The Commentariat -- October 29, 2019
Late Morning/Afternoon Update:
Karoun Demirjian of the Washington Post: "National Security Council Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony in the House impeachment probe Tuesday is shedding new light on how Trump administration officials pressured Ukrainian leaders into investigations that could benefit the president, corroborating other witnesses with a firsthand account of the alleged attempt at a quid pro quo. Vindman's prepared remarks directly challenge the testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who defended the president's actions and told House investigators that no one had raised concerns about them. Sondland told the top American diplomat in Ukraine, Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., in September text messages saying Trump had not engaged in a quid pro quo.... Vindman's recollections, while narrower [than Taylor's], illuminate key episodes in Taylor's narrative with an even closer perspective: Vindman was either in the room or briefed personally after meetings by the Trump administration officials involved in exchanges Democrats believe amounted to a quid pro quo. ~~~
"Vindman's prepared testimony touched a nerve with Trump, who took to Twitter on Tuesday to deride the Iraq War veteran, who appeared for his testimony in uniform, as a 'Never Trumper,' questioning his recollection of events. 'Supposedly, according to the Corrupt Media, the Ukraine call "concerned" today's Never Trumper witness. Was he on the same call that I was? Can't be possible!' Trump wrote on Twitter. 'Please ask him to read the Transcript of the call. Witch Hunt!'"
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Let's hope trashing Vindman does not work all that well for Trump. But Trump & the Trumpies are certainly trying: ~~~
~~~ Quint Forgey of Politico: "... Donald Trump launched a sustained online offensive Tuesday morning after details emerged of damaging congressional testimony by a senior White House official.... The flurry of activity on the president's social media feed came just hours before Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer overseeing Ukraine policy, was due to tell investigators on Capitol Hill that Trump undermined U.S. national security when he pressured Ukraine's president in a July phone call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.... Among the roughly four dozen tweets or retweets Trump issued Tuesday morning, the president shared missives by prominent GOP defenders in Congress including Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Doug Collins of Georgia, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Devin Nunes of California." ~~~
~~~ Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "When news of Vindman's expected testimony broke on Monday night, the reaction from Trump's normal defenders was remarkably uniform: Vindman was suspect because he came from what is now Ukraine.... Trump tuned in to [Laura] Ingraham's [Fox 'News"] program and offered some thoughts -- including a claim that he’d 'never even heard of' Vindman, a member of his White House team. [More on Ingraham's show linked below.] 'If you look at this lieutenant colonel's background, he's got a Purple Heart, he got hit by an IED in Iraq,' Brian Kilmeade said on 'Fox & Friends.' 'We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, immigrated with his family, young. He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine.' On CNN, former congressman Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.) suggested that Vindman's birthplace was important. 'It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense,' Duffy said. 'I don't know that he's concerned about American policy, but his main mission was to make sure that Ukraine got those weapons.'" ** Mrs. McC: If you have access to the WashPo, read Bump's story for the first part, which is kind of amazing. ~~~
~~~ The Failure of Both-Sides "Journalism." Alex Shephard of the New Republic: "CNN executives certainly knew what they were getting into when they hired [Sean] Duffy. A five-term congressman and Tea Party darling, Duffy has a long, well-documented history of making inflammatory and dishonest comments. Appearing on the network in February of 2017, Duffy defended Trump's Muslim ban by saying Middle Eastern terrorists are a more significant threat than white domestic terrorists because the latter commit 'one-off' attacks. In the same interview he cited the 'good things' that stemmed from Dylann Roof's massacre of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. He has also suggested that George Soros was rigging elections, that Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has 'ties to the Muslim Brotherhood,' and that the Democratic Party's pro-choice policies intentionally targeted black communities and amounted to 'infanticide.' Unfortunately for CNN and any other organization that clinging to a both-sides model of journalism, Duffy is probably the best the network can get. Call it asymmetric punditry: As Republicans become more extreme, it's become near-impossible to find non-loony ones to fill airtime on cable news." ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait: "The Republican position is that there's no loyalty problem involved in having American foreign policy conducted by an off-the-books lawyer with no security clearance who was apparently on the payroll of the Russian Mafia. The security problem is the NSC official advising an American ally about how to deal with the goons demanding that the ally subvert the independence of its judicial system and insert itself into the American election, and also that it give the goons a little taste of the gas-import business. The Republicans' logic is that Giuliani and his sleazy clients represent 'the president's interest,' as Ingraham put it. And the president's interest, however corrupt or improper, is the national interest. If you are working at cross-purposes with Rudy and his thugs, you must be disloyal to America." ~~~
~~~ See also Sheryl Stolberg of the New York Times on the Vindmans' story.
