“I would like you to do us a favor, though …”

December 10, 2019 • 2:20 pm

by Greg Mayer

Driving home last night, I heard on the radio a clip of a Republican congressman at the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing deriding the proceedings for having no memorable catchphrase. He recalled (inexactly) Republican Senator Howard Baker’s famous question from the Nixon impeachment inquiry, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”, and from the Clinton impeachment, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

He wondered what phrase could possibly epitomize the Trump impeachment inquiry, offering some line about there being no impeachable offenses. It’s hard to know what combination of cluelessness, motivated reasoning, and lack of attention could lead him to arrive at this statement, for the catchphrase immediately leapt to mind. For the Trump impeachment, Trump himself has already produced the memorable phrase by which his impeachment will undoubtedly be remembered: “I would like you to do us a favor, though”.

If you’re looking for a quid pro quo, quod erat demonstrandum.

Trump is insane, melts down over Greenland

August 21, 2019 • 8:00 am

When I first heard that Trump wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark, I thought it was a joke. It wasn’t; he wants its natural resources and its strategic location, though there’s already a big air base there with listening posts. Read and weep:

Well, of course Denmark won’t sell it, so Trump doesn’t get the chance of buying a country that could become a state (can you imagine?). So Trump does what any child would do: postpones (indefinitely) a meeting with Denmark’s and Greenland’s Prime Ministers, a meeting scheduled for September in Copenhagen.

Up till now I just thought he was a bully, a narcissist, and the worst President ever; now I think he’s insane.

 

 

A US Attorney refuses to resign

March 11, 2017 • 12:18 pm

UPDATE: Bharara announced on Twitter that he’s been fired:

_________

As I noted this morning, Trump, or rather his minion Dana Boente, asked 46 US Attorneys to resign, cleaning house of Obama’s appointees. Those included the well-respected US attorney in Manhattan, Prett Bharara, who had previously had assurance from Trump that he’d stay. Well, Trump lied and asked Bharara to resign.

The thing is, Bharara won’t resign, as noted in this CNN bulletin I just received. This sets the stage for a cool stand-off, and Trump will have to tell him, “You’re fired!”

The high-profile US attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, has indicated he will not submit a letter of resignation as requested by the Trump administration Friday — placing the President in the position of having to fire him in a public standoff, sources tell CNN.

Bharara, who had been told after a meeting with the President-elect in November that he would stay on, felt blindsided by the move, the sources said.

According to a source familiar with the meeting between Trump and Bharara in November at Trump Tower, the President-elect asked Bharara to stay on the job and they shook hands. Trump directed Bharara to go out to the cameras and tell them, “I asked you to stay.”

The White House has not responded to a request for an official comment on the matter.

What an administration, and good for Bharara! Make the Donald fire him and then let Sean Spicer explain it.

Preet Bharara

Today’s dystopian news

February 5, 2017 • 8:30 am

I’ll be brief; we have two items, one good and one bad. Good one first.

1.) After a federal judge struck down two provisions of Trump’s anti-immigration bill, the Department of Justice appealed the decision. They lost, so the travel bans are still blocked. The upholding was done by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which added that a response from the Trump administration was due tomorrow. (The provisions struck down included the 7-nation “Muslim ban” and the new limits on overall immigration.) This one may go all the way to the Supreme Court, which, in the absence of Trump’s nominee, is in a 4-4 liberal/conservative split. The New York Times reports that the new judicial decisions are nebulous:

Judge Robart’s order left many questions, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.

“Does the executive order violate the equal protection of the laws, amount to an establishment of religion, violate rights of free exercise, or deprive aliens of due process of law?” Professor Blackman asked. “Who knows? The analysis is bare bones, and leaves the court of appeals, as well as the Supreme Court, with no basis to determine whether the nationwide injunction was proper.”

Now the bad news, but I suspect it won’t come to fruition:

2.) A Republican congressman has drafted a bill to completely abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.  The congressman is Matt Gaetz of Florida:

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has drafted a bill to “completely abolish” the Environmental Protection Agency, according to an email obtained by The Huffington Post.

The freshman congressman sent the email on Tuesday morning to lawmakers who might co-sponsor the legislation, which would shutter the EPA by the end of next year.

“Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans,” Gaetz wrote. “It is time to take back our legislative power from the EPA and abolish it permanently.”

. . . For Gaetz, that wouldn’t go far enough. In his email to lawmakers, he cited a statistic from the American Action Forum, a conservative policy group launched in 2010 by Republican heavyweights, stating that “it would take more than 94,200 employees working full-time to complete one year of EPA paperwork.”

“Today, the American people are drowning in rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats,” Gaetz said, “and the Environmental Protection Agency has become an extraordinary offender.”

Gaetz has a history of opposing environmental regulations. He began fighting to repeal a requirement that all gasoline in Florida contain ethanol when he first took office as a Florida state lawmaker in 2010. When his bill finally passed in 2013, he called it “one more mandate off the books.”

Here’s the entire text of the bill from Congress.gov. It’s short, and I’m betting it dies in committee. (Of course, I also bet that Trump would lose the election.):

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-6-37-11-am

h/t: Matthew Cobb

Trump’s remarks on Black History Month. OY!

