Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse



Given the nation’s problems, from the unsettling situation along the Korean Peninsula, to the destruction left by Hurricane Harvey, to general income inequality, to terrorism, to climate change, our timing in bringing a man like Donald Trump into the White House really couldn’t be worse.

The man is clearly unfit for any kind of public office, let alone the highest office in the land. The majority of the electorate knew this when they went to the voting booths. His “many sides” response to the events in Charlottesville during his horribly eventful, 17-day vacation sparked a run on his remaining popularity. (As Trump’s better, Winston Churchill said, “I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.”)

The members of the president’s vaunted business panels left him. The members of his arts panel left him. The Republican leadership blanches at the mention of his name. His popularity in the swing states he won is on a downward spiral. Even charities that had booked space for their fund-raisers at Mar-a-Lago, his mid-market wedding-and-birthday rental facility, are pulling out. He still has the neo-Nazis and the racists, which must give him some comfort. This is going to sound unkind, but why are supremacists invariably the worst specimens of the race they are claiming to defend?
 


Review of "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" by Bandy X. Lee (ed.), "Twilight of American Sanity" by Allen Frances, and "Fantasyland" by Kurt Andersen.
 


North Carolina’s 2017 national championship men’s basketball team will not visit the White House, a team spokesman said on Saturday, though the Tar Heels were invited to visit, as is the custom for teams that win college men’s basketball and football national championships.
 


Back in June, I explained that even under the definition of “emolument” that the Department of Justice offered in its opening brief seeking dismissal of CREW, et al. v. Trump, the President has violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause (FEC) if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true (which they must be on a motion to dismiss).

Late last night, DOJ filed its reply brief, in which it quietly abandons--or substantially supplements, anyway--the definition it offered in its opening brief, in an obvious effort to avoid that unwelcome conclusion. Its new definition of “emolument,” however, is based upon no authority at all, leads to absurd results, deviates sharply from the mode of analysis that the Department of Justice itself has long used when applying the FEC, and has little, if anything, to recommend it as a matter of constitutional interpretation.
 
Top