Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Don’t be too comfortable with every part of the Russia investigation

While I want the Mueller investigation to continue – and I sure want to know if the Trump campaign directly colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC and Podesta – I’m not comfortable with every aspect of it.

First off, the recent subpoena against Sam Nunberg seemed awfully broad – both in terms of the time period covered and the number of people involved – especially for someone who left the campaign pretty early on.

Secondly, from this Washington Post article outlining the possible state of the investigation, there are a couple of facets from the possible legal case that should be unsettling. Apparently, there could be charges of “conspiracy to defraud the United States”. Which can be interpreted this way:

In the 1910 case Haas v. Henkel, the Supreme Court interpreted the provision broadly to include ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.’ Notably, there is no requirement that the government be cheated out of money or property.

Wow. Interpreted broadly, almost any form of direct protest against a federal agency becomes a crime.

Also, there’s the crime, which some Trump associates have already pleaded guilty to, of lying to federal officials. Perjury is a crime, of course. And that’s sensible. A duly constituted court of law can’t function without some incentive to make people tell the truth. But federal law enforcement officers are not the court. People might have all sort of reasons they don’t want their personal lives picked over by federal officials. It’s on the federal officials to find a way to build a case without being overly invasive.

Again, I’m no fan of Trump, and I want the investigation to continue. But we should be cautious about overly empowering federal law enforcement. You would think this would have been a lesson Democrats would have learned during the Clinton administration.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, there’s no evidence yet that anything Mueller comes up with will be persuasive politically to Republicans or Trump’s supporters. And that is key to this whole effort to understand what happened in 2016. If we can’t agree on a shared set of facts and a set of values for what’s acceptable in our republic, we have years of political poison ahead of us.

Trump and stability

While Trump has always been erratic – adjusting his message to suit his audience and mood and reflecting the last person he talked to – I’ve begun to worry about his stability more and more.

With Hicks leaving, Kushner on the ropes, Mueller progressing, and ongoing tension with his staff and cabinet secretaries, he will feel isolated. Reportedly he is planning to replace his National Security Advisor. Among the choices – again, reportedly – is Josh Bolton, who has advocated for nuclear war with North Korea. We can’t count on him to keep his own counsel. We are in dangerous times.

By the way, this danger is partly a consequence of Congress allowing an imperial presidency to grow. The office has become vested with far too much authority and power. It might have to step up. But for that to happen, the Republicans in Congress would have to choose country over party, and that is cold comfort.

Only half-jokingly, I wonder if Fox & Friends could calm him down…

Screen Shot 2018-03-04 at 7.16.38 AM

Pocket change

I’m taking some time today to try to wrap my mind around the financial connections between Trump world – Jared Kushner, etc. – and Russian financiers. The stories are convoluted and detailed, with a fair amount of guesswork as to what the actual connections are. (Let’s see what Mueller puts together. Another indictment Friday coming up?)

But here’s one takeaway: Reading these stories, you realize that the savings you’ve worked your entire life to build up is at best a rounding error to these people – if not just a cute, insignificant bit of pocket change. (And I say that as someone who is doing well by US standards and spectacularly by global standards.)

How do we fool ourselves into thinking these people can relate to us or represent us?

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 6.26.47 PM

Many Americans voted to make an admitted sexual harasser president. Just sayin’.

If you are critical of Harvey Weinstein and you voted for Trump, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution to sexual harassment.

On a related topic, this is a key reason I came to dislike Bill Clinton and be suspicious of the Democratic Party. Had he been a Republican, they never would have defended him like they did. None of us can avoid bias in our politics, but party politics seems to make us especially stupid.

Oh, and if you’re one of these people that wants to bring Hillary Clinton into this for some reason, I can only remind you that she’s not the president.

K.T. McFarland could learn a lot in Singapore – or not

So, it appears that Singapore is being considered as the next stop for K.T. McFarland. She could take over the job of ambassador here. McFarland is currently a deputy national security adviser within the Trump administration, but her continuing in that role has been in doubt since Michael Flynn was fired as national security adviser.

From what I know of her public statements, she could face some challenges here. Or alternatively, she might have an enlightening time. Let me explain.

One of her public themes appears to be that “radical Islamic terrorism” represents an existential threat to Western civilization. I assume this played a prominent role in her getting a job in Trump administration security circles because of Pres. Trump’s frequent criticism that Pres. Obama failed to recognize such a threat and do enough about it.

For my part, I don’t have a problem with labeling radical Islamic terrorism as *a* threat. Obviously, it is. And it could be quite horrible in its most extreme scenarios, like a dirty bomb. But I think it’s ridiculous to label it as an *existential* threat to the West. I really don’t see Islamic armies conquering and taking over the U.S. or any European countries any time soon. (No, that’s what we do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.) And despite fear-mongering on the right, I really don’t see a wholesale conversion to Shariah law, either.

