That's not a wave on which you can surf to 2020 victory.
Going into the mid-term elections, Democrats were predicting a tangible "blue wave" of electoral victories, but that tsunami turned into a ripple in most places Tuesday. Democrats did regain majority control of the U.S. House, but they failed in some of the most high-profile races that they had bolstered with money and attention — failing to topple vulnerable, mercurial Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, failing to win governorships in Florida and Ohio (key states in 2020) and failing to hold onto Senate seats in the Republican-dominated Midwest.
President Donald Trump is claiming credit for the Republican showing in these races, and his influence on campaigns across the country is hard to deny. Trump took his comedic road show to states where Republicans were vulnerable, and he fired up the GOP base with warnings about an "invasion" of illegal immigrants from Mexico, higher taxes under a Democratic Congress (although the GOP majority in the Senate makes that nearly impossible) and (of course) news professionals Trump is convinced are conspiring against him. In many places and in many minds, Trump's effort to exaggerate, prevaricate and conjure false "facts" worked well. His one-man shows (it's hard to consider his boisterous, insult-filled, narcissistic extravaganzas political rallies in the traditional sense) were effective in getting his base excited about the mid-terms. Democrats won enough seats to gain a majority in the U.S. House, but their victories were limited to a bubble here and there in mostly moderate- or left-leaning states, not a sustained wave of turnovers.
Democrats did not put themselves into an appreciably better position for the 2020 election. They failed to win key governorships and state houses that will help determine both the 2020 presidential election and the 2021 redistricting of House seats. Democrats still have a lot of work to do to regain the power they enjoyed in the past (e.g., 1932-1952, 1960-1966, 1974-1978).
The most troubling aspect of the mid-terms to anyone outside the legions of Trump loyalists is the impact on the Mueller investigation of the 2016 election. By firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replacing him with an apparent sycophant who has cast doubts on the entire investigation, Trump has connived to void any possibility that America will get to the bottom of Russian influence in the 2016 election and the allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and a foreign power. This scenario is comparable to what would have happened if Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" had succeeded in stopping progress on the Watergate investigation. Winning a majority in the House gives the Democrats an opportunity to re-open the laughably incomplete House investigation into the 2016 election, but even the subpoena power of a congressional committee cannot compare with the indictment and plea-bargaining possibilities of a criminal investigation.
The net result of the 2018 mid-terms is that Trump has gained the advantage in 2020 and owns the Republican Party.
Showing posts with label Jeff Sessions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Sessions. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Foreign agents infiltrate U.S. government; where's the outrage?
Where is Joe McCarthy when you really need him?
You remember Tail-Gunner Joe, the senator who claimed he had lists of ___ (fill in any outlandish number) communists working in the State Department. McCarthy garnered a lot of publicity for himself without ever outing a single commie before the U.S. Senate finally censored him.
That was more than 60 years ago. Now the U.S. government faces another crisis of confidence in the institutions of government. Rep. Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has issued a four-page memo sowing doubts about the FISA court, which limits surveillance on American citizens, the Mueller investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department and the FBI. Democrats failed to stop the release of the memo, which the FBI and the Justice Department have said is deeply flawed and misleading. President Trump seems to be egging on Nunes and his GOP colleagues in an effort to cast doubt on the Mueller investigation. Trump, Nunes and other GOP sycophants, do not appear to be concerned that their actions are harming public confidence in the FBI, the Justice Department and other institutions.
Despite all of the back-and-forth over the release of the disputed memo, no one has pointed out what should be obvious: The Trump presidential campaign was infiltrated by individuals who were Russian agents or had clear links to the Russians. Carter Page, the Trump advisor who was the subject of a surveillance request (plus renewals) sent to the FISA court, had been on U.S. intelligence services' radar for his Kremlin connections since at least 2013. (A friend with closer ties to Washington doubts that Page was ever a Russian agent, but he had been in contact with the Kremlin. Michael Flynn, another Russia-linked Trump advisor, was fired by Trump after Flynn lied about his Russia contacts. Another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos, has admitted to lying to investigators about his contacts with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign. It was Papadopoulos' contacts with Russian agents that first alerted U.S. intelligence agencies to Russian meddling and Page. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had worked for the Kremlin-backed government of Ukraine. Even Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was tainted by his Russian contacts during the campaign, and had to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation.
Trump, meanwhile, seems to be considering firing FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, both of whom were hired by Trump, as a way of stalling or capsizing the entire Russia investigation under Robert Mueller. Trump has spent much of his presidency trying to derail or de-legitimize the Mueller investigation.
