Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

When President Trump announced March 8 his intention to meet with Kim Jong Un, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/08/north-korea-and-south-korea-snooker-trump/?utm_term=.e84f1f75200a (I wrote) that the leaders of South and North Korea had “snookered the credulous American president into a high-profile summit that is likely to end in disaster one way or another.”

A lot has happened since.

Kim has let it be known that he is willing to discuss denuclearization and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/world/asia/north-korea-south-treaty.html (a peace treaty) to end the Korean War — without insisting on a pullout of U.S. forces. CIA Director Mike Pompeo has journeyed to Pyongyang to meet with Kim. And on Friday Kim https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korean-leader-suspends-nuclear-and-missile-tests-shuts-down-test-site/2018/04/20/71ff2eea-44e7-11e8-baaf-8b3c5a3da888_story.html?utm_term=.f77ed3d5999d (announced) that he will end nuclear and missile tests and shut down the site where the nuclear tests have been conducted.

In light of all this news, a reader writes to ask: “Just wondering if you are going to update your March 8 ‘snooker’ piece.” Yes, I am. Here’s the update: Kim is a more adept con man, and Trump an easier mark, than even I had imagined.

These are not “breakthroughs” signaling peace in our time. These are indications of how skillfully Kim is maneuvering to preserve his nuclear program while relaxing international sanctions and dissipating Trump’s “fire and fury.”

Trump is the one who has made a significant concession by becoming the first sitting U.S. president willing to meet with the leader of North Korea — an act that will inherently legitimize the ruler of the world’s most despotic regime and feed its propaganda that even the world’s sole superpower feels compelled to bow before its mighty nuclear arsenal. What is Trump getting in return? So far, not even freedom for https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/three-americans-are-still-being-held-asprisoners-of-war-in-north-korea/2018/02/22/834683a8-1722-11e8-930c-45838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.65674858bb63 (the three American hostages)in North Korea — although Kim hints that this small concession will come.

...

Kim may be evil, but he’s not stupid — or suicidal. He’s stringing Trump along, making vague promises that he has no intention of keeping. And Trump, the rube who thinks he’s a sophisticate, shows every sign of falling for the bait.

 

[Ultimatepip]

 

[Jeremiahflex]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Mueller has a powerful tool at his disposal: The “sealed” or secret indictment. If Mueller indeed determines that he has a strong case against Trump, a secret indictment returned by a grand jury will help protect the integrity of his investigation even if he is fired, while also avoiding the risk of provoking Trump to try to further impede the probe.

Sealed indictments are routinely employed by federal prosecutors in sensitive investigations, particularly when a public indictment might have a negative effect on an ongoing investigation. To carry out this strategy, Mueller would a request that the already empaneled grand jury—the one considering matters related to Russian interference in the election—issue criminal charges against Trump himself. If the grand jury were to find probable cause for the charges to proceed, whatever they may be, a magistrate judge would then decide whether the indictment could remain secret. If the judge were to determine that it can, the charges would then remain hidden from public view until the criminal defendant is taken into custody or released on bail.

If Trump were to fire Mueller, an already filed sealed indictment would outlast Mueller’s tenure. A sealed indictment can only be dismissed by a judge, meaning Trump cannot rid himself of a legal headache simply by terminating the special counsel. A sealed indictment would also ensure that the statute of limitations for crimes Trump might be charged with will not expire. This leaves open the possibility of Trump being tried in the future.

Some might object that using a sealed, rather than public indictment seems counterintuitive: After all, isn’t the point of indicting Trump to expose his potentially criminal acts? If Mueller sought a public indictment, it would also preserve the case against Trump. It too would have to be dismissed by a judge in the event of Mueller’s firing, and it retains the advantage of ensuring the statute of limitations on many crimes would not run out. Moreover, public indictments have the benefit of immediate transparency, of letting the American people know immediately what their chief executive is accused of doing, rather than making the people wait until the indictment is unsealed.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Troy22]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Sinclair Broadcast Group executives reprimanded and ultimately ousted a local news reporter who refused to seed doubt about man-made climate change and “balance” her stories in a more conservative direction.

Her account, detailed in company documents she provided to BuzzFeed News, offers a glimpse at the inner workings of a media giant that has sought to both ingratiate itself to President Donald Trump and cast itself as an apolitical local news provider — a position the documents undermine.

In one 2015 instance, the former news director of WSET-TV in Lynchburg, Virginia, Len Stevens, criticized reporter Suri Crowe because she “clearly laid out the argument that human activities cause global warming, but had nothing from the side that questions the science behind such claims and points to more natural causes for such warming.”

In recent months, Sinclair has garnered intense national attention for forcing stations across the country to carry pro-Trump “must run” segments and instructing anchors to read statements touting conservative talking points. Sinclair, which owns local TV stations “affiliated” with name-brand networks like Fox or ABC, has defended the segments and noted they are a small part of its stations’ overall coverage — but Crowe’s experience as a general assignment reporter demonstrates how the parent company’s ideology can permeate throughout local news reporting.