However, countries with significant or majority Muslim populations do face challenges of this sort. In addition to terrorist attacks, if radical ideologies gain wide support, they can fundamentally change the character of the nation and threaten the existing less religious – or even secular – governments.

That’s why – and this might come as a shock to some American conservatives – you routinely see governments in southeast Asia taking steps to contain Islamic extremism. In Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim country on the planet, you see arrests and prosecutions of extremists and the president calling on citizens to resist radicalization. In Malaysia, which is a majority Muslim country, you see arrests of suspected ISIS supporters and convictions of others, as well as other steps. And in Singapore, which is almost 15% percent Muslim, an imam that made what was considered radical statements was forced to apologize and to pay a fine, while at the same time the country’s leaders express their firm commitment to a multi-religious society.

So, should Mrs. McFarland come to Singapore, I’ll be curious to find out what she’ll learn as she lives here. Maybe she’ll stick to her strong condemnations of Islamic radicalism (which has the possibility of backfiring and breeding anti-Western sentiments). Or maybe she’ll start to see that some Islamic countries are often just as committed to stopping radicalism as the West. (It is, after all, largely a recent import from the Middle East.) If she learns a little and moderates her views, she might become an effective representative of the U.S. in Singapore and beyond.

The Republican Difficulty with Reality

Trump administration press secretary Sean Spicer has, rightfully, been criticized for a briefing he provided on Saturday in which he made a number of false claims regarding the attendance at Pres. Trump’s inauguration. On Monday, at a regular press conference, he tried to spin some of these claims – for example, arguing that he was really talking about total viewing audience. But what has ultimately gotten the most attention was not Spicer’s performance, but how it was later defended. On Sunday on Meet the Press, Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway’s argued that Spicer was simply laying “alternative facts” than what were being reported by the press.

Alternative facts. Let me be charitable for just a moment. Sometimes there genuinely is a different set of facts that make better sense of a situation than others. That’s just part of debate. In that context, various facts should be heard.

But that’s not what was going on here. Spicer made some demonstrably false claims (and possibly lied, depending on whether he knew they were false) which were easily disproven by photographic and other evidence, and rather than accept that evidence, there was an attempt instead to create an alternate reality. All of this was done apparently at the direct order of Pres. Trump (perhaps as a test of his loyalty).

For Pres. Trump himself, falsehoods and lies are nothing new. He only gained traction as a politician by pushing birther conspiracies regarding Pres. Obama’s qualifications to be president, even after compelling evidence had been released proving him wrong. Over the course of the campaign, he lied routinely. He continues to push self-serving claims with no evidence. For example, he told congressional leaders that illegal immigrants are the reason he lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

But for as bad as Pres. Trump was on the campaign trail, this latest episode is significant because, one, it happened during his actual administration, and two, it’s the latest example of how the Republican Party has come to have a difficult relationship with truth and reality – of Republicans simply believing and saying whatever they want, regardless of the evidence.

Essentially, we’re revisiting through the bad old days of the George W. Bush administration. In 2004, Ron Suskind wrote in the New York Times what was to become a famous article about how the administration led the nation into the Iraq War. One passage stood out:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

“Reality-based community”. This phrase struck a nerve among many people, some of whom made it a point of pride to call themselves a member. And why not? Seriously, who in their right mind would not want to be reality-based?

Apparently some in the Bush administration did not. Instead, they were obsessed with action, impact, acts of will – even if these had to be realized by ignoring facts, denying reality, and stifling debate. In that sort of world, the Enlightenment is dead; principle is thrown out the window; and only raw power remains.

This sort of mindset still seems to have a home in the Republican Party almost 15 years later.

One obvious example is the continuing denial of the seriousness of climate change, including by the soon to be head of the EPA. Other examples are more subtle. For example, there is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pressing Democrats to allow the nomination of a Supreme Court justice to go forward after blocking Pres. Obama from doing so many months before the election. Another is expecting respect for Pres. Trump – it can be so demoralizing – even though disrespect for Pres. Obama was fierce during his tenure – even disturbing (to say the least). It can even be absurd, with Pres. Trump even claiming that it wasn’t raining during his speech, which objectively, it was. (Rain truthers?)

Look, all of us are subject to fudging the truth to fit our preconceived ideas. It’s called confirmation bias, and it’s just part of human nature. Partisan politics is especially subject to this. Positions seem to be changing faster than ever, given the needs of the party line. For example, thanks to this election, some Democrats and some on the left now think intelligence agencies are great and to be trusted. But again, I think most of the action is among the Republicans and on the right: Julian Assange and Wikileaks are now great; it appears infrastructure spending – which is a form of stimulus – is great; Russia is just fine, even if there is some evidence of interfering with our election; and bullying private companies to keep jobs in the United States is okay. The Affordable Care Act has been demonized, of course, even though it started life as a conservative idea and was first enacted by a Republican governor. Even fake news producers, who have money on the line, banked more on Republicans than Democrats. Love of party makes everybody stupid. But it makes some stupider than others.

