Author: hamilton1788

The issue:  Did Trump obstruct justice in the investigation of Michael Flynn?

What we know:  Trump took weeks to fire Flynn even in the face of evidence that he was vulnerable to blackmail.  He then asked Comey in a private setting to stop the investigation.  He also made it clear to Comey that he expected “loyalty.” When the investigation continued, Trump fired Comey for stated reasons that were obviously specious.  He subsequently admitted that the firing was prompted by the Russia investigation.

What we don’t know:  Motives and nuances are important here, and we weren’t in the room at the time.  The most damning thing I have heard to date is that Trump cleared the room before he discussed the Flynn investigation with Comey, which strongly suggests awareness of wrongdoing.  Of course, he may deny that, but if he does, no one will believe him, since he lies about everything all the time.

My analysis:  This certainly sounds like obstruction of justice, but I suspect the Chris Christie defense will work:  the man is just too stupid to understand the consequences of what he was doing.

Sam Brownback believes in the GOP bible almost as much as the real one, and if it’s clear about anything, it is that regressive tax cuts, spending cuts, and deregulation lead to explosions of economic growth.  It’s in the book of St. Ronald, Chapter 1, Verse 1.

In the real world, faith tends to yield to experience.  As had always happened in the past, there was no upsurge in growth–just a yawning deficit.  Brownback and his allies tried to plug this with more cuts to essential services, which, according to the likes of him, was just fine and dandy.  After all, the public schools are just “government schools” pushing secularist propaganda, and truly productive members of society don’t need to use the roads–they have private planes and phones.

Even the Republicans in Kansas have had enough.  It would appear that the apostates are now in charge.  Is anyone in Washington listening?  Don’t bet the farm on it.

Having received some pretty stiff criticism, even from his own side, for a previous column giving a half-throated defense of LePen, Ross Douthat doubles down in today’s NYT, arguing that Corbyn is almost as appalling, but no one is freaking out about him.  The implicit suggestion is that the lack of concern about Corbyn is the product of hypocrisy, left-wing media bias, or both.

I don’t agree.  Here are the differences between the two:

1.  LePen was in a position to do more damage than Corbyn.   A LePen victory could well have destroyed the EU.  Corbyn couldn’t do that; the UK is already leaving.

2.  Regardless of the polls, there was more uncertainty about a LePen victory.  Given the surprises of Brexit and Trump, could anyone really be sure that the French polls were correct?  Would the disgruntled far left abstain, vote for Macron, or cast an anti-establishment vote for LePen?  There were reasons to be concerned.  The British election, on the other hand, is far more “normal” and predictable.

3.  A Prime Minister Corbyn would be subject to far more constraints than a President LePen.  Even without much support in the National Assembly, LePen would have had more freedom to operate on her own than Corbyn, who has no hope of winning an absolute majority, and who has very limited support within his parliamentary party.

The issue:  Were Trump and his agents conducting their own foreign policy, at odds with official governmental policy, between the election and the inauguration?

What we know:  Flynn and Kushner held meetings with Russian officials during this time.  Kushner apparently wanted to create a back channel that would be invisible to US intelligence.

What we don’t know:  What, if anything, did Trump personally know about this? What was discussed during these meetings?  Why was it important for Kushner to communicate outside the scrutiny of the US government?

My analysis:  When it’s all said and done, the record may show that Flynn and Kushner violated the Logan Act.  Since some degree of communication with the Russians was probably inevitable, and maybe even desirable, during the transition period, the legal consequences of this will be somewhere between minimal and nonexistent.

While Ronald Reagan gave his PBP supporters tangible benefits in the form of huge, regressive tax cuts, by any objective standard, he didn’t do much for his Reactionary constituents.  He wasn’t even a consistent churchgoer.  No matter. By his clever use of language, they knew that he shared their vision for the country, and they loved him for it.  They still do.

With the partial exception of the Gorsuch nomination (even a CD like Bush might have nominated him), it would appear that Trump is largely headed down the same road:  tax cuts and deregulation for wealthy businessmen, and shiny objects for Reactionaries.  His rejection of the Paris Agreement is a classic example of a shiny object.  It proves that Trump is on their side without bringing them any meaningful economic benefits.

The problem is that this particular shiny object comes with a very high price: diplomatic isolation and the vast potential political and economic implications of climate change.  By any reasonable analysis, it wasn’t worth it.

