Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse



Donald Trump is part of the peculiar breed Herman Melville described in his novel “The Confidence-Man,” in which the main character uses protean personas, flattery and lies to gain the confidence of his fellow passengers to fleece them on a Mississippi River steamboat. “Confidence men,” as Melville understood, are an inevitable product of the amorality of capitalism and the insatiable lust for wealth, power and empire that infects American society.

Trump’s narcissism, his celebration of ignorance—which he like all confidence men confuses with innocence—his megalomania and his lack of empathy are pathologies nurtured by the American landscape. They embody the American belief, one that Mark Twain parodied in “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” F. Scott Fitzgerald excoriated in “The Great Gatsby” and William Faulkner portrayed in the depraved Snopes clan, that it does not matter in the crass commercialism of American society how you obtain wealth and power. They are their own justifications.

American culture is built on a willful duplicity, a vision we hold of ourselves that bears little resemblance to reality. Malcolm Bradbury wrote “that in America imposture is identity; that values are not beliefs but the product of occasions; and that social identity is virtually an arbitrary matter, depending not on character nor an appearance but on the chance definition of one’s nature or colour.”

We founded the nation on genocide and slavery, ravage the globe with endless wars and the theft of its resources, enrich an oligarchic elite at the expense of the citizenry, empower police to gun down unarmed citizens in the streets, and lock up a quarter of the world’s prison population while wallowing in the supposed moral superiority of American white supremacy. The more debased the nation becomes, the more it seeks the reassurance of oily con artists to mask truth with lies.

Trump, like most con artists, is skilled at manufacturing self-serving news and a fictional persona that feed the magical aura of his celebrity.
 


Walter Dellinger was head of the Office of Legal Counsel from 1993 to 1996 and acting U.S. solicitor general from 1996 to 1997.


What does the nation do if it turns out that a president of the United States has committed https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-recommend-substantial-prison-term-for-former-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen/2018/12/07/e144f248-f7f3-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.e45d83466e47 (serious crimes) that a prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt? One possible resolution would be to offer a plea bargain in which the commander in chief agreed to resign the presidency in exchange for utmost leniency. Perversely, the more financially corrupt or psychologically unstable the White House occupant, the greater his or her bargaining power: Only if you let my client go scot-free, a president’s lawyers could argue, will you be allowed to pry the nuclear codes from his hands.

That is a powerful bargaining chip but one with an expiration date. At the strike of noon on his successor’s Inauguration Day, when the (former) president’s Air Force One turns into a pumpkin, he loses that leverage and becomes like any other citizen before the bar of justice. That gives a provably corrupt president a great incentive to end his term early — and on his terms.

The end of Spiro T. Agnew’s vice presidency is instructive — and provides a good example for why we should be able to indict a sitting president.
 


The Russian influence campaign on social media in the 2016 election made an extraordinary effort to target African-Americans, used an array of tactics to try to suppress turnout among Democratic voters and unleashed a blizzard of posts on Instagram that rivaled or exceeded its Facebook operations, according to a report produced for the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The report adds new details to the portrait that has emerged over the last two years of the energy and imagination of the Russian effort to sway American opinion and divide the country, which the authors said continues to this day.

“Active and ongoing interference operations remain on several platforms,” says the report, produced by https://www.newknowledge.com/, a cybersecurity company based in Austin, Texas, along with researchers at Columbia University and Canfield Research LLC. One continuing Russian campaign, for instance, seeks to influence opinion on Syria by promoting Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president and a Russian ally in the brutal conflict there.

The New Knowledge report, which was obtained by The New York Times in advance of its scheduled release on Monday, is one of two commissioned by the Senate committee on a bipartisan basis. They are based largely on data about the Russian operations provided to the Senate by Facebook, Twitter and the other companies whose platforms were used.

The second report was written by the https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/ at Oxford University along with Graphika, a company that specializes in analyzing social media. The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/?utm_term=.00043ef67e36 (first reported) on the Oxford report on Sunday.

The Russian influence campaign in 2016 was run by a St. Petersburg company called the Internet Research Agency, owned by a businessman, Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, who is a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Mr. Prigozhin and a dozen of the company’s employees were indicted last February as part of the investigation of Russian interference by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.
 
SPRAY-ON HATRED
https://claytoonz.com/2018/12/17/spray-on-hatred/


I did Nazi that coming. White House hate czar Stephen Miller popped into Face the Nation on Sunday to bloviate about the dangers of immigrants while sporting something on his head that looked like a recalled Chia pet. Miller should stop taking hair advice from the president and raiding his Adderall.

Miller spent the bulk of his time on CBS promising that Trump would shut down the government if he doesn’t get funding for his racist, xenophobic border wall while pretending that stuff on his head came from his scalp and not a can.