~~~~~~~~~~
Impeachment: The Evidence Piles Up
** Danny Hakim of the New York Times: "A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine's president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a 'sense of duty,' he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times. He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.... 'This would all undermine U.S. national security,' Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump's comments in the call.... In his testimony, Colonel Vindman plans to say that he is not the whistle-blower who initially reported Mr. Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine. But he will provide an account that corroborates and fleshes out crucial elements in that complaint.... He will testify that he watched with alarm as 'outside influencers' began pushing a "false narrative" about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests." ~~~
~~~ The NBC News story is here. Politico's story is here. ~~~
~~~ ** Col. Vindman's opening statement is here, via Politico.
~~~ Don't Worry, Folks. Fox "News" Is Already Taking on Col. Vindman, Double Agent. Justin Baragona of the Daily Beast: “Fox News host Laura Ingraham and two of her guests Monday night suggested that White House national security official Alexander Vindman ... is guilty of 'espionage' and could be a Ukrainian double agent." The guest who voiced the espionage angle: John Yoo -- author of the Torture Memos. Part of the "proof" Ingraham found "very interesting": Vindman, who is fluent in Ukrainian & Russian, was "working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually [when speaking to Ukrainians], they spoke in English." Mrs. McC: Vindman, who came to the U.S. with his parents when he was 3-1/2 years old, is obviously a sleeper. Bill Barr should interrogate him. I'm sure Barr can get Yoo to bring his waterboard & help. Update: Philip Bump points out that Yoo is an immigrant to the U.S.
~~~ Mrs. Bea McCrabbie BTW: Gordon Sondland was on the Hill Monday, "reviewing his testimony." No wonder. He's in serious trouble. Hakim reports: "In a stormy meeting [on July 10,] in which [John] Bolton is said to have had a tense exchange with Mr. Sondland after the ambassador raised the matter of investigations he wanted Ukraine to undertake.... At a debriefing later that day attended by [Col. Vindman,] Mr. Sondland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with investigations into Mr. Trump's political rivals. 'Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,' Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement." However, Sondland testified, "I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the president's 2020 reelection campaign." By "much later," he appears to mean September, when the press reported on the whistleblower's complaint: "'I did not know until more recent press reports that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma,' Sondland said, adding he did not take part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens." ~~~
~~~ Josh Lederman & Dan De Luce of NBC News: "The White House was alerted as early as mid-May -- earlier than previously known -- that a budding pressure campaign by Rudy Giuliani and one of ... Donald Trump's ambassadors was rattling the new Ukrainian president, two people with knowledge of the matter tell NBC News. Alarm bells went off at the National Security Council when the White House's top Europe official was told that Giuliani was pushing the incoming Ukrainian administration to shake up the leadership of state-owned energy giant Naftogaz>, said the sources. The official, Fiona Hill, learned then about the involvement of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Giuliani associates who were helping with the Naftogaz pressure and also with trying to find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden's son. Hill quickly briefed then-National Security Adviser John Bolton about what she'd been told, said the individuals with knowledge of the meeting. The revelation significantly moves up the timeline of when the White House learned that Trump's allies had engaged with the incoming Ukrainian administration and were acting in ways that unnerved the Ukrainians -- even before President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had been sworn in. Biden had entered the presidential race barely three weeks earlier. In a White House meeting the week of May 20, Hill was also told that Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland ... was giving Zelenskiy unsolicited advice on who should be elevated to influential posts in his new administration, the individuals said. One of them said it struck the Ukrainians as 'inappropriate.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times: "The House plans to take its first formal vote Thursday on the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Democratic leaders said Monday, ushering in a new phase as they prepare to go public with their investigation into his dealings with Ukraine. Democrats described the vote, which will come more than a month after they launched the inquiry, as a necessary next step to lay out the rules for conducting it in public, rather than a response to accusations from Republicans and the White House that the process has violated precedents and denied the president due process rights. It marks a shift for Democrats, who have resisted for weeks the idea of holding a vote on the impeachment inquiry, arguing that doing so was unnecessary to authorize their work, and privately worrying that doing so could put politically vulnerable Democrats in a difficult position.... Though aides for several committees were still drafting the resolution Monday evening, the rough outlines of the next phase of the inquiry began to come into view. After it wraps up its closed witness depositions in the coming weeks, the House Intelligence Committee will begin to hold public hearings with key witnesses.... The rules will allow for the committee's staff aides to question witnesses directly during public hearings.... When the panel concludes its fact finding, Mr. Schiff will transmit raw evidence and, potentially, a written report on his findings to the House Judiciary Committee...." Politico's report is here. ~~~
~~~ Here's Speaker Pelosi's "Dear Democratic Colleague" letter.