The issue:  Did the Trump campaign “collude” with the Russian government during the election?

What we know:  Multiple prominent figures in the Trump campaign had longstanding financial ties to the Russian government or had some degree of knowledge of Russian hacking activities.

What we don’t know:  Was anything promised to the Russian government in exchange for assistance during the election?  And how much of the communication between the campaign and the Russians was authorized by Trump himself?

My analysis:  If, as I suspect, no one can prove that Trump authorized a foreign policy quid pro quo, Russian election hacking is a public policy concern, but not a legal issue for the administration.  Simply being the lucky beneficiary of Russian hacking activities is not a crime.

A year or so ago, I suggested a thought experiment in which it was known that the Chinese were developing a weapon that could do hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the US (the exact amount wasn’t known) every year.  How would the Trump Administration react to such news?  With some sort of crash program involving billions of dollars of public money, of course.  Protecting the country from foreign military threats is not negotiable with the GOP, regardless of cost.

Climate change has the same potential impact, but is not caused by weapons. The GOP consequently either denies it is occurring or simply refuses to do anything about it on the grounds that to do so would increase the size of the state and unduly burden businesses.

What you should take away from this is that, in the final analysis, it isn’t limiting the size of the state, or even protecting the public, that truly matters to the GOP. If you can’t blow something up, there isn’t any point in spending public money to deal with it.  In other words, the swaggering militarism of the GOP is really the most important part of its DNA.

The issue:  Why does Trump seem so determined to make an alliance with the Russians?

What we know:  Trump has expressed his enthusiasm for Putin, and for better relations with Russia, on many occasions, even though very few people, even in his own government, agree with him.

What we don’t know:  We don’t know very much about the extent of Trump’s business ties to Russia, given his unwillingness to disclose his tax returns.

My take on the issue:   You can speculate that Trump’s affection for Russia has a financial basis, but there is no evidence for that.  I think it comes from two sources:  a correct understanding that Putin effectively runs Russia as the CEO of Russia, Inc., which is what he aspires to do with the US;  and a notion, fed by Bannon and Flynn, that Russia is a more appropriate ally against terrorism than squishy Europeans who are more concerned about protecting human rights than kicking bad guy butt.

Digging a Hole

I’m digging a hole where the truth used to be.

The whole world sits there wondering

Where it will go.

 

I’m plugging the leaks that run through my house.

The fake news all are wondering

Where they will go.

 

And it really doesn’t matter.

If I’m wrong, I’m right.

Since I belong, I’m right.

Since I belong.

Democrats run around.

Don’t worry me.

Never win.

Wonder why they don’t get past my door.

 

I’m taking the time for a number of things

That weren’t important yesterday.

And I still go.

 

Parody of “Fixing a Hole” by The Beatles.

A meeting between Trump and Francis sounds like the set up for a joke.  But how do the two leaders stack up?

                                  Francis               v.              Trump

Age                              80                                           70

Popular Vote            None Held                             Lost

Heresy                       Divorced Catholics              Protectionism

Bridge or Wall?       Bridge                                     Wall

Philosophy                Idealist                                   Materialist

Crusades For            Justice                                     His Ego

And the winner is . . . Francis, of course.  We can only hope that he outlasts our man on golf cart.

Note:  I will be on vacation until 6/5.  Posting will resume at that time.

I just can’t help thinking that Trump prefers the company of strongmen to democratic leaders.  And to think that the GOP used to argue that Obama was distrusted by our friends!  What are they saying now?

One of the things about Bush that always struck me as being unique was his ability to pose credibly as both an insider and an outsider.  He obviously had all of the advantages that came with being the son of a well-connected president, but his attitudes about his Ivy League education, and his fundamentalist religious views, communicated a degree of skepticism, and sometimes even contempt, towards the establishment.  Reactionaries bought into this even if they didn’t like other parts of his program.

Similarly, Trump is the son of a very wealthy New York developer, but he clearly has a chip on his shoulder in spite of his privileged upbringing (presumably because his father didn’t do business in Manhattan), and his fans accept him as someone who can “drain the swamp” even though his few friends are all swamp creatures themselves.  So maybe Bush wasn’t as unique as I thought, and maybe this is one of the secrets to success in the GOP.

