Circular firing squads are an old Democratic custom. Remember in 1980 when Ted Kennedy decided -- for no reason he could explain to Roger Mudd -- to run against Carter's second term.
The Republicans, on the other hand, had always been good at following Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: Do not speak ill of another Republican. Then along came the second or third most obese president in American history, with Lyin' Ted and Little Marco and Low Energy Jeb and on and on (today it's Anti-Semitic Democrats) and proved that the nastiest kid on the block gets to play with all the toys. He also expanded the number of toys the President can play with to include the FBI and Federal Reserve.
So I guess the lesson all good politicians have learned for this cycle is that trashing the opposition makes the base happy and makes everybody else stay home. One thing about politicians -- like generals, they always fight the last campaign.
Seems like we never used to have so many people running for prez, which makes the circular firing squad more deadly.
A lot of these people seem redundant. Maybe we need to Margaret's oft-mentioned smoke-filled backrooms to persuade two-thirds of these people that they're indistinguishable from the front-runners.
Keep Harris, Warren, and Hickenlooper or Klobuchar. Maybe Booker.
Biden and Bernie are too old to be serious about a possible two terms. Warren may even be too old. The rest are either too young or too divisive.
Beto O'Rourke can probably be persuaded to drop out if he gets a nice new skateboard and a buddy date with Tony Hawk.
Jean, I mostly agree with you, not that it will do either of us or the D party any good. But you left off Gillibrand. I vaguely think there is something wrong with her (Margaret may know), but I don't know what it is. The parts of her I clearly recall include winning an election she was supposed to lose and serving on important committees. Off that, I think she has as much going for her as Harris, Warren or Klobuchar, who seem to be the other hopes for a "suburban women" strategy. And, btw, when Palm Beach traffic comes to a total standstill so His Rotundity's motorcade can take him across the bridge to the private club taxpayers pay him for maintaining, the route is usually lined with screaming, jumping, sign-holding people in red caps who would otherwise be described as "suburban women." Just sayin' because national Ds probably don't know that.
Kirsten Gillibrand, quite apart from being unqualified for higher office, will get slaughtered by Trump if she is the candidate. Her deep-sixing Al Franken before any ethics committee took on the issue of his stupid videos did not sit well with Dem biggies (according to the NYTimes).
Mayor Bill deBlasio is also a loser though he keeps visiting other parts of the country whose public housing and transportation system is presumably doing better than the one he's in charge of!
I could vote for Klobuchar or Warren, but I don't think a woman can win...so...then what? Biden? not Bernie...not Beto... Mayor Pete? maybe.
Maybe Theresa May can negotiate with Mexico to pay for the wall. Despite her travails, and possibly her pending availability, I consider her a better negotiator than the current occupant.
Re: female velociraptors: I agree with Stanley that being a woman isn't ipso facto an insuperable barrier to election. That said, it's difficult to imagine a Democratic female candidate whose views on abortion wouldn't disqualify her in the eyes of the pro-life conservative voters who flocked to Trump in 2016.
Naturally, that cuts both ways. Sarah Palin learned a couple of elections before that that the sisterhood only extends so far.
I left off Gillibrand because, if you take off sexual harassment and reproductive issues, she's got nothin.
Klobochar might be able to beat Trump. I don't see any other women candidates having enough bludgeon-ability to bring down that gigantic mouth attached to that gigantic ego.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg likely won't last another six years, and my guess is that single-issue anti-Roe voters will re-elect Trump to get another conservative on the court. Add the anti-Roe contingent to the immigration hard-liners and business people benefiting from deregulation, and I don't see how the guy can lose a second term.
Jim, most women know that being female does not confer instant understanding and sympathy with all other women.
"Sisterhood" is often a term used to define what women are "supposed" to be by various groups in order to exclude the "wrong" women.
I was told in RCIA that Catholic women should not consider themselves feminists. It was clear that the Church Ladies defined "feminism" far differently than I. It was quite a difficult discussion. Father eventually intervened.
"...being female does not confer instant understanding and sympathy with all other women." No, it certainly doesn't. I was accused of being anti-feminist because I didn't approve of Sarah Palin. It all depends on what women we are talking about. And feminism means only what the person one is talking to says that it means.