I'd rather go into the details of the case rather than process. Process is wonderful. We already have 50 Republican senators -- I never called one of them -- sign up. Fifty. Out of 53, 50. And perhaps the other ones will do it too. But process is good. But I think you ought to look at the case. And the case is very simple; it's quick. It's so quick. -- Donald Trump, last week
The president may want to be careful what he wishes for. -- David Graham of the Atlanti
Robert Costa & Phil Rucker of the Washington Post: "Republican senators are lost and adrift as the impeachment inquiry enters its second month, navigating the grave threat to President Trump largely in the dark, frustrated by the absence of a credible case to defend his conduct and anxious about the historic reckoning that likely awaits them. Recent days have delivered the most damaging testimony yet about Trump and his advisers commandeering Ukraine policy for the president's personal political goals, which his allies on Capitol Hill sought to undermine by storming the deposition room and condemning the inquiry as secretive and corrupt.... Most GOP senators have been taking cues from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose paramount concern has been maintaining his party's control of the chamber in next year's election.... 'It feels like a horror movie,' said one veteran Republican senator.... The Republican Party's strategy is being directed almost entirely by the frenzied impulses of Trump...." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: One thing to bear in mind is that few, if any, GOP senators like or respect Trump. It's way easier to dump someone who bullies you, makes your job harder every day, may turn on you on a dime, doesn't know WTF he's doing, is unteachable, is crude & embarrassing, lies every time he speaks, etc., than to dump someone you & your constituents like and admire but maybe committed one itsy-bitsy abuse of office. ~~~
~~~ Rats! Foiled Again! Marianne Levine & Burgess Everett of Politico: Senate "Republicans have focused their impeachment complaints on the House's impeachment process, lambasting closed-door hearings and the leaking of testimony from key witnesses. But the planned House vote this week -- which signals a move into a more public phase -- could put those complaints to rest.... Senate Republicans quickly coalesced behind an effort to condemn the House's impeachment inquiry late last week. Now their plans are up in the air. After House Democrats announced they'd vote to establish the next steps for their probe, Republicans were divided over whether to continue their push for a resolution intended to stick up for ... Donald Trump.... The conflict underscores how Senate Republicans have struggled to unite on a response to the House's fast-moving impeachment inquiry into Trump.... Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell never committed to a floor vote on the measure in the first place.... The resolution, introduced last week by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and McConnell, came after Trump complained that Republicans were not doing enough to defend him from impeachment.
Devin Nunes' Cow Mole. Spencer Ackerman, et al., of the Daily Beast: "A top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes has been providing conservative politicians and journalists with information -- and misinformation -- about the anonymous whistleblower.... Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower's name ahead of the high-profile depositions of ... [witnesses] ... in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the whistleblower's name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it's an attempt to out the anonymous official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry. On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that GOP lawmakers and staffers have 'repeatedly' used a name purporting to be that of the whistleblower during the depositions.... A former official told the Post that Harvey 'was passing notes [to GOP lawmakers] the entire time' ex-NSC Russia staffer Fiona Hill was testifying." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Trump said he could not give information about the raid on al-Badhdadi's compound to Democrats in the Gang of Eight because "Washington leaks like I've never seen before," and later, because "I think Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington." In some instances, aides to members of the Gang of Eight receive sensitive information. Devin Nunes is in the Gang of Eight.
Between Charybdis & Scylla. Jeremy Herb of CNN: "... Donald Trump's former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman defied a congressional subpoena Monday, failing to appear for a closed-door deposition before House impeachment investigators and throwing a new hurdle into Democrats' plans to quickly gather evidence in their inquiry. Kupperman filed a lawsuit on Friday asking a judge to rule whether he had to comply with the House subpoena, given the White House's stance that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. Kupperman's attorney, Charles Cooper, argued that his client was caught between competing demands between the Executive and Legislative branches and needed the courts to rule before Kupperman would testify." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Mike Lillis & Olivia Beavers of the Hill: "House Democrats are threatening to charge a key witness in their impeachment investigation with contempt after he defied a subpoena and failed to show up at the Capitol Monday morning. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the lawsuit filed by Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton, questioning his obligation to appear before Congress 'has no basis in law' since Kupperman is now a private citizen.... 'A private citizen cannot sue the Congress to try to avoid coming in when they're served with a lawful subpoena. And we expect that the court will make short shrift of that argument. But nonetheless we move forward,' [Schiff said]." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ David Graham of the Atlantic: "In early October, as the probe began, the White House announced its intention to hold back witnesses.... Almost immediately, the obstruction play fell apart. A procession of current and former officials has gone to Capitol Hill and delivered a series of damning revelations, making an impeachment vote all but inevitable. The first snag occurred last week, when former interim National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman went to court to ask whether he was required to honor the subpoena.... 'If this witness had something to say that would be helpful to the White House, they would want him to come and testify,' Schiff told reporters Monday. 'They plainly don';t.' But the converse is also true: If the White House doesn't want witnesses to speak, it's probably because they have something damaging to say, which Democrats should want to hear. Foregoing a court battle also risks eroding congressional prerogatives in future clashes with the executive branch."