February 1, 2017 • 11:45 am

This transcript was tw**ted by Daniel Dale, Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, as “the full transcript of President Trump’s speech to his Black History Month event.”

screen-shot-2017-02-01-at-10-55-02-am screen-shot-2017-02-01-at-10-54-25-am

This is the unhinged ravings of a narcissist, ranting about fake news, Omarosa (one of the people on The Apprentice), etc.  What an insult to black Americans—and to the world. What have we done?

Ladies and Gentlemen, your new Press Secretary

January 30, 2017 • 8:00 am

Can Sean Spicer (Trump’s Press Secretary and Director of Communications) even comprehend when he’s being mocked? Here’s tw**t he issued:

screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-6-46-17-am

Well, perhaps—à l’Onion—Spicer was just playing a huge trick on America. Regardless, this tw**t, which appears to have been emitted on Saturday, is unseemly for a man in Spicer’s position.

Spicer also appears to have accidentally tweeted out two of his passwords (from The Independent):

screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-6-50-53-am

 

Trump’s immigration missteps cause pandemonium

January 29, 2017 • 7:30 am

UPDATE: More shenanigans from my CNN news feed, which comes in an email: “White House officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose websites and social media sites they visit, and to share cell phone contacts, sources tell CNN.”

_____________

Despite some grousing that I should spend more time criticizing Donald Trump than the Regressive Left, my feelings toward the Trumpster have always been clear (I despise his views), I’ve gone after him a number of times, and, most important, there are plenty of other bloggers out there engaged in taking him down. (Also, read the Roolz: I’m not to be told to write about X rather than Y.)

Nevertheless, I woke up this morning both dispirited and heartened by the news. As you know, on Friday Donald Trump signed an executive order on immigration, putting on hold for four months the entry of all refugees to the U.S., suspending refugees from Syria indefinitely, and, for 90 days, prohibiting citizens of seven countries that are predominantly Muslim from entering the U.S.:  Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (why not Saudi Arabia?).  He also promised “stringent vetting” of refugee applicants in the future—probably those from Muslim lands.

This caused pandemonium. Some refugees were sent back from the U.S., others weren’t allowed on planes to the U.S. (these included holders of green cards that allowed them to live and work here, as well as foreign students already attending American universities), and some holding valid visas were detained for hours at airports.

This is unconscionable, for not only does it prohibit legal residents from returning to the U.S., but also, despite Trump’s claims, constitutes a form of religious discrimination against refugees. It also tars the reputation of the U.S. as a historical home for refugees.  It is merely one of many actions Trump will take that are repugnant and contrary to the values of our country. And remember, he’s barely been in power for a week!

I’ve always thought that both demonstrations (including peaceful ones that constituted civil disobedience) and legal action were the best way to blunt Trump’s actions, and in this case they succeeded. Many of my countrymen showed up at airports, protesting the executive orders; these included Senator Elizabeth Warren, who showed up at Boston’s Logan Airport to protest. Peace be upon her! Note that she predicts that Trump’s orders will be overturned, and I suspect this video was taken before the judge’s decision (see below).

But more important, as has been widely reported, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn  (you can see her short court order here) temporarily blocked Trump’s order, or at least part of it:

The judge’s ruling blocked part of the president’s actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.

The high-stakes legal case played out on Saturday amid global turmoil, as the executive order signed by the president slammed shut the borders of the United States for an Iranian scientist headed to a lab in Massachusetts, a Syrian refugee family headed to a new life in Ohio and countless others across the world.

. . . Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, ruled just before 9 p.m. that implementing Mr. Trump’s order by sending the travelers home could cause them “irreparable harm.” She said the government was “enjoined and restrained from, in any manner and by any means, removing individuals” who had arrived in the United States with valid visas or refugee status.

The ruling does not appear to force the administration to let in people otherwise blocked by Mr. Trump’s order who have not yet traveled to the United States. [JAC: That’s bad, for many of those are legal residents]

The judge’s one-page ruling came swiftly after lawyers for the A.C.L.U. testified in her courtroom that one of the people detained at an airport was being put on a plane to be deported back to Syria at that very moment. A government lawyer, Gisela A. Westwater, who spoke to the court by phone from Washington, said she simply did not know.

This was followed by another ruling against Trump’s order:

Minutes after the judge’s ruling in New York City, another judge, Leonie M. Brinkema of Federal District Court in Virginia, issued a temporary restraining order for a week to block the removal of any green card holders being detained at Dulles International Airport.

In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security has said it will continue to carry out Trump’s orders, excluding those that have been put on hold by the courts. Trump’s actions have created chaos, and I’m delighted to see some American protesting his actions, as well as the courts overturning them. But what will happen when the Supreme Court once again attains a solid conservative majority, as it undoubtedly will?

Protests and recourse to the law: these are the two weapons we liberals have against the actions of the Trump administration. Protests are fine, and I hope they change people’s minds, but for sheer effectiveness there’s nothing like a court order.