She faced discipline for social media posts and restrictions in reporting on guns, white nationalism, and Liberty University, she said. Company documents do criticize some of her work as unfair and her behavior as unprofessional at times. Overall, the documents provide an unusually close look at one reporter’s experience working for a Sinclair station, and how the smallest details mattered and were recorded.

Crowe told BuzzFeed News that before the October 2015 climate change segment aired, she was ordered by Stevens to include Donald Trump’s opinion on the matter. “When I instructed you to balance the story, by including some of [the] other argument, you insisted there was no need to add such balance to the story,” he wrote in her Jan. 22, 2016, performance review.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- President Donald Trump on Sunday claimed North Korea has agreed to "denuclearization" before his potential meeting with Kim Jong Un. But that's not the case.

North Korea said Friday it would suspend nuclear tests and intercontinental ballistic missile launches ahead of summits with the U.S. and South Korea. Kim also said a nuclear test site would be closed and "dismantled" now that the country has learned how to make nuclear weapons and mount warheads on ballistic rockets.

But the North has stopped short of saying it has any intention of abandoning its nuclear arsenal, with Kim making clear that nukes remain a "treasured sword."

Mr. Trump nonetheless tweeted Sunday that the North has "agreed to denuclearization (so great for World), site closure, & no more testing!"

 

[Michael Scally MD]

So, given all this, what should we expect? Max Fisher of the New York Times offered up a sober analysis that is well worth reading. I would offer only two additional predictions for how this will play out:

1) The summit probably will happen. With each passing day, the evidence points to this meeting taking place. This is for a few reasons. First, both sides can participate in the summit arguing that they’re coming from a position of strength. The Trump administration can claim that its “maximum pressure” policy brought Kim to the table. There might even be http://english.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00400&num=15046 (a small grain of truth) to that claim. On the other hand, Kim can argue that North Korea’s successful nuclear and ballistic missile tests in 2017 puts it in a position of strength as well. There is a large grain of truth to that point, also.

...

2) The summit will be a slow-motion disaster. Trump’s record of meetings with authoritarian rivals is … not a distinguished one. The closest analogy to the coming summit is Trump’s long meeting with Vladimir Putin on the margins of the G-20 summit in July. That led to https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/09/trumps-plan-to-work-with-putin-on-cybersecurity-makes-no-sense-heres-why/?utm_term=.227ca2bb3d54 (a widely mocked announcement) of a joint “impenetrable Cyber Security unit.”

...

Victor Cha, who was supposed to be Trump’s ambassador to South Korea, closed his analysis of the announced summit with an ominous prediction:

Everyone should be aware that this dramatic act of diplomacy by these two unusual leaders, who love flair and drama, may also take us closer to war. Failed negotiations at the summit level leave all parties with no other recourse for diplomacy. In which case, as Mr. Trump has said, we really will have “run out of road” on North Korea.

He’s not wrong.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

"I'm out there living my best life, he [POTUS] wakes up in the morning and tweets at me."

 

[Michael Scally MD]

The West’s real enemy—and the enemy of the Russian people too—is a group of about 100 key beneficiaries of the Putin regime, and several thousand of their accomplices, many of whom hold posts in the Federal Security Service and the presidential administration.

Most of these people began their careers in the criminal underworld of St. Petersburg. Despite having now taken control of the presidency, the group retains every aspect of the criminal ilk from which they came. They are even conscious that they are a band of criminals whose goal is to steal money and avoid accountability by holding on to power. Their methods include buying people off, blackmail, murder and phony elections. But now they can operate world-wide, not merely in one city.

Acknowledging the mafia origins of Vladimir Putin’s entourage will allow the U.S. and its allies better to understand and resist the group’s actions. Mr. Putin’s strategy is often incomprehensible from a normal political perspective, but the background of his circle indicates his aims and vulnerabilities.

They are unconcerned about people—to them ordinary Russians are mere cattle and rabble. They are unconcerned about the country’s long-term future—for them Russia is something to be plundered and, at the same time, serves as a means of protection.

Mr. Putin’s cronies don’t mind being known as ruthless and unconscionable brutes, so long as their critics pose no challenge to their interests. They don’t rely on the law, so only power matters to them; they want to be feared in the international arena.

On the other hand, these people are very sensitive to exposure—to having their activities become public knowledge—because they are used to hiding from society. They also place a high value on money and luxury; losing wealth and comfort is painful to them.

This is a mafia, after all. But it is a mafia with access to the finest lobbying firms, corrupt politicians, and lawyers (who have forgotten that they are also accountable to the law). They also boast the support of the politically obedient Russian mass media.


The effective method of fighting mafia groups is already well established. It isn’t diplomacy, though negotiations are necessary. It isn’t broad economic sanctions, which hit ordinary people but are ineffective against the mafiosi.

The best method of targeting Mr. Putin’s circle is to identify its individual members, along with their accomplices and the politicians they have paid off. Then, the U.S. and its allies could act to cut them off from the mechanisms of their influence loot—the people, money, and corporations they control in the West.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]