases, "fake news."
These reports are not true, they didn't really happen, but were made up by some small-minded people in a back room of the New York Times or the Washington Post and spread by a conspiracy of dunces to every other newspaper, magazine, radio and television operation, not just in the U.S. but also in Canada, Britain, Ireland and other nations and languages worldwide.
Can you say, "paranoid"?
As if the Wall Street Journal and USA Today were also part of the conspiracy. As if the Associated Press and the BBC were also in on the plot.
This all means that the events millions of people see on live television are all figments of bruised imaginations, and the only real truth is on the president's own Twitter feed.
Just as there is real news and "fake news," apparently there can also be "real truth" and "fake truth."
Viral Outrage
Opponents went ballistic over the weekend after the president compared himself to a king by retweeting a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote that said, "When you strike at the King, you must kill him."
The quote appeared in a New York Times column on the impeachment issue and noted that the president emerged "triumphant" after a Senate trial.
Except that the column, by NYT columnist Peter Baker, cited the original quote by Plato, which referred to "a king," not "the King," and it was critical of the president's attitudes and actions.
Replacing and rewriting quotes is either grammatical ignorance or a deliberate attempt to assume a mantle of monarchy. Neither would be a surprise, given the president's history of misusing and distorting facts to suit his agenda -- assuming he has one.
The quote appeared in a New York Times column on the impeachment issue and noted that the president emerged "triumphant" after a Senate trial.
Except that the column, by NYT columnist Peter Baker, cited the original quote by Plato, which referred to "a king," not "the King," and it was critical of the president's attitudes and actions.
Replacing and rewriting quotes is either grammatical ignorance or a deliberate attempt to assume a mantle of monarchy. Neither would be a surprise, given the president's history of misusing and distorting facts to suit his agenda -- assuming he has one.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Word Warriors
The war of words between the president and the news media is escalating, even as traditional journalists do their best to stay neutral and report just the facts.
But the reality is that facts alone are so egregiously beyond the pale of normal political behavior that simple recitation of the names of those who have been fired or who have quit their government posts in just the past few days since the president's impeachment victory is like a list of battlefield casualties.
A larger reality, however, is that reporting the president's comments as he attacks those who disagree with him, and pours lavish praise on those do his bidding is comparable to describing the actions of an incipient dictator.
The president's comments as he does his thing, however, support the conclusion that he is determined that everyone do everything his way all the time and never disagree or contradict what he says and does or face dire consequences peppered with insults and vilification.
Perhaps there's a sign on his Oval Office desk: "Do it my way or else."
Consider his history of making public comments such as, "The Constitution says I can do whatever I want." Or that "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes." Or his almost daily displays of ignorance, arrogance, vindictiveness and foul-mouthed lies.
Yet his supporters in Congress and among voters continue to believe in him and what he says and does.
Therefore, it falls to the independent news media to expose his incompetence and lies because it is the public's right to know and it is journalism's constitutional duty to do so.
Failure to do that will only lead to a dictatorship.
That can't happen, many will say.
Historians will point out that it already has, several times, in other countries. But that was then, and that was there, many will insist. It can't happen here. Not in America.
The same historians will say that even in America, it very nearly did. Twice. And as for saying that the novel of that name, "It Can't Happen Here," was only fiction, remember that it was based on historical reality. It very nearly did happen here.
So what defenses do journalists and the general public have to fend off impending political disaster?
Impeachment didn't work, and only led to retaliation. Public exposure of the political danger can work, however, if voters take heed.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke
But the reality is that facts alone are so egregiously beyond the pale of normal political behavior that simple recitation of the names of those who have been fired or who have quit their government posts in just the past few days since the president's impeachment victory is like a list of battlefield casualties.
A larger reality, however, is that reporting the president's comments as he attacks those who disagree with him, and pours lavish praise on those do his bidding is comparable to describing the actions of an incipient dictator.