Josh Gerstein of Politico: "The Trump administration is appealing a judge's ruling requiring the Justice Department to give the House Judiciary Committee grand jury materials related to former special counsel Robert Mueller's report. The decision Friday from Chief Judge Beryl Howell of U.S. District Court in Washington effectively put the onus on the Justice Department to convince the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or, perhaps, the Supreme Court, to reverse her ruling.... The Justice Department's detailed grounds for its appeal will be filed with the D.C. Circuit, but a motion submitted to Howell Monday seeking a stay of her decision sought to use statements by [Speaker] Pelosi to quarrel with Howell's claim Friday that the Mueller grand jury materials bear on events 'central to the impeachment inquiry.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
In yesterday's thread, contributor Elizabeth pointed to a Daily Kos post by Laura Clawson who noted that "Very Serious People are furrowing their brows and offering moral lessons in the wake of Donald Trump being booed at the World Series." Elizabeth mulled over reactions to the disrespectful fans while vacuuming (the forest, I hope -- it's autumn!). Comes now A Highly Paid Pundit who "-- like MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and author-pundit Ron Fournier -- [finds the fans' bad manners] alarming and offensive." Funny. Points taken.
** Enemy-Asset-in-Chief. Courtney Kube & Carol Lee of NBC News: "... Donald Trump painted a vivid picture for the world of the deadly U.S. military raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.... A few of [the] colorful details [he related] were wrong. Many of the rest were either highly classified or tactically sensitive, and their disclosure by the president made intelligence and military officials cringe, according to current and former U.S. officials.... Current and former senior U.S. officials said from the earliest days of his presidency that Trump consistently wants to make public more than his advisers think is legally sound or wise for U.S national security. 'We agonized over what we would put in his briefings,' one former senior White House official said, 'because ... he has no filter,' the official added. 'But also if he knows something, and he thinks it's going to be good to say or make him appear smarter or stronger, he'll just blurt it out.'... The overarching concern about Trump's disclosures on the al-Baghdadi raid, officials said, is that he gave America's enemies details that could make intelligence gathering and similar military operations more difficult and more dangerous to pull off." The reporters go on to list some of Trump's remarks re: the Saturday raid & possible/probable perils his disclosures present. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Although articles of impeachment will not likely include reference to Trump's loose lips, GOP senators should keep in the backs of their minds the grave danger he presents to our national security.
Ben Hubbard & Eric Schmitt of the New York Times: "When the international manhunt for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, zoomed in on a village in northwestern Syria, the United States turned to its local allies to help track the world's most-wanted terrorist. The American allies, a Kurdish-led force that had partnered with the United States to fight ISIS, sent spies to watch his isolated villa. To confirm it was him, they stole a pair of Mr. al-Baghdadi's underwear -- long, white boxers -- and obtained a blood sample, both for DNA testing, the force's commander, Mazlum Abdi, said in a phone interview on Monday. American officials would not discuss the specific intelligence provided by the Kurds, but said that their role in finding Mr. al-Baghdadi was essential -- more so than all other countries combined, as one put it -- contradicting President Trump's assertion over the weekend that the United States 'got very little help.' Yet even as the Syrian Kurdish fighters were risking their lives in the hunt that led to Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death this weekend, Mr. Trump abruptly shattered America's five-year partnership with them." An NBC News report is here.