Who knew that Obama could plant bugs in the Vatican?  Here’s what happened:

Trump makes his entrance.

DT:  There’s my Catholic!

Francis says a silent prayer for strength and patience.  Alas!  On this occasion, it goes unanswered.

PF:  Good to meet you, Mr. President.

DT:  Hey, great place you’ve got here.  The art is really colorful.  Especially that one ceiling.

PF:  Yes, we have many of the great treasures of civilization here.  It’s all for the glory of God.

DT:  I do have to point out that Trump Tower has more square footage and more gold than St. Peter’s.

PF:  I’m sure it was built for the same purpose.  Francis has a crooked smile on his face.  So why are you here, my son?  Do you want me to bless your wall and your budget?

DT:  Well, part of it is optics for my voters, of course, but I do have some issues to discuss with you.

PF:  This is going to be interesting, I’m sure.

DT:  First of all, there’s our unfair trade deal with the Vatican.

PF:  You’ve got me there.  I have no idea what you’re talking about.

DT:  All of those American tourists visit here and spend money, but no one from the Vatican ever visits America.  And Americans provide lots of money to support the Church, but we don’t get much of it back.  We need to change that.  America first!

PF:  What do you suggest?

DT:  You could require everyone in the Vatican to vacation in America, appoint more American cardinals, and put some of the money in your bank in our infrastructure.

PF:  Practically no one lives here, and I can’t just spend money any way I want. We’ve been doing business in a certain way for 2,000 years.  I can’t change things overnight.

DT:  So you can’t help me?

PF:  No.

DT:  Then there’s your defense budget.  You need to beef it up.  Americans are tired of spending money to protect you.

PF:  The Church is a spiritual power.  We don’t have a defense budget.

DT:  What about the guys in the funny uniforms?

PF:  The Swiss Guards?  They’re our equivalent of the Secret Service, but their uniforms were designed by Michelangelo.

DT:  Michel who?

PF:  I’m sorry–I should have known better.  Anyway, I can’t help you with that.

DT:  Well, don’t be surprised if we don’t rush to defend you when you get invaded.

PF:  We’ll get by.

DT:  Finally, you’re soft on Islamic terrorism.  Steve Bannon and I want you to declare a crusade against Islam.  Steve says your predecessors did that all the time.

PF:  That was 900 years ago, and it didn’t turn out too well.

DT:  So you won’t help me there, either.

PF:  I’m afraid not.

DT:  So what can you do for me?

PF:  You can have your photo taken with me.  I will give you a copy of my encyclical on climate change, although I’m sure it’s too long for you to actually read.  And I will pray for God to give you the gift of humility.

DT:  You can skip the prayer:  I’m already the most humble man alive!  You can ask Sean Hannity, or Rush.

PF:  We’re done here.

They take the photo, and Trump leaves.

 

Bartlett had a column in yesterday’s NYT in which he argued that:  (a) the tax treatment of employer-provided health care is an historical anomaly, and makes no logical sense; and (b) imposing the burden of providing health care on employers is unfair and makes our products less competitive on a worldwide basis; so (c) we should tax employer-based health care contributions as income and use the proceeds to fund a more comprehensive health insurance system.

All of that makes perfect sense from an economic perspective, but has a doubtful future in the real world.  The most successful welfare state programs are essentially hidden wealth redistributions to which the beneficiaries believe they have an entitlement.  Social Security and Medicare have an constituency because the beneficiaries have paid into the system for years;  the minimum wage works because the employer writes the check, not the government, so the money appears to have been earned; and the treatment of employer-based health insurance similarly works because there is no government check involved. However logical it might be, Bartlett’s plan runs afoul of this principle, so, barring an infusion of rationality in the political system, it will probably never happen.

The circumstances were different, to be sure, but both Trump and May were swept into office by a wave of right-wing populism.  How have they responded to it?

May’s budget indicates that she has moved to the center in order to sweep up the votes of disaffected members of Labour.  The Trump budget, on the other hand, is the most ferociously right-wing document that I have seen in my lifetime.  It combines the anti-government zeal of the Conservative Libertarians with many of the spending priorities of the Reactionaries.  Large parts of it will never become law, but as an ideological blueprint, it couldn’t be clearer.

May is almost certainly going to win a smashing victory next month.  Can Trump thrive by ignoring the interests of voters outside of his base?  We’ll see.