The president's comments as he does his thing, however, support the conclusion that he is determined that everyone do everything his way all the time and never disagree or contradict what he says and does or face dire consequences peppered with insults and vilification.
Perhaps there's a sign on his Oval Office desk: "Do it my way or else."
Consider his history of making public comments such as, "The Constitution says I can do whatever I want." Or that "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes." Or his almost daily displays of ignorance, arrogance, vindictiveness and foul-mouthed lies.
Yet his supporters in Congress and among voters continue to believe in him and what he says and does.
Therefore, it falls to the independent news media to expose his incompetence and lies because it is the public's right to know and it is journalism's constitutional duty to do so.
Failure to do that will only lead to a dictatorship.
That can't happen, many will say.
Historians will point out that it already has, several times, in other countries. But that was then, and that was there, many will insist. It can't happen here. Not in America.
The same historians will say that even in America, it very nearly did. Twice. And as for saying that the novel of that name, "It Can't Happen Here," was only fiction, remember that it was based on historical reality. It very nearly did happen here.
So what defenses do journalists and the general public have to fend off impending political disaster?
Impeachment didn't work, and only led to retaliation. Public exposure of the political danger can work, however, if voters take heed.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke
Trump Hires Big Brother
Buried behind all the government gobbledygook in an executive order signed by the president is a plan to monitor where people are, what they're doing and who they're talking to in the name of "making America safe."
It's called "Strengthening national resilience through responsible use of positioning, navigation, and timing services," which the executive order called "important steps to help secure America's critical infrastructure."
Say what?
The plan would pull together services provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and integrate them with private sector monitoring systems to promote better use of government systems.
The newly revised system will be available free to public and private sector entities nationwide, fulfilling the president's promise to "make America safe and resilient."
The end result is that Big Brother will monitor your devices and will know where you are, what you bought and how much you paid, who you're talking to and for how long. The good part is that authorities will be able to track those intent on harm. The not-so-good part is that they will be tracking everyone.
It's called "Strengthening national resilience through responsible use of positioning, navigation, and timing services," which the executive order called "important steps to help secure America's critical infrastructure."
Say what?
The plan would pull together services provided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and integrate them with private sector monitoring systems to promote better use of government systems.
The newly revised system will be available free to public and private sector entities nationwide, fulfilling the president's promise to "make America safe and resilient."
The end result is that Big Brother will monitor your devices and will know where you are, what you bought and how much you paid, who you're talking to and for how long. The good part is that authorities will be able to track those intent on harm. The not-so-good part is that they will be tracking everyone.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Intra-Tribal Quarrels
"I quit."
A few hours after the announcement that Trump ally Roger Stone would likely be sentenced to 7 to 9 years in prison on seven felony counts alleging interference with Congressional investigations, the president called it "ridiculous ... horrible ... very unfair" and that "the real crimes were on the other side."
Soon after that, the Department of Justice backed off the sentence recommendation and asked the judge to reconsider. Almost immediately, four prosecutors assigned to the case quit in protest.
Typically, defense attorneys ask for leniency if they believe the proposed sentence would be too harsh. Legal observers, however, called it extremely rare for top brass to overturn their own staff sentence recommendation.
Speculation immediately sprouted that the DOJ leadership was in league with the president in calling for a lighter sentence.
This adds four more names to the list of government staffers resigning rather than follow directions from the president which they believe are out of line with tradition and law.
A few hours after the announcement that Trump ally Roger Stone would likely be sentenced to 7 to 9 years in prison on seven felony counts alleging interference with Congressional investigations, the president called it "ridiculous ... horrible ... very unfair" and that "the real crimes were on the other side."
Soon after that, the Department of Justice backed off the sentence recommendation and asked the judge to reconsider. Almost immediately, four prosecutors assigned to the case quit in protest.
Typically, defense attorneys ask for leniency if they believe the proposed sentence would be too harsh. Legal observers, however, called it extremely rare for top brass to overturn their own staff sentence recommendation.