Here’s a photo of Donnelly donning her judicial robes in 2015, right after being sworn in as a federal judge:

ann-donnelly-robe
Source: Brooklyn Eagle

Trump’s unhinged remarks to the CIA

January 22, 2017 • 1:00 pm

Yesterday, one day after their inauguration, Vice-Pr*s*d*nt Pence and Pr*s*d*nt Trump addressed the CIA at their headquarters in Langley, perhaps to assure them that the new administration was on board with them. (Trump had been critical of our intelligence agencies during the campaign.)

Politico has posted the full text of both men’s remarks to the CIA, and you should read it if a.) you need confirmation of how clueless Trump is (Pence’s words were pretty tame) or b.) you want a good laugh. I’d use the word “insane,” but that’s considered ableist.

For what we see here is nothing more than a “Trump mind dump.” It’s as if he hadn’t prepared anything, was slightly stoned, and just decided to talk as if he were on a reality show. Not only that, but once again he decided to go after the press. His target was Time Magazine, which had apparently criticized him for removing a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office. Trump says that was untrue, but why the hell did he even bring it up (as well as his general dislike of the media) at a CIA briefing?

I’ll give just two excerpts from The Donald’s remarks. The first refers to Representative Mike Pompeo (a Republican from Kansas), whom Trump has nominated to be head of the CIA. Pompeo, by the way, has told Congress that, if confirmed, he would consider bringing back “enhanced interrogation methods (aka torture), including waterboarding.

Note that the speech is punctuated with laughter, which, given the fact that it wasn’t funny, means that the CIA is full of either Trumpies or toadies.

Here are Trump’s words to the CIA:

But Mike [Pompeo] was literally — I had a group of — what, we had nine different people? Now, I must say, I didn’t mind cancelling eight appointments. That wasn’t the worst thing in the world. But I met him and I said, he is so good. Number one in his class at West Point.

Now, I know a lot about West Point. I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics. In fact, every time I say I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for 35 years who did a fantastic job in so many different ways, academically — was an academic genius — and then they say, is Donald Trump an intellectual? Trust me, I’m like a smart persona. (Laughter.) And I recognized immediately. So he was number one at West Point, and he was also essentially number one at Harvard Law School. And then he decided to go into the military. And he ran for Congress. And everything he’s done has been a homerun. People like him, but much more importantly to me, everybody respects him. And when I told Paul Ryan that I wanted to do this, I would say he may be the only person that was not totally thrilled — right, Mike? Because he said, I don’t want to lose this guy.

But you will be getting a total star. You’re going to be getting a total gem. He’s a gem. (Applause.) You’ll see. You’ll see. And many of you know him anyway. But you’re going to see. And again, we have some great people going in. But this one is something — is going to be very special, because this is one, if I had to name the most important, this would certainly be perhaps — you know, in certain ways, you could say my most important. You do the job like everybody in this room is capable of doing. And the generals are wonderful, and the fighting is wonderful. But if you give them the right direction, boy, does the fighting become easier. And, boy, do we lose so fewer lives, and win so quickly. And that’s what we have to do. We have to start winning again.

If I bolded everything that was unseemly in that statement (“the fighting is wonderful,” etc.), it would all be bolded. But wait–there’s more! This followed the remarks above:

You know, when I was young and when I was — of course, I feel young. I feel like I’m 30, 35, 39. (Laughter.) Somebody said, are you young? I said, I think I’m young. You know, I was stopping — when we were in the final month of that campaign, four stops, five stops, seven stops. Speeches, speeches, in front of 25,000, 30,000 people, 15,000, 19,000 from stop to stop. I feel young.

After that one expects to hear something like, “I’ll be here all week, folks. Be sure to try the roast beef!”

Then he takes on the media. Why on earth did he add stuff like this? Read it carefully, as it’s larded with narcissism.

And the reason you’re my first stop is that, as you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth. (Laughter and applause.) And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the number-one stop is exactly the opposite — exactly. And they understand that, too.

. . . We had another one [a supposed lie by the media] yesterday, which was interesting. In the Oval Office there’s a beautiful statue of Dr. Martin Luther King. And I also happen to like Churchill, Winston Churchill. I think most of us like Churchill. He doesn’t come from our country, but had a lot to do with it. Helped us; real ally. And, as you know, the Churchill statue was taken out — the bust. And as you also probably have read, the Prime Minister is coming over to our country very shortly. And they wanted to know whether or not I’d like it back. I say, absolutely, but in the meantime we have a bust of Churchill.

So a reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on there cover, like, 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time Magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right? (Laughter.) I’ve been on it for 15 times this year. I don’t think that’s a record, Mike, that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that? What do you think?

But I will say that they said — it was very interesting — that Donald Trump took down the bust, the statue, of Dr. Martin Luther King. And it was right there. But there was a cameraman that was in front of it. (Laughter.) So Zeke — Zeke from Time Magazine writes a story about I took down. I would never do that because I have great respect for Dr. Martin Luther King. But this is how dishonest the media is.

Now, the big story — the retraction was, like, where? Was it a line? Or do they even bother putting it in? So I only like to say that because I love honesty. I like honest reporting.

Certainly he does, so long as the “honesty” is favorable to himself.

Oy!

h/t: Matthew Cobb