E.J. Dionne argues that Biden should get in the race. Bottom line:
"The bottom line is that Biden belongs in this fight. He represents important components of the coalition that will have to come together to defeat the president. He could help Democrats solve a strategic dilemma: how to be tough as nails on Trump while still promising the more harmonious political future that middle-of-the-road voters long for. And if he fails, the ultimate nominee will be far better off for having faced down Biden and not be haunted by the ghost of a candidacy that never was."
"And if he fails, the ultimate nominee will be far better off for having faced down Biden and not be haunted by the ghost of a candidacy that never was."
I have been a life-long Democrat but freely admit that this party is usually disorganized, better at talking than doing, and known for eating its young.
Uncle Joe (up until today my second favorite candidate. Mayor Peter is ichiban) is history. His mouth overloads his brain way too often. And so do his hands.
Klobuchar was way too quick to thrown Al Franken under the bus. He was guilty by virtue of the charge before a full story had been published. Klobuchar will NOT get my vote, and that won't be a problem because she will not get the nomination.
Yes, Franken was railroaded out too fast. But Klobuchar was not part of the coven that publicly denounced him. https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/amy-klobuchar-senate-al-franken-minnesota/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F
My worthless prediction: Mayor Pete will get the nomination. Because of, not in spite of, his lack of a record, his youth and relative inexperience. That doesn't say anything good about our political processes, but it is where we are at this point in time (to paraphrase a Bush). And oh yes, his male gender. Because Margaret is right about a woman not being able to beat Trump.
I don't mean by my comment above that I am against Pete Buttigieg getting the Democratic nomination. I find him one of the more favorable candidates at this time.
My goodness, y'all were busy yesterday while I was trying to get through a perfectly atrocious book about Fr. Ted Hesburgh. But I have a thought to add.
Before deciding between M or F (and if the Germans can follow Angela, American males can suck it up as well) or between blandness or what Republicans call "socialism" and the rest of us call "what we had when times were good," a prior question needs to be answered:
Should the D's fight Trump on his ground or ignore him? In other words, go low or go high? This is important because of the explosive nature of his following. It would be easier to govern if the D could win over or at least neutralize them before the election because if it looks like their idea of the Elites taking over again, Trump's successor will spend four years fighting a noisy and occasionally violent bunch of malcontents. If they are win-overable, they should be won before the election because they will be hard to get if their man is cast into outer darkness by what they see as the usual coalition of Deep State, Lyin' Media and coastal Elites.
I'm convinced that Trump's followers are, in a sense, addicted. My sister and I were talking the other day about a family member who had quit smoking. She has taken to watching Fox News and being all MAGA. That seems to be a substitute for the nicotine buzz she used to get from the cigs. And nicotine also helps a smoker's nerves to calm down if they are jangled. So if Trump and "their tribe" are in charge, it's calming to think that all is right with the world. Of course that is way over-simplifying things. But I do think that the dedicated koolaid drinkers are both energized and calmed by their right-wing news and right wing leaders. Having said that, they're not all koolaid drinkers. There are some subsets of Trump voters that could be won over. More about that later.
Katherine, I think you're onto something. There's a repetitive component to all this reinforcing a mental do loop. Kind of like the repetitive pulling of a slot machine handle. Lies are ok, as long as they are endlessly repeated. Trump may be providing some kind of fix. Trumpioid addiction.
I think what Katherine and Stanley are describing are some of the emotional factors that lead to us living in our "bubbles". The metaphors of smoking, slot-playing and do loops are fascinating in illustrating different aspects of why we tend to congregate with like-minded (or even like-feeling) groups.
I guess we're a bit of a bubble. I suppose the Trumpists would brand us as part of the "elite" - at least among those of us who contribute here, we all seem to be college-educated, and most or all of us have had a professional career in some way, shape or form. Most or all of us live urban or suburban lives. And we tend to share the humane goals that mark the politics of the elite (that's my view of the politics of the elite, anyway). I suppose that, on the whole, our incomes don't put us in the top 1%, but a lofty income isn't the solely determinative factor - it's more about education, lifestyle, aspiration. In my case, and I suspect in other cases here, I wasn't born into the "elite" group, but education more or less propelled me there.
To Tom's question: In the debates, Dems need to hammer relentlessly on Trump's lies and failed lone wolf foreign policy: "You are lying, Donald. You have lied every day since you started running for president. You may have told so many lies that you actually believe them, which raises serious questions about your grasp on sanity. You have weakened our nation by refusing to accept global realities and to work with our allies. In short, you have degraded the office of the presidency, and the facts are these ..."