Speculation immediately sprouted that the DOJ leadership was in league with the president in calling for a lighter sentence.
This adds four more names to the list of government staffers resigning rather than follow directions from the president which they believe are out of line with tradition and law.
Monday, February 10, 2020
Tribal Diatribe
Words are getting stronger as Americans try to deal with a revolving door for White House staffers.
But as some former members join the ranks of the unemployed and become more vocal in their criticism of the president, his supporters become even more adamant in his defense and sharper in their attacks on his critics.
The president is "a full-blown lunatic," former spokesman Anthony Scaramucci told students at Trinity College during a visit to Dublin, Ireland, according to a report in the Irish Times daily newspaper.
And a political action committee that supports the president has called for Republican Sen. Mitt Romney to be recalled from his elected post after he voted with Democrats to convict the president of the impeachment charges and oust him from the White House. The move did not give any specific reasons for recalling Romney, other than to attack him for not supporting the president.
TV commentators, meanwhile, display a list of White House staffers who have hit the revolving door, along with the length of time they lasted on the job. The record for the shortest time is held by Scaramucci, who lasted 11 days.
But as some former members join the ranks of the unemployed and become more vocal in their criticism of the president, his supporters become even more adamant in his defense and sharper in their attacks on his critics.
The president is "a full-blown lunatic," former spokesman Anthony Scaramucci told students at Trinity College during a visit to Dublin, Ireland, according to a report in the Irish Times daily newspaper.
And a political action committee that supports the president has called for Republican Sen. Mitt Romney to be recalled from his elected post after he voted with Democrats to convict the president of the impeachment charges and oust him from the White House. The move did not give any specific reasons for recalling Romney, other than to attack him for not supporting the president.
TV commentators, meanwhile, display a list of White House staffers who have hit the revolving door, along with the length of time they lasted on the job. The record for the shortest time is held by Scaramucci, who lasted 11 days.
Saturday, February 8, 2020
Payback Time
"You're fired."
The first signs of the president's retaliation against those who testified against him in the impeachment proceedings came as he told Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman his services were "no longer needed" as a White House advisor on Ukraine.
He was immediately "escorted from the building" as Col. Vindman's lawyer phrased it. TV cameras showed him being searched by White House guards as he left.
It could not have come as a surprise to the career military officer, since he acknowledged during his Congressional testimony that he was prepared for retaliation for "doing the right thing," as he said at the end of his statement to a House investigatory panel.
Nevertheless, the reaction to the firing cascaded through the internet and on TV programs with words like "vengeance" and "vindictive."
It's not likely, however, that the colonel will be discharged from the Army. But whether he returns to duty and a significant position remains to be seen.
His twin brother was also removed from his White House job at the same time.
For now, White House watchers anticipate there will be more personnel fired from their jobs for their roles, if any, in cooperating with the impeachment probe.
The first signs of the president's retaliation against those who testified against him in the impeachment proceedings came as he told Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman his services were "no longer needed" as a White House advisor on Ukraine.
He was immediately "escorted from the building" as Col. Vindman's lawyer phrased it. TV cameras showed him being searched by White House guards as he left.
It could not have come as a surprise to the career military officer, since he acknowledged during his Congressional testimony that he was prepared for retaliation for "doing the right thing," as he said at the end of his statement to a House investigatory panel.
Nevertheless, the reaction to the firing cascaded through the internet and on TV programs with words like "vengeance" and "vindictive."
It's not likely, however, that the colonel will be discharged from the Army. But whether he returns to duty and a significant position remains to be seen.
His twin brother was also removed from his White House job at the same time.
For now, White House watchers anticipate there will be more personnel fired from their jobs for their roles, if any, in cooperating with the impeachment probe.
Friday, February 7, 2020
Will the GOP Survive?