Americans Get Report Directly from the Imagination of the President*. Helene Cooper, et al., of the New York Times: "Mr. Trump described the video footage he watched from the White House Situation Room [during the attack on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's compound] ... 'as though you were watching a movie.' What the president saw, according to military and intelligence officials, was overhead surveillance footage on several video screens that, together, provided various angles from above, and in real time.... But those surveillance feeds could not show what was happening in an underground tunnel, much less detect if Mr. al-Baghdadi was whimpering or crying.... Mr. Trump would not have received any real-time dialogue from the scene. For that, Mr. Trump would have had to have gotten a report from the commandos directly, or relayed up through their chain of command to the commander in chief.... At the Pentagon on Sunday, officials steered clear of any description of Mr. al-Baghdadi whimpering or crying, and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, when pressed about the president's assertion on ABC's 'This Week,' did not repeat the 'whimpering' characterization." See related Guardian story linked below. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Here's the "'Sir' Tell" from the NYT report: "'No,' Mr. Trump said in response to whether he had to make decisions on the fly. 'We were getting full reports on literally a minute-by-minute basis. "Sir, we just broke in. Sir, the wall is down. Sir, you know, we've captured. Sir, two people are coming out right now. Hands up."' Then Mr. Trump said, he was given a report: '"Sir, there's only one person in the building. We are sure he's in the tunnel trying to escape."' 'But it's a dead-end tunnel,' Mr. Trump said he was told." ~~~
~~~ Asawin Suebsaeng & Erin Banco of the Daily Beast: "Five senior Trump administration officials who watched in real time as the president spoke on Sunday morning each told The Daily Beast that they had no idea where the president got the 'whimpering and crying and screaming' detail. Two officials recounted how after they heard that on Sunday, they immediately began messaging each other questions and comments like, 'uh where is he getting that?'... Officials in the Pentagon ... told The Daily Beast that there was no way Trump could have heard Baghdadi's voice on the Situation Room live stream Saturday night because it did not have audio. Two senior officials said while President Trump could have spoken to commandos on the ground who carried out the raid but said that has not often been the case in past operations." Defense Secretary Mark Esperanto dodged the issue by saying, "I don't have those details," & Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Millay said he didn't know the source of Trump's claim. ~~~
~~~ Max Boot of the Washington Post: "President Trump has a preternatural ability to turn any occasion, no matter how solemn or important, into a ridiculous, risible spectacle. He did it again Sunday in announcing the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When he began to ad-lib about what happened near Idlib, Syria, he treated the world to his usual blend of braggadocio and bluster -- dishonest and distasteful in equal measure. He insulted Democratic leaders by claiming they would have leaked word of the raid in advance, even though he is the one with a history of leaking classified information. Ironically, he did it again Sunday by divulging operational details of the raid that horrified national security professionals.... Trump showed he was completely out of touch with ... essential facts. Instead, he parroted the propaganda of dictators, saying, for example, that 'Turkey has lost thousands and thousands of people from that safe zone.' In reality..., there have been few Kurdish attacks on Turkey from northern Syria, and those were most likely in response to Turkish military operations." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: It is worth pointing out that Trump has turned on the Kurds because he turned on the Kurds. That might make no sense to you, but it does to Trump: he screwed up by abandoning the Kurds -- who have remained helpful to the U.S. even after Trump betrayed them -- so now he has to make the Kurds into villains to fit into his fictive narrative that the betrayal was "strategically brilliant": so the Kurds "are not angels"; they helped us fight ISIS only because we paid them "a lot of money"; they provided "very little help" in locating al-Baghdadi, but Russia & Turkey (who actually did nothing) deserve more praise. It does no good to be faithful to Trump; he will screw you anyway if it suits him for some extraneous reason. ~~~
Aaron Miller & Richard Sokolsky of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in a CNN opinion piece, tick off ways Trump has blown whatever credit he might receive for the killing of al-Baghdadi. Here's one thing: "Trump has made no secret that he has little use for the Kurds. His new Syria policy, as he made clear at Sunday's press conference, will rely primarily on Russia, Turkey and Syria to contain and diminish ISIS and to deal with the mess in Syria. What stood out Sunday was Trump's heavy reliance on these state actors and on their authoritarian governments, including Syria, which he thanked twice. Gone are any illusions that the US has the capacity to remove Assad from power, to steer Syria toward a democratic path, to stabilize and reconstruct the battered country, to kick the Iranians out of Syria and to prevent Russia from emerging as the key external power in Syri. Indeed, in deferring to Vladimir Putin, Trump has implicitly assented to Russia's desire to help the Assad regime consolidate its control over Syria."
** "'Blood for Oil' Is Official U.S. Policy Now." Adam Weinstein of the New Republic: "Skeptical reporters came away from Trump's endzone dance with some key insights: He'd overshared sensitive information that could endanger future operations...; he'd concocted details about Baghdadi's 'whimpering, crying and screaming' death that he could not have possibly witnessed; he offered no long-term vision or strategy for how to achieve stability, much less peace, in the Middle East, even as experts noted that decapitating the leadership of a networked insurgent group and its ideology, now as in 2011, was 'mostly strategically irrelevant.'... The main ingredient on Sunday was 'oil.' In his speech and in extended answers to reporters' questions, Trump mentioned oil an incredible 22 times; by contrast, he mentioned Baghdadi only 18 times.... Trump's oil obsession isn't entirely his fault: His military advisers ... now contended with a disastrous Syria withdrawal.... So they pleaded to keep U.S. troops in place by appealing to Trump's penchant for petroleum, saying the derricks and fields needed to be protected from enemies. 'This is like feeding a baby its medicine in yogurt or applesauce,' one U.S. official
Conor Finnegan of ABC News: "After ... Donald Trump said on Monday the U.S. will be 'keeping the oil' in northeastern Syria, his administration is looking into the 'specifics,' according to a senior State Department official -- but it's prompted renewed cries that doing so is a war crime. Trump has a long history of calling for the U.S. to 'take the oil' in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria in particular. But any oil in both countries belongs to their governments, and according to U.S. law and treaties it has ratified, seizing it would be pillaging, a technical term for theft during wartime that is illegal under U.S. and international law. 'We're keeping the oil,' Trump said Monday to a conference of police chiefs in Chicago. 'I've always said that -- keep the oil. We want to keep the oil, $45 million a month. Keep the oil. We've secured the oil.' On Sunday..., Trump said..., 'We should be able to take some [oil] also, and what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly.'"