Dems need to nominate whoever is most likely to give us the "at long last, sir, have you no decency, have you no shame?" moment.
To Jim: I don't see the goals of the liberal elite as humane. They just want to crack the windows of their limos at the stoplight and throw money out at those who need day care, a living wage, health insurance, food stamps, etc. They are not inclined (or at least not able) to strengthen social institutions like unions, OSHA, minimum wage laws, community organizations, etc.
Liberal elites are often doing nothing but offering subsidies for benefits that employers used to provide.
BTW Jean, I think you are right about the need to keep hammering away at Trump about his lies. Bcause he just keeps them up until people believe them. The Dems need to keep up the counterpoint and doing the fact checking.
Tom: "Should the D's fight Trump on his ground or ignore him? In other words, go low or go high? This is important because of the explosive nature of his following. It would be easier to govern if the D could win over or at least neutralize them before the election..."
Jean: "Dems need to nominate whoever is most likely to give us the "at long last, sir, have you no decency, have you no shame?" moment."
Me: How about the Republicans coming to grips with the week-end of the long knives: Kirsten Nielsen, SS head Tex Alles fired, nomination "actings" who won't be confirmed, putting Stephen Miller (our Himmler doppleganger)in charge of immigration, and bringing back family separation, creating a generation of unhappy, miserable children who will become revolutionaries and terrorists, if they survive their incarceration).
Sorry...just finished reading the morning's paper!
Yeah, what's up with the Department of Homeland Security? The weekend of long knives is an apt description. So the people who got fired weren't mean or tough enough for the job? Stanley was talking about velociraptors a while ago. Stephen Miller is about as close to one as a human can be.
Jean's buddy, Chuck Grassley is showing some life:
"A top Republican senator has warned Donald Trump to halt an apparent purge of the top ranks of the Department of Homeland Security, amid forced resignations, a renewed hardening of the White House stance over immigration and accusations that the president is manufacturing a declared crisis at the US-Mexico border...."
God bless his little corn-fed heart. Similar story in the WaPo. I like reading his Twitter feed. The man is a hard worker and stays in touch with his constituents.
It's okay to make money up the kazoo, Mr. Trump; it's only a commercial arrangement:
"Clark’s article notes that in more than 50 legal opinions over some 150 years justice department lawyers have interpreted the clause in a way that barred any foreign payments or gifts except for ones Congress approved. But filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” the professor writes.
The justice department stance now closely parallels arguments made in a January 2017 position paper by Trump Organization lawyer Sheri Dillon and several of her law partners. On 11 January 2017, just days before he was sworn in, Dillon said Trump isn’t accepting any payments in his “official capacity” as president, as the income is only related to his private business. “Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present, and it has nothing to do with an office,” Dillon said.
That goes against what many experts believe.
“For over a hundred years, the justice department has strictly interpreted the constitution’s anti-corruption emoluments clause to prohibit federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments, absent congressional consent,” Clark told the Guardian."
Once upon a time, politicians were told to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of-interest. Now, if you got it, flaunt it. No good will come of this.
"Emoluments clause", did that go away when we weren't looking? We have lie after lie, massive corruption and incompetence, and purges of high government officials, with no explanation. What's it going to take for one of the "never Trump" Republicans to step up to the plate and try to primary him?
John Kasich has flirted with primarying Trump. I think it would be better if Trump went down to a Democrat preaching America's role in the world is to lead, not bully. On the other hand, if a Republican were to take out Trump, the normal Republicans (if that isn't an oxymoron) could get the party back into contact with higher life forms.
Circular firing squads are an old Democratic custom. Remember in 1980 when Ted Kennedy decided -- for no reason he could explain to Roger Mudd -- to run against Carter's second term.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans, on the other hand, had always been good at following Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: Do not speak ill of another Republican. Then along came the second or third most obese president in American history, with Lyin' Ted and Little Marco and Low Energy Jeb and on and on (today it's Anti-Semitic Democrats) and proved that the nastiest kid on the block gets to play with all the toys. He also expanded the number of toys the President can play with to include the FBI and Federal Reserve.
So I guess the lesson all good politicians have learned for this cycle is that trashing the opposition makes the base happy and makes everybody else stay home. One thing about politicians -- like generals, they always fight the last campaign.
Seems like we never used to have so many people running for prez, which makes the circular firing squad more deadly.
ReplyDeleteA lot of these people seem redundant. Maybe we need to Margaret's oft-mentioned smoke-filled backrooms to persuade two-thirds of these people that they're indistinguishable from the front-runners.