Public and news media attention will now focus on the election campaign and how the president will translate his victory over impeachment to approval of his strategy and tactics in treating those who disagree with him.
Some observers compare the president's attitudes and comments to those of a dictator attempting to solidify his control of government, while others see the decline and fall of the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, there is the possibility that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a devout Mormon who split with party unity to vote "Guilty" in the impeachment trial, will appeal to other Republicans who acknowledge the president's wrong-doing but insist it fell short of removing him from office. These nay-sayers suggest it will be up to voters in the November presidential election to do that.
With that in mind, there is the possibility that the party will reject Trump and nominate Romney as its candidate for president. Or that the party will split, with one of the aspirants forming a new political party. That split could well assure a Democratic victory in November. And in a longer view, the Republican Party itself may expire as a viable political party.
Stay tuned.
Some observers compare the president's attitudes and comments to those of a dictator attempting to solidify his control of government, while others see the decline and fall of the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, there is the possibility that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a devout Mormon who split with party unity to vote "Guilty" in the impeachment trial, will appeal to other Republicans who acknowledge the president's wrong-doing but insist it fell short of removing him from office. These nay-sayers suggest it will be up to voters in the November presidential election to do that.
With that in mind, there is the possibility that the party will reject Trump and nominate Romney as its candidate for president. Or that the party will split, with one of the aspirants forming a new political party. That split could well assure a Democratic victory in November. And in a longer view, the Republican Party itself may expire as a viable political party.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Sore Winner
The president celebrated his victory over an impeachment attempt with an hour-long rambling diatribe against his critics, live on nationwide television, heavy on insults and sprinkled with an obscenity.
He entered the East Room of the White House to a recording of "Hail to the chief, who in triumph advances," preceded by four Ruffles and Flourishes, a musical salute usually reserved for formal occasions.
Whether this was an occasion important enough to justify the use of the musical salute usually reserved for the formal entrance of the chief of state, or that it was a bid by Team Trump to salve his bruised ego is another question.
Listeners were reminded of the chant of "Four more years" when he entered the House of Representatives for his State of the Union speech, as well as the chant of "Hail Trump" used by some of his white nationalist supporters during another rally in November 2016, soon after his election.
Earlier, he attacked his opponents during a speech to the yearly Prayer Breakfast sponsored by religious organizations. This brought criticism from many observers that the remarks were inappropriate, and that he should have focused instead on the need to accept difficulties, learn from them and move on.
Also this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called his State of the Union speech "beneath the dignity of the White House and an insult" to the House of Representatives to use the venue for a campaign rally speech.
At the beginning of the session, the president refused to greet Pelosi with a handshake as he handed her a copy of his speech. And at the end of the speech, Pelosi tore up her copy.
When questioned about that, she called the speech "a manifest of mistruths." She listed some of them, especially his claim that he inherited an economy that was "a mess." Rather, she pointed out that the recovery from the Great Recession had begun during his predecessor's term, and that "he inherited a momentum," which is continuing.
And during his celebratory speech in the East Room of the White House, rather than offer some hope for a better relationship with Congress, he offered instead "an apology to my family for having to go through a phony and rotten deal by some very sick people."
The East Room was packed with supporters of the president, and media representatives were restricted to the back of the room.
He entered the East Room of the White House to a recording of "Hail to the chief, who in triumph advances," preceded by four Ruffles and Flourishes, a musical salute usually reserved for formal occasions.
Whether this was an occasion important enough to justify the use of the musical salute usually reserved for the formal entrance of the chief of state, or that it was a bid by Team Trump to salve his bruised ego is another question.
Listeners were reminded of the chant of "Four more years" when he entered the House of Representatives for his State of the Union speech, as well as the chant of "Hail Trump" used by some of his white nationalist supporters during another rally in November 2016, soon after his election.
Earlier, he attacked his opponents during a speech to the yearly Prayer Breakfast sponsored by religious organizations. This brought criticism from many observers that the remarks were inappropriate, and that he should have focused instead on the need to accept difficulties, learn from them and move on.