~~~ Trump Boasts of Committing War Crimes; Reaction Is "Meh." Jonathan Chait: "Over the last two and a half years, the once-vast space between Donald Trump's authoritarian vision of the presidency and the effective powers at his disposal has slowly collapsed. Trump used to wistfully pine for an Attorney General who would protect the president's personal interests and even cover up his actual crimes, and now he has William Barr. He used to call for American foreign policy as a weapon of plunder, and now he tells the country he has done exactly that.... [Now he is declaring he will "keep the oil" the U.S. plans to secure in Syria.] This course of action is indisputably an international war crime.... Trump even added the oddly specific price tag, $45 million a month, in case future war-crimes prosecutors at the Hague need to flesh out their indictment.... [And he specified a partner in crime: ExxonMobil.] Reporting indicates that generals and war hawks have played upon the president's childlike fascination with using the military as an instrument of foreign plunder to manipulate him into keeping American troops in the region -- Trump is unmoved either by humanitarian or strategic rationales, but if you're promising the opportunity for theft and raw domination, he'll listen."
Nick Miroff of the Washington Post: "The Trump administration is preparing to finalize an agreement this week to begin sending asylum seekers from the U.S. border to Guatemala, implementing a deal the two countries reached in July, according to three people with knowledge of the plan. The pact gives the Department of Homeland Security the ability to send asylum seekers to Guatemala if they do not seek protection there while transiting through the country en route to the U.S. border. It could mean that migrants from numerous countries will make the dangerous journey to the United States only to be sent back to Central America upon reaching U.S. territory.... Kevin McAleenan, who plans to step down as acting DHS secretary as soon as Thursday, has secured similar agreements with Honduras and El Salvador, but those deals have not been implemented.... The many critics of the accords say it is unrealistic to expect weak Central American governments to safely resettle vulnerable groups when they already struggle with widespread poverty and some of the highest homicide rates in the world."
Senate Race 2020. James Arkin, et al., of Politico: "Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is strongly considering jumping into the race for his old Senate seat in Alabama, according to multiple Republican sources.... Sessions would scramble the already crowded field of Republicans seeking to take on Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, who won a 2017 special election to fill the remainder of Sessions' term and is widely viewed as the most vulnerable senator on the ballot next year.... Candidates have until Nov. 8 to qualify for the ballot."
Harrison Smith of the Washington Post: "Kay Hagan, a North Carolina Democrat who served one term in the Senate after beating incumbent Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, in 2008, died Oct. 28 at her home in Greensboro, N.C. She was 66. A family representative, Ross Harris, said the cause was complications of Powassan virus, which can cause encephalitis. Ms. Hagan had been diagnosed with the tick-borne virus in 2016. (A breaking-news version announcing Hagen's death was linked yesterday.) The Charlotte Observer's report and obituary is here.
Michael Laris, et al., of the Washington Post: "The Federal Aviation Administration's deferential, industry-friendly approach to oversight allowed Boeing to submit documentation that obscured the dangers of its 737 Max, which was involved in two deadly crashes, documents, interviews and the findings of investigations show. However, instead of trying to reclaim its oversight powers after the deaths of 346 people over the past year, the FAA has been pressing ahead with plans to further reduce its hands-on oversight of aviation safety, current and former officials said. The FAA has been pushing for changes intended to speed approval on critical safety questions and remake regulations using 'voluntary consensus standards,' interviews and documents show. That could result in outsourcing policymaking on airplane safety to industry groups outside the public's view, experts said. FAA leaders say their approach is based on the premise that companies such as Boeing, and not regulators wielding the stick of enforcement, are best placed to guarantee safety." (Also linked yesterday.)
Karl Paul of the Guardian: "Hundreds of Facebook employees have signed a letter to executive Mark Zuckerberg decrying his decision to allow politicians to post advertisements on the platform that include false claims. More than 250 employees signed the letter, which was posted on an internal communication message board for the company.... They expressed concern that Facebook 'is on track to undo the great strides [its] product teams have made in integrity over the last two years'. 'Misinformation affects us all,' the letter said. 'Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands.' Facebook has come under fire in recent weeks after the company rescinded an internal policy in late September, exempting political advertising from factchecking. Previously the social network banned adverts containing 'deceptive, false or misleading content' but later clarified this policy does not apply to paid advertisements from politicians." The New York Times story is here.