Even though this tradition of reality denial by Republicans has been with us for a while, there is a new twist – and it’s a dangerous one. It could be argued that all of the deeply cynical positions and behaviors I describe above were all for the greater causes Republicans and conservatives say they support, like freedom and markets and so forth. I don’t believe that’s true, but I’ll grant it for a moment. This is not what appears to be happening in the Trump era. Instead, truth will be twisted simply in the service of his unrelenting egomania. In the end, we won’t even have the pretense of reality-denying having some larger national purpose. Instead, it will all be to protect and aggrandize our supreme leader. And that is a very dangerous development for the republic.

On a more hopeful note, there is a way out. It involves getting out of your own head. It requires listening to people who disagree with you. It implies that you cultivate the virtue of compromise. You have to be willing to admit your are wrong and change your mind. But all of this simultaneously implies vulnerability and that you practice the virtue of humility – something that I surely don’t see in Pres. Trump, and see less and less in his party.

Notes on the Trump inauguration

Well, starting tomorrow, America and the world are going to get modern Republicanism full-bore. Like many, I’m fairly certain the Trump administration – combined with the Tea-Party-style Congress – will be a disaster. I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the end of American pre-eminence. Here’s my rundown of the domestic and foreign train wrecks to come.


On the domestic side, I predict the greatest direct danger of a Trump presidency will be that an insecure, vindictive egomaniac has control of the vast investigatory and police powers of the presidency – police powers, by the way, that have been granted and blessed by members of both parties. He’s already proven he won’t be bound by norms or a sense of decency. I think anyone who opposes him – and that means any Republicans, too – will be a target. Based on the way the campaign was run, I think minorities are especially vulnerable. Our main hope lies in either principled, whistle-blowing law enforcement agents or principled congressional Republicans. Last time I checked, those congressional Republicans claimed to fear the power of the state and believe in strong oversight – well, at least when it came to Democrats. Given that these are our two primary lines of defense, I think we’re in deep trouble.


Internationally, the greatest direct danger will be Trump’s terrible handling of the rise of China as an economic and military power. The world is inevitably realigning (especially in Asia, where I live). Little can be done about the coming of a world with multiple powers. Even so, I believe the Trump administration will make a complete hash of it – either by fomenting a trade war or by blundering into some hot skirmishes. Also, recall that this is the guy who doesn’t think much of our treaties with our fellow democracies and doesn’t mind the spread of nuclear weapons. I don’t have much confidence in his judgment of American interests abroad. And if Trump and the Republican party end up taking a thoroughly authoritarian turn – partly as I’ve outlined above, but also by limiting rights like voting and freedom of the press – the US will have little credibility to challenge illiberal regimes.

Some things never seem to change

There are other issues, both domestic and foreign, that I don’t label as a top threat – not because they aren’t horrible – but because I don’t see them as an enormous break from the recent past.

First off, I believe his administration will prove itself corrupt and incompetent – just look at his cabinet picks – but we’ve been through that before with the George W. Bush administration and survived. It could hardly get worse than having an administration dedicated to launching a war of choice in Iraq by any means necessary. Maybe American voters will again reject the Republican party as this plays out. But given the rise of Trump, I’m less confident in that.

The march toward plutocracy and a society that fails to provide for all will continue. This will get worse, certainly, with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but after that, it will simply be back on the trendline from before. Trump bullying a few companies into saving a few manufacturing jobs at the expense of others will not alter the long-term trend. An effective political movement to combat inequality has yet to gel. Maybe its time will come in the next eight years, but that would be too hopeful for this post.

Both domestically and internationally, the danger of a significant Islamic terrorist attack remains. This has been the norm for more than a decade now. Let’s hope that police agencies worldwide are able to head off any major plots.

Finally, as they have so many times before, the Democrats will likely prove themselves incapable at facing the challenge of the surging Republican party and capitalizing on their opponents’ mistakes. I believe the Republican party is a deeply cynical, ruthless political operation. But the Democrats are largely incompetent.

Worst of all

All of what I’ve said so far is pretty bad. But none of them are the worst. No, the worst threat is the complete breakdown of any sense of shared truth. We seem, as a body politic, to have lost the ability to reason together and to compromise, both key values for any republic to function. Instead, truth is defined first by party affiliation, then by religious or ethnic membership, and then by class interests. People will believe whatever their tribe believes, even if the tribe believed the complete opposite just days, weeks, or months before. This is, by the way, far, far worse on the right than it is on the left. But to try to tell them that is to be called a liar. On it goes.

So, there it is. Your happiness report. And it all starts tomorrow, Saturday, by Asian reckoning. See you on the other side.