Also this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called his State of the Union speech "beneath the dignity of the White House and an insult" to the House of Representatives to use the venue for a campaign rally speech.
At the beginning of the session, the president refused to greet Pelosi with a handshake as he handed her a copy of his speech. And at the end of the speech, Pelosi tore up her copy.
When questioned about that, she called the speech "a manifest of mistruths." She listed some of them, especially his claim that he inherited an economy that was "a mess." Rather, she pointed out that the recovery from the Great Recession had begun during his predecessor's term, and that "he inherited a momentum," which is continuing.
And during his celebratory speech in the East Room of the White House, rather than offer some hope for a better relationship with Congress, he offered instead "an apology to my family for having to go through a phony and rotten deal by some very sick people."
The East Room was packed with supporters of the president, and media representatives were restricted to the back of the room.
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
A Date to Live in History
Not guilty.
To no one's surprise, the Senate voted to acquit the president of the charges filed against him in the articles of impeachment. What was a surprise, however, was that Mitt Romney, a Republican senator from Utah and a former presidential candidate, voted "guilty" on the first of the two impeachment charges -- abuse of power.
The repercussions of his decision may well be abusive against him and his family, but he cited his religious beliefs in the importance of right and wrong that were a major factor in his decision. Romney is a devout Mormon.
The final vote was 52-48, as more than half the senators voted for acquittal. Conviction would require a two-thirds majority -- 67 guilty votes.
On the second charge, defiance of subpoenas and obstruction of Congress, Romney voted with his fellow Republicans to clear the president of the allegation that defiance of congressional subpoenas equaled abuse of power. The final vote on that charge was 53 not guilty, and 47 guilty.
Many of the president's supporters acknowledge that he did in fact do many of the things he was accused of doing in the impeachment charges, but that they did not rise to the level needed to remove him from office.
Instead, they said, the decision should be left up to voters in the coming election. To convict him now and remove him from office, they argued, would be to nullify the previous election.
A swift reaction from editorialists hinged largely on the idea that the verdict amounted to permission for the president -- any president -- to do whatever he likes, regardless of law or tradition. Or, as Trump himself claimed, "Article Two of the Constitution says I can do whatever I want."
The White House said the president would make a public announcement on his reaction tomorrow, Thursday, February 6.
To no one's surprise, the Senate voted to acquit the president of the charges filed against him in the articles of impeachment. What was a surprise, however, was that Mitt Romney, a Republican senator from Utah and a former presidential candidate, voted "guilty" on the first of the two impeachment charges -- abuse of power.
The repercussions of his decision may well be abusive against him and his family, but he cited his religious beliefs in the importance of right and wrong that were a major factor in his decision. Romney is a devout Mormon.
The final vote was 52-48, as more than half the senators voted for acquittal. Conviction would require a two-thirds majority -- 67 guilty votes.
On the second charge, defiance of subpoenas and obstruction of Congress, Romney voted with his fellow Republicans to clear the president of the allegation that defiance of congressional subpoenas equaled abuse of power. The final vote on that charge was 53 not guilty, and 47 guilty.
Many of the president's supporters acknowledge that he did in fact do many of the things he was accused of doing in the impeachment charges, but that they did not rise to the level needed to remove him from office.
Instead, they said, the decision should be left up to voters in the coming election. To convict him now and remove him from office, they argued, would be to nullify the previous election.
A swift reaction from editorialists hinged largely on the idea that the verdict amounted to permission for the president -- any president -- to do whatever he likes, regardless of law or tradition. Or, as Trump himself claimed, "Article Two of the Constitution says I can do whatever I want."
The White House said the president would make a public announcement on his reaction tomorrow, Thursday, February 6.
Four More Years?
Supporters chanted "Four more years" as the president began his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday evening.