Way Beyond the Beltway
Heather Stewart & Kate Proctor of the Guardian: "Jeremy Corbyn has announced that Labour is ready to back a general election now that the EU has granted a three-month Brexit delay, making a pre-Christmas poll all but certain. With the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party preparing to support a one-line bill tabled by Boris Johnson's government later on Tuesday, triggering an early poll, Corbyn said his party would also support it.
News Lede
AP: "Electrical equipment caused two Southern California wildfires -- one that killed three people and destroyed more than 1,600 homes last year -- and another still smoldering in the well-heeled hills of Los Angeles, where thousands of people including Arnold Schwarzenegger fled homes in the dark, utilities said Tuesday. The two findings add more examples of electric lines sparking major wildfires as utilities in California increasingly resort to drastic power outages as a precaution to prevent devastating blazes. A fire that broke out early Monday morning near the J. Paul Getty Museum was sparked after high winds blew a eucalyptus branch onto an electric line that caused it to arc, ignite dry grass and destroy a dozen homes, according to preliminary findings announced by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power utility and the Fire Department. Meanwhile, Southern California Edison announced that it believes its equipment caused the deadly Woolsey fire last year northwest of Los Angeles that scorched dry grasslands and burned across the Santa Monica Mountains all the way to the coast."
Share Article
Reader Comments (9)
Of course the evidence of the corruption and overall incompetency of both the Pretender and his administration is overwhelming. That's been the case since before he ran, ginning up a potential base of racists as he did with the birther nonsense and then during his campaign with his deliberate Russian collusion in plain sight. Since then, each week has brought more instances of Pretender or administration behavior that is far outside the expected ethical, intellectual and even sensible bounds of behavior. Everything from glad-handing and ass-kissing dictators to imprisoning children in cages, to the kind of standard quid pro quo corruption so many of his cabinet have engaged in and that now engulfs the Pretender . All this is the "new normal?"
Surely at this point there can be no surprises. The current impeachment inquiry will add nothing but detail to the overall picture that has been clear for years. The nation is saddled with (and being ridden by) a badly damaged fool who thinks of nothing but himself.
Yet apparently millions accept it and even like it. One revelation after another, and still his "base" sticks with him. Does that mean forty percent of the nation is as corrupt, as intellectually vacuous, as morally empty as the Pretender himself?
I fear it does, and while those loyalists are and for the foreseeable future will remain a minority, with the system of government the Founders left us, a minority all it takes to stay on top and paint an entire nation the same ugly color.
This morning's question: Has it always been this way, has the country never really had all that much to be proud of, and it's just that in the decades of getting and spending and child rearing I somehow never noticed?
Or has something fundamental changed?
@Ken Winkes: I don't think 40% of Americans are corrupt in the way Lev & Igor (and Rudy & Donnie, etc.) are corrupt. I do think many are mean-spirited and tribal; they go to a football game & cheer when a player on the other team is injured -- his only "fault" being that he plays for Podunk High instead of Hicksville -- but consider it a "tragedy" if their guy gets the wind knocked out of him & start screaming at the ref. Most people are "others": foreigners, non-Christians, the opposite sex, urbanites, etc. I think they prefer a structured social order where they submit to authority, whether it's Jesus or Trump, because otherwise they'd have to think for themselves. I think they are incurious & ready to accept their Dear Leader's "logic" like, "There are good people on both sides," and "Keep the oil; we earned it." I think they cut corners: lie (a little) on their taxes because "everybody does it" & tell potential buyers the family bus they're selling has never been in an accident (because it was just a fender-bender). This makes it okay for someone on their "team," like Trump, to cheat on his taxes and sucker other people. They do pick their authorities, of course: Obama disrespected the presidency when he wore a tan suit in August; Trump shows he's a strong leader by muscling weaker leaders into getting dirt on his political opponents. IOKIYAR isn't a liberal joke; it's an article of faith. Similarly, the targets of authorities matter: they're good with a cop who beats up a black kid "because the guy probably deserved it" but they'll tell the cop who stops them for running a red light to "go out and find some real criminals."
They share a sad, cramped worldview, but they are not horrible people like Trump; if you were drowning, they would probably take steps to save you, especially if they thought you might be on their "team."
Bea,
No argument with your take on the question I posed...but I'm still wondering if it--whatever it is, exactly--has always been this way, or whether the country has drifted over the years to a more unpleasant, and judged by the standards we once called "normal," a less justifiable place?
I sense that kind of drift, but that may be because while for most of my life I had no trouble mixing and working with the hoi polloi (now, there's an old term), I nonetheless lived an interior and social life that kept me largely separate from them.