During the paranoia of the Cold War, any foreign influence into U.S. policy would have sparked an outcry from the public, an outcry McCarthy adroitly exploited, at least for a while. With the Cold War nearly 30 years in the grave, worries about Russian (no longer Soviet or Communist) infiltration into the highest ranks of government seem hopelessly anachronistic. But U.S. and other intelligence services say the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin is manipulating the electorate in Western Democracies in order to expand Russia's own global influence and military strength.
Who will have the courage to channel Joe McCarthy and declare, "Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of four Russian agents who played active roles in the Trump presidential campaign." This time, the list would have actual names (see above) of real Russian agents or sympathizers who advised Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.
Now, what McCarthy did in the early 1950s and what needs to be done today are totally different. McCarthy needlessly inflamed public opinion to advance his own political career as he falsely alleged unnamed employees of the State Department were communists or communist sympathizers. What is needed now is someone who will point out the fact that the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency have attracted an extraordinary number of people with connections to the Kremlin. Whether there was collusion or coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign may not matter as much as this question: Why have so many people with Russian ties ended up in the the Trump campaign or administration? Russian agents or sympathizers have gained the ear of the president — something the Americans of McCarthy's day would have considered treasonous.
Nunes tried to inflame public opinion about a surveillance court application while ignoring the far more serious and undisputed fact that a U.S. presidential candidate was depending on advisors who were or had been agents or advocates of a foreign power.
You remember Tail-Gunner Joe, the senator who claimed he had lists of ___ (fill in any outlandish number) communists working in the State Department. McCarthy garnered a lot of publicity for himself without ever outing a single commie before the U.S. Senate finally censored him.
That was more than 60 years ago. Now the U.S. government faces another crisis of confidence in the institutions of government. Rep. Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has issued a four-page memo sowing doubts about the FISA court, which limits surveillance on American citizens, the Mueller investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department and the FBI. Democrats failed to stop the release of the memo, which the FBI and the Justice Department have said is deeply flawed and misleading. President Trump seems to be egging on Nunes and his GOP colleagues in an effort to cast doubt on the Mueller investigation. Trump, Nunes and other GOP sycophants, do not appear to be concerned that their actions are harming public confidence in the FBI, the Justice Department and other institutions.
Despite all of the back-and-forth over the release of the disputed memo, no one has pointed out what should be obvious: The Trump presidential campaign was infiltrated by individuals who were Russian agents or had clear links to the Russians. Carter Page, the Trump advisor who was the subject of a surveillance request (plus renewals) sent to the FISA court, had been on U.S. intelligence services' radar for his Kremlin connections since at least 2013. (A friend with closer ties to Washington doubts that Page was ever a Russian agent, but he had been in contact with the Kremlin. Michael Flynn, another Russia-linked Trump advisor, was fired by Trump after Flynn lied about his Russia contacts. Another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos, has admitted to lying to investigators about his contacts with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign. It was Papadopoulos' contacts with Russian agents that first alerted U.S. intelligence agencies to Russian meddling and Page. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had worked for the Kremlin-backed government of Ukraine. Even Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was tainted by his Russian contacts during the campaign, and had to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation.
Trump, meanwhile, seems to be considering firing FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, both of whom were hired by Trump, as a way of stalling or capsizing the entire Russia investigation under Robert Mueller. Trump has spent much of his presidency trying to derail or de-legitimize the Mueller investigation.
During the paranoia of the Cold War, any foreign influence into U.S. policy would have sparked an outcry from the public, an outcry McCarthy adroitly exploited, at least for a while. With the Cold War nearly 30 years in the grave, worries about Russian (no longer Soviet or Communist) infiltration into the highest ranks of government seem hopelessly anachronistic. But U.S. and other intelligence services say the Kremlin under Vladimir Putin is manipulating the electorate in Western Democracies in order to expand Russia's own global influence and military strength.
Who will have the courage to channel Joe McCarthy and declare, "Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of four Russian agents who played active roles in the Trump presidential campaign." This time, the list would have actual names (see above) of real Russian agents or sympathizers who advised Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.