It was just one of the signals Team Trump sent to the conservative base that their leader wants to stay on the job.
But perhaps the strongest signal was when Trump awarded the presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, the ultra-conservative talk show host with an audience of millions. The award was made live on national television during the speech.
The award came one day after Limbaugh announced that he has stage four cancer.
Awarding the nation's highest civilian honor to Limbaugh live during prime time on national television will certainly please conservatives, but liberals will see it as a political ploy to distract from the impeachment issue and refocus voter attention on re-election.
Next comes a vote in the Senate on whether to convict the president of the impeachment charges, thereby ordering him out of office.
Many observers believe that's not likely to happen, since a two-thirds vote in the Senate is required, and even though Republicans admit that he did in fact say and do the things listed in the impeachment charges.
Some observers also suggest that even if the Senate does vote to convict, the president may refuse to leave. That would cause a major crisis, both nationally and politically as well as constitutionally. The alternative may be that the Senate vote a formal censure of the president, an expression of their disapproval but short of ousting him from office.
Typically, the president's speech was interrupted repeatedly by applause, but observers stopped counting the number of interruptions several presidents ago after it became clear that the interruptions were not spontaneous but were led by members of the president's team.
This year, the president's speech was punctuated by applause after nearly every sentence. Moreover, the applause did not gradually subside, but stopped instantly, a clear sign that it was being led by a single conductor.
It was just one of the signals Team Trump sent to the conservative base that their leader wants to stay on the job.
But perhaps the strongest signal was when Trump awarded the presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, the ultra-conservative talk show host with an audience of millions. The award was made live on national television during the speech.
The award came one day after Limbaugh announced that he has stage four cancer.
Awarding the nation's highest civilian honor to Limbaugh live during prime time on national television will certainly please conservatives, but liberals will see it as a political ploy to distract from the impeachment issue and refocus voter attention on re-election.
Next comes a vote in the Senate on whether to convict the president of the impeachment charges, thereby ordering him out of office.
Many observers believe that's not likely to happen, since a two-thirds vote in the Senate is required, and even though Republicans admit that he did in fact say and do the things listed in the impeachment charges.
Some observers also suggest that even if the Senate does vote to convict, the president may refuse to leave. That would cause a major crisis, both nationally and politically as well as constitutionally. The alternative may be that the Senate vote a formal censure of the president, an expression of their disapproval but short of ousting him from office.
Typically, the president's speech was interrupted repeatedly by applause, but observers stopped counting the number of interruptions several presidents ago after it became clear that the interruptions were not spontaneous but were led by members of the president's team.
This year, the president's speech was punctuated by applause after nearly every sentence. Moreover, the applause did not gradually subside, but stopped instantly, a clear sign that it was being led by a single conductor.
Monday, February 3, 2020
Gloat Rack
Look for the Senate to formally censure the president for what members have called "inappropriate behavior" as described in the articles of impeachment.
Senators will likely do this rather than find him guilty of the charges, which would remove him from office and forbid him from holding any other federal office in the future.
Republicans have said he probably did do the things he was accused of doing, but they claimed the actions and comments did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that impeachment calls for.
Therefore, Republican thinking goes, convicting him of the charges would be too extreme. Not only that, but observers suggest that doing so would be a concession to Democrats that they were right, and politically that would be too much for them to deal with in this election year.
This will depend partly on what, if anything, the president says about the impeachment trial during his State of the Union address to the nation Tuesday evening. A Senate vote on whether to convict him of the impeachment charges is scheduled for Wednesday.
So if he gloats of his victory the day before it happens, that may be the final straw for reluctant Republicans to bear. And rather than convict him and oust him from office -- a first for the nation -- Senators would censure him as a way to avoid the issue and "let the voters decide" on Election Day in November whether he stays in office.
Senators will likely do this rather than find him guilty of the charges, which would remove him from office and forbid him from holding any other federal office in the future.