While the mere thought of it gives me the willies, I also have the sense that as you say, tho' many of the Trumpsters may not be as mean or corrupt as he is, they would nonetheless happily trade places with him in a flash if given the opportunity, which would mean their difference from him may be more a matter of circumstance than anything else.
In other words, much like him--without the money.
There's only one question on the Trumpian party's reaction to the HoR voting on impeachment procedure Thursday. We know they're going to move the goal posts, but how far? What will be the new necessity?
"This morning's question: Has it always been this way, has the country never really had all that much to be proud of, and it's just that in the decades of getting and spending and child rearing I somehow never noticed?"
This country, being a democratic experiment from the get go, has been like that old teeter totter––it has had its ups and its downs, to put it very simply. We have had much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of and we could sparse that till the cows come home but we won't. Our history is complicated because this experiment is complicated––lots of people in this big country with lots of different ways of thinking and operating. This would probably be the way you'd explain things to first graders but your question, if answered in depth, would take a master's in history and a life long pursuit of the truth and then the question would be "whose truth?"
"Or has something fundamental changed?"
Yes, I think it has. We see this in the election of this madman and how this inept person can destroy and create absolute chaos. I look at this breakdown in our society as Trump giving permission to open the gates to all the evils heretofore having been locked away somewhat safely. But I think with the internet and the mass demonstrations this has also accelerated this change to a great degree. The other major fundamental change is a woman's movement that surpasses the old Betty Friedan's start up–-the one who didn't address the black and brown women who were a hell of a lot more miserable than we white women.
Sorry, Ken–-I'm rattling on here but I wanted to answer your very good question; I think, however, that it will take someone more efficient at doing so than I.
I suspect that it's a little of both, Ken; my parents were Stevenson liberals, so I never even questioned when they hated Goldwater...I was not particularly interested in politics. I never had a discussion in my youth and into college that was particularly interesting, even though my stepfather was a history professor, and in fact, I was tired of history by college time. I am not sure when I "awakened" as a feminist, and was interested in politics-- possibly early 70s. I know I became rabidly anti-Reagan, and from then on was interested. But I do not remember this level of toxicity ever before 2000, but since then, it rules the airwaves. I'm sure the social scientists in the future will be parsing this...I feel that there is some species of hypnosis or addiction here-- else why would sensible people turn into slaves to such a man? Frankly, being a "real" liberal, I am not interested in picking the brains of these robots, but I do find it interesting to hear the "never Trumpists" trying to get on the liberal train and failing-- I feel like if a less nasty person were to run for the r's, then they would gin up their kind to be "conservative" again, and I have no idea what the lemmings would do.
Ken: I think the biggest thing that has changed is the we are now old enough and have enough free time to pay more attention to current events. And for those of us so interested, we have greater access than ever before to information sources on anything we are interested in (happy 50th birthday to the internet!). So we see more of the elephant and can now see what an elephant looks like. And as you say, we don't have to spend all of our time providing and raising.
Clearly human nature hasn't changed much in our lifetimes. But our technological ability to know and do has grown dramatically, just since I was born (early boomer). We are the same; the world is different. Our wisdom has not caught up with our capabilities. If we get there, it make take a few more millennia for our prefrontal cortexes to outvote our amygdalas.
For those of you who are not yet retired (i.e. still have dependent children) you may find that as your time to read expands exponentially your exposure to the recurring themes of our history causes you to realize that we (the US) are truly historically exceptional -- but that we are still comprised of humans who are as fractious and froward as always.
Finally -- I do think the national outlook shifted for a lot of "conservatives" after their Reagan sugar high. The US' historical optimism and progessivism shifted to bet-hedging and clannishness that was common in our ancestors before they took the boat here. So maybe we are just reverting to type for a while. It may be that the fears of conservatives pull the rest of us more toward tribalism.
But we still have a sense of being special, and we are, so maybe we'll do things to deserve that still. Witness the world series crowd Sunday. That was us.
@Ken Winkes: I don't think human nature changes; I think cultural influences change. That's one reason -- if not the main reason -- to get rid of Trump & the IOKIYAR "philosophy." If "Western liberal democracy" is the norm, it becomes aspirational even for people who are not predisposed to its ideals. The same person, living under differing cultural norms, will behave differently. That's pretty much the premise behind the world's great religions: under one set of standards, I might steal the apples from your tree at midnight; under another, I would help you harvest them for yourself if you were feeling poorly. "Love they neighbor as thyself" -- which also is a secular democratic value -- vs. "Do unto others before they do unto you," which is the Trumpian way.
And, as P.D. reminded us -- women. The emergence of women from most of their prior bonds is and will be the biggest social change in history, and not just in the US.