Now, what McCarthy did in the early 1950s and what needs to be done today are totally different. McCarthy needlessly inflamed public opinion to advance his own political career as he falsely alleged unnamed employees of the State Department were communists or communist sympathizers. What is needed now is someone who will point out the fact that the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency have attracted an extraordinary number of people with connections to the Kremlin. Whether there was collusion or coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign may not matter as much as this question: Why have so many people with Russian ties ended up in the the Trump campaign or administration? Russian agents or sympathizers have gained the ear of the president — something the Americans of McCarthy's day would have considered treasonous.
Nunes tried to inflame public opinion about a surveillance court application while ignoring the far more serious and undisputed fact that a U.S. presidential candidate was depending on advisors who were or had been agents or advocates of a foreign power.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Parallels with hearings from 45 years ago
From 1972-75, I worked in Washington, D.C., subscribed to the Washington Post, and watched the Watergate hearings on television as much as I could. Like much of America, I was mesmerized by the hearings.
Watching, reading about or listening to the testimony before congressional committees this year takes me back to the Watergate era. So much is the same — the setting in ornate hearing rooms before scores of staff members, media representatives and other officials are interchangeable between 1973 and 2017.
As I listened to testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey, I was transported back to the testimony of John Dean, the White House counsel before the Watergate Committee. Both witnesses spoke in carefully, cautiously measured phrases. Both demonstrated uncanny recall of events. Both men's testimony had the ring of truth.
Tuesday's testimony by Attorney General Jeff Sessions recalled another similarity to Watergate: partisan attacks against the witness were unbecoming and contrary to the Senate's courteous traditions. That is true about both political parties. Democrats tried to interrogate Sessions and force him to admit to wrongdoing. Chairman Richard Burr had to remind one senator to allow the witness to answer her question. Republicans sought to defend the president by shifting the focus of the inquiry or adroitly denying generally accepted facts.
Sessions tried to be the courtly southern gentleman, but it was difficult when he was interrupted by aggressive questioners before he could complete his answer in his slow drawl. Sessions, the administration's "top lawyer," however, refused to answer some questions on the basis of executive privilege even while admitting that he could not invoke executive privilege. Only the president can do that, and President Trump had not invoked executive privilege over his conversations with Sessions. Thus, Sessions said he was reserving the president's right to invoke executive privilege at some time in the future. That strikes many people as stretching a constitutional privilege complete out of shape. By his standard, every conversation with the president would be privileged until the president declares it is not covered by executive privilege. That leaves no room for balance of power and the authority of Congress to examine the executive branch's performance.
As the hearings continue and the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections continue, parallels with Watergate will keep popping up. What is unlikely to pop up is a presidential resignation. While President Nixon was a paranoid egotist who could not admit to being wrong, he at least had the interests of the country foremost in his mind. What is foremost in Trump's mind is Trump himself.
Watching, reading about or listening to the testimony before congressional committees this year takes me back to the Watergate era. So much is the same — the setting in ornate hearing rooms before scores of staff members, media representatives and other officials are interchangeable between 1973 and 2017.
As I listened to testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey, I was transported back to the testimony of John Dean, the White House counsel before the Watergate Committee. Both witnesses spoke in carefully, cautiously measured phrases. Both demonstrated uncanny recall of events. Both men's testimony had the ring of truth.
Tuesday's testimony by Attorney General Jeff Sessions recalled another similarity to Watergate: partisan attacks against the witness were unbecoming and contrary to the Senate's courteous traditions. That is true about both political parties. Democrats tried to interrogate Sessions and force him to admit to wrongdoing. Chairman Richard Burr had to remind one senator to allow the witness to answer her question. Republicans sought to defend the president by shifting the focus of the inquiry or adroitly denying generally accepted facts.
Sessions tried to be the courtly southern gentleman, but it was difficult when he was interrupted by aggressive questioners before he could complete his answer in his slow drawl. Sessions, the administration's "top lawyer," however, refused to answer some questions on the basis of executive privilege even while admitting that he could not invoke executive privilege. Only the president can do that, and President Trump had not invoked executive privilege over his conversations with Sessions. Thus, Sessions said he was reserving the president's right to invoke executive privilege at some time in the future. That strikes many people as stretching a constitutional privilege complete out of shape. By his standard, every conversation with the president would be privileged until the president declares it is not covered by executive privilege. That leaves no room for balance of power and the authority of Congress to examine the executive branch's performance.
As the hearings continue and the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections continue, parallels with Watergate will keep popping up. What is unlikely to pop up is a presidential resignation. While President Nixon was a paranoid egotist who could not admit to being wrong, he at least had the interests of the country foremost in his mind. What is foremost in Trump's mind is Trump himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