Keep Harris, Warren, and Hickenlooper or Klobuchar. Maybe Booker.
Biden and Bernie are too old to be serious about a possible two terms. Warren may even be too old. The rest are either too young or too divisive.
Beto O'Rourke can probably be persuaded to drop out if he gets a nice new skateboard and a buddy date with Tony Hawk.
Jean, I mostly agree with you, not that it will do either of us or the D party any good. But you left off Gillibrand. I vaguely think there is something wrong with her (Margaret may know), but I don't know what it is. The parts of her I clearly recall include winning an election she was supposed to lose and serving on important committees. Off that, I think she has as much going for her as Harris, Warren or Klobuchar, who seem to be the other hopes for a "suburban women" strategy. And, btw, when Palm Beach traffic comes to a total standstill so His Rotundity's motorcade can take him across the bridge to the private club taxpayers pay him for maintaining, the route is usually lined with screaming, jumping, sign-holding people in red caps who would otherwise be described as "suburban women." Just sayin' because national Ds probably don't know that.
DeleteKirsten Gillibrand, quite apart from being unqualified for higher office, will get slaughtered by Trump if she is the candidate. Her deep-sixing Al Franken before any ethics committee took on the issue of his stupid videos did not sit well with Dem biggies (according to the NYTimes).
DeleteMayor Bill deBlasio is also a loser though he keeps visiting other parts of the country whose public housing and transportation system is presumably doing better than the one he's in charge of!
I could vote for Klobuchar or Warren, but I don't think a woman can win...so...then what? Biden? not Bernie...not Beto... Mayor Pete? maybe.
By Dem Biggies I mean $$$$$.
DeleteI think a woman can win. But it would have to be a right wing velociraptor like Margaret Thatcher.
DeleteTheresa May will probably be available!
DeleteMaybe Theresa May can negotiate with Mexico to pay for the wall. Despite her travails, and possibly her pending availability, I consider her a better negotiator than the current occupant.
DeleteRe: female velociraptors: I agree with Stanley that being a woman isn't ipso facto an insuperable barrier to election. That said, it's difficult to imagine a Democratic female candidate whose views on abortion wouldn't disqualify her in the eyes of the pro-life conservative voters who flocked to Trump in 2016.
DeleteNaturally, that cuts both ways. Sarah Palin learned a couple of elections before that that the sisterhood only extends so far.
I left off Gillibrand because, if you take off sexual harassment and reproductive issues, she's got nothin.
DeleteKlobochar might be able to beat Trump. I don't see any other women candidates having enough bludgeon-ability to bring down that gigantic mouth attached to that gigantic ego.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg likely won't last another six years, and my guess is that single-issue anti-Roe voters will re-elect Trump to get another conservative on the court. Add the anti-Roe contingent to the immigration hard-liners and business people benefiting from deregulation, and I don't see how the guy can lose a second term.
Jim, most women know that being female does not confer instant understanding and sympathy with all other women.
Delete"Sisterhood" is often a term used to define what women are "supposed" to be by various groups in order to exclude the "wrong" women.
I was told in RCIA that Catholic women should not consider themselves feminists. It was clear that the Church Ladies defined "feminism" far differently than I. It was quite a difficult discussion. Father eventually intervened.
"...being female does not confer instant understanding and sympathy with all other women." No, it certainly doesn't. I was accused of being anti-feminist because I didn't approve of Sarah Palin. It all depends on what women we are talking about. And feminism means only what the person one is talking to says that it means.
DeleteE.J. Dionne argues that Biden should get in the race. Bottom line:
ReplyDelete"The bottom line is that Biden belongs in this fight. He represents important components of the coalition that will have to come together to defeat the president. He could help Democrats solve a strategic dilemma: how to be tough as nails on Trump while still promising the more harmonious political future that middle-of-the-road voters long for. And if he fails, the ultimate nominee will be far better off for having faced down Biden and not be haunted by the ghost of a candidacy that never was."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-biden-run-would-be-good-for-the-country-it-could-be-hell-for-biden/2019/04/07/b6758d12-57e7-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.ab366ecf6b5f&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1
"And if he fails, the ultimate nominee will be far better off for having faced down Biden and not be haunted by the ghost of a candidacy that never was."
DeleteInteresting point!
I think Dionne is right that it would be hell for Biden. But knowing that, if he still wants to, he should go for it.