Miller argued that refusing to fund the border wall was the same thing as advocating for illegal immigration and said, “Democrats have a simple choice between fighting for America’s working class and promoting illegal immigration.” I’d argue that milking $5 billion out of the budget for a useless wall that can be defeated by ladders does more harm to America’s working class than immigrants. Miller would probably enjoy kicking over cartons of water left by humanitarians for immigrants, except the desert sun would melt his faux follicles.

What makes less sense than Miller’s new hairline is threatening to shut down the government and having those guarding the border going unpaid. Can we stop the dogmatic lie that those against the wall are in favor of an unprotected border?

The wall is a ridiculous argument but it’s loved by those who love simple solutions and talking points. “Build the wall” is a fun chant for sycophants who form their opinions from internet memes. There’s no thinking required.

The wall is impossible. We can’t build a wall to cover our entire border when it would have to go over private property, mountains, and rivers. If we can’t protect our entire border then how are we going to protect the entire wall from people going over or under it? We’re talking about something that will cost between $20 to $70 billion dollars that can be conquered by Mexican ladders.

On top of all that, the wall is hateful. If the wall is ever actually constructed, it will be a dark spot on our nation’s history alongside slavery and the internment of Japanese Americans. If the wall is built, someday a more enlightened United States will tear it down.

But the wall will never be built. Stephen Miller has a better chance of needing a comb before that wall’s ever constructed.

cjones12232018.jpg
 


Stephen Miller, the Trump kingdom’s Immigration Iago, wants you to believe that his boss retains great leverage in the ongoing government shutdown fight — so much so that he will, repeat will, get his great border wall. Miller, a top White House adviser, said Sunday that President Trump will “do whatever is necessary” to force Democrats to cough up the $5 billion he wants for the wall and will “absolutely” shut down the government to get it.

In reality, it’s not even clear that Trump has sufficient Republican support to get his wall money out of Congress. The New York Times now reports that Republicans aren’t even sure that this funding would pass the House, because many Republicans who were defeated in the midterms might not bother showing up to vote for it.

Wait, this cannot be! Miller spent much of his “Face the Nation” appearance excoriating Democrats over the wall. Democrats have instead offered far less in border security funding, with restrictions against spending it for that purpose. Miller suggested Democrats have the weaker position, claiming they must “choose to fight for America’s working class, or to promote illegal immigration.”

Wow, what a powerful message! That must be the same message that carried Trump and House Republicans to a great midterms victory! Oh wait, the opposite happened. This has gone down the memory hole, but last summer, Miller vowed that precisely that same contrast on immigration would prove potent for Republicans. They ran the most virulently xenophobic nationalist campaign in memory — and lost the House by the largest raw-vote margin in midterm elections history.

The meta-message that Miller hoped to convey is that Trump retains formidable strength in the shutdown battle over the wall, but the real story right now is that Trump is weakened. He lacks leverage in the shutdown fight, and it’s plausible that he’s losing influence over congressional Republicans.
 


On June 4, President Donald Trump tweeted, “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?”


Trump is not the first president to consider a self-pardon. On August 1, 1974, Vice President Gerald Ford met with Alexander Haig, an aide to Richard Nixon, who raised the possibility that the president might: invoke Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment if impeached by the House and step aside temporarily on the grounds that he was “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” then reassume office if the Senate failed to remove him; “plea-bargain” with Congress for censure instead of removal; pardon the other Watergate defendants and himself, then resign.

Or Nixon might resign and Ford might pardon him. In his 2009 book, The Presidential Pardon Power, the political scientist Jeffrey Crouch suggested that the point of the meeting was for Haig to let Ford know that, as president, he would have the power to pardon Nixon before indictment or trial.

Four days later, the Justice Department produced a memo arguing that under “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case,” a president could not pardon himself. On August 9, Nixon resigned; a month later, Ford granted him “a full, free, and absolute pardon” for all federal crimes committed during his presidency.

Since then, the idea of a presidential self-pardon has floated on the fringes of constitutional dialogue. Scholars are split on whether the president’s constitutionally conferred power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment,” includes self-pardon. One side points out, correctly, that the text of the Constitution limits the pardon power in only one respect—“cases of impeachment”—and thus can be read as unlimited in every other way. But the other side notes, also correctly, that there is no mention of self-pardon in the framing or ratification debates, nor in the legal history of pardons. As the late University of Chicago scholar Philip Kurland, who during the Watergate hearings helped the Senate Judiciary Committee conclude that Nixon had obstructed justice, once summed up the literature: “Obviously there’s no answer.”

In 2018, of course, scholars’ views don’t mean much. The current constitutional rule is Donald Trump can do anything he can get away with. The president operates by hotel-burglar logic: If people don’t want to be robbed, they ought to lock their doors; if the Founders didn’t want Trump to do something, it’s their own fault for not writing “the president can’t do this.”

But even if Trump could get away with a self-pardon, would it do him any good?
 
Top