Republicans have said he probably did do the things he was accused of doing, but they claimed the actions and comments did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that impeachment calls for.
Therefore, Republican thinking goes, convicting him of the charges would be too extreme. Not only that, but observers suggest that doing so would be a concession to Democrats that they were right, and politically that would be too much for them to deal with in this election year.
This will depend partly on what, if anything, the president says about the impeachment trial during his State of the Union address to the nation Tuesday evening. A Senate vote on whether to convict him of the impeachment charges is scheduled for Wednesday.
So if he gloats of his victory the day before it happens, that may be the final straw for reluctant Republicans to bear. And rather than convict him and oust him from office -- a first for the nation -- Senators would censure him as a way to avoid the issue and "let the voters decide" on Election Day in November whether he stays in office.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Acquittal Equals Approval
Acquittal equals approval.
That's the conclusion of the Trumpistas, so not only will the president continue what he has been doing, but is likely to accelerate what he says and does in governing the country.
Moreover, it will mean that he alone governs the nation, and Congress has sublimated itself to a secondary role and is bound to do what he says.
Strict Constitutionalists will disagree, of course, and that will be a core issue in the upcoming presidential election, which is only nine months away.
Unlike other court proceedings, where a "not guilty" verdict means the accusations were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and does not translate to "innocent," Republican supporters of the president admit that he did in fact say and do the things listed in the articles of impeachment, but they insist it doesn't matter.
He is the president, they say, and is allowed a broader range of behavior than other citizens.
Or, the president himself has said, "I can do whatever I want."
This contrasts with the Democrats' argument, voiced many times in recent weeks, that no one is above the law. And major media outlets have increasingly compared his attitude to that of King Louis XIV of France: "I am the state." Or, as used by The New Yorker magazine: "L'Etat, c'est Trump."
This week will fill news pages easily. The president recorded an interview with Fox commentator and Trump supporter Sean Hannity, being broadcast the same day as the professional football Super Bowl game.
Monday will see closing arguments about impeachment in the Senate, as Iowans caucus to express the presidential preferences, Tuesday the president is scheduled to deliver his state of the union address, and on Wednesday, the Senate is scheduled for a final vote on impeachment.
Wonder what the president will say about his trial during his speech?
By the way, what does it say about a man who always mocks his opponents about their height? The latest is Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg. What's more important, a person's intelligence and abilities or the size of his ... whatever?
That's the conclusion of the Trumpistas, so not only will the president continue what he has been doing, but is likely to accelerate what he says and does in governing the country.
Moreover, it will mean that he alone governs the nation, and Congress has sublimated itself to a secondary role and is bound to do what he says.
Strict Constitutionalists will disagree, of course, and that will be a core issue in the upcoming presidential election, which is only nine months away.
Unlike other court proceedings, where a "not guilty" verdict means the accusations were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and does not translate to "innocent," Republican supporters of the president admit that he did in fact say and do the things listed in the articles of impeachment, but they insist it doesn't matter.
He is the president, they say, and is allowed a broader range of behavior than other citizens.
Or, the president himself has said, "I can do whatever I want."
This contrasts with the Democrats' argument, voiced many times in recent weeks, that no one is above the law. And major media outlets have increasingly compared his attitude to that of King Louis XIV of France: "I am the state." Or, as used by The New Yorker magazine: "L'Etat, c'est Trump."
This week will fill news pages easily. The president recorded an interview with Fox commentator and Trump supporter Sean Hannity, being broadcast the same day as the professional football Super Bowl game.
Monday will see closing arguments about impeachment in the Senate, as Iowans caucus to express the presidential preferences, Tuesday the president is scheduled to deliver his state of the union address, and on Wednesday, the Senate is scheduled for a final vote on impeachment.
Wonder what the president will say about his trial during his speech?
By the way, what does it say about a man who always mocks his opponents about their height? The latest is Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg. What's more important, a person's intelligence and abilities or the size of his ... whatever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)