DeleteI have been a life-long Democrat but freely admit that this party is usually disorganized, better at talking than doing, and known for eating its young.
ReplyDeleteUncle Joe (up until today my second favorite candidate. Mayor Peter is ichiban) is history. His mouth overloads his brain way too often. And so do his hands.
Bye, bye Joe: enjoy your retirement.
Klobuchar was way too quick to thrown Al Franken under the bus. He was guilty by virtue of the charge before a full story had been published. Klobuchar will NOT get my vote, and that won't be a problem because she will not get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteYes, Franken was railroaded out too fast. But Klobuchar was not part of the coven that publicly denounced him. https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/amy-klobuchar-senate-al-franken-minnesota/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F
DeleteMaybe Gillibrand is who Jim had in mind?
DeleteAh, all women look alike.
DeleteI was going to say that, but I hesitated. So let me second it!
DeleteSadly, hesitation has rarely been one of my strengths.
DeleteReally? Looks like a virtue to me!
DeleteMy worthless prediction: Mayor Pete will get the nomination. Because of, not in spite of, his lack of a record, his youth and relative inexperience. That doesn't say anything good about our political processes, but it is where we are at this point in time (to paraphrase a Bush). And oh yes, his male gender. Because Margaret is right about a woman not being able to beat Trump.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean by my comment above that I am against Pete Buttigieg getting the Democratic nomination. I find him one of the more favorable candidates at this time.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness, y'all were busy yesterday while I was trying to get through a perfectly atrocious book about Fr. Ted Hesburgh. But I have a thought to add.
ReplyDeleteBefore deciding between M or F (and if the Germans can follow Angela, American males can suck it up as well) or between blandness or what Republicans call "socialism" and the rest of us call "what we had when times were good," a prior question needs to be answered:
Should the D's fight Trump on his ground or ignore him? In other words, go low or go high? This is important because of the explosive nature of his following. It would be easier to govern if the D could win over or at least neutralize them before the election because if it looks like their idea of the Elites taking over again, Trump's successor will spend four years fighting a noisy and occasionally violent bunch of malcontents. If they are win-overable, they should be won before the election because they will be hard to get if their man is cast into outer darkness by what they see as the usual coalition of Deep State, Lyin' Media and coastal Elites.
I'm convinced that Trump's followers are, in a sense, addicted. My sister and I were talking the other day about a family member who had quit smoking. She has taken to watching Fox News and being all MAGA. That seems to be a substitute for the nicotine buzz she used to get from the cigs. And nicotine also helps a smoker's nerves to calm down if they are jangled. So if Trump and "their tribe" are in charge, it's calming to think that all is right with the world. Of course that is way over-simplifying things. But I do think that the dedicated koolaid drinkers are both energized and calmed by their right-wing news and right wing leaders.
DeleteHaving said that, they're not all koolaid drinkers. There are some subsets of Trump voters that could be won over. More about that later.
Katherine, I think you're onto something. There's a repetitive component to all this reinforcing a mental do loop. Kind of like the repetitive pulling of a slot machine handle. Lies are ok, as long as they are endlessly repeated. Trump may be providing some kind of fix. Trumpioid addiction.
DeleteI think what Katherine and Stanley are describing are some of the emotional factors that lead to us living in our "bubbles". The metaphors of smoking, slot-playing and do loops are fascinating in illustrating different aspects of why we tend to congregate with like-minded (or even like-feeling) groups.
DeleteI guess we're a bit of a bubble. I suppose the Trumpists would brand us as part of the "elite" - at least among those of us who contribute here, we all seem to be college-educated, and most or all of us have had a professional career in some way, shape or form. Most or all of us live urban or suburban lives. And we tend to share the humane goals that mark the politics of the elite (that's my view of the politics of the elite, anyway). I suppose that, on the whole, our incomes don't put us in the top 1%, but a lofty income isn't the solely determinative factor - it's more about education, lifestyle, aspiration. In my case, and I suspect in other cases here, I wasn't born into the "elite" group, but education more or less propelled me there.
To Tom's question: In the debates, Dems need to hammer relentlessly on Trump's lies and failed lone wolf foreign policy: "You are lying, Donald. You have lied every day since you started running for president. You may have told so many lies that you actually believe them, which raises serious questions about your grasp on sanity. You have weakened our nation by refusing to accept global realities and to work with our allies. In short, you have degraded the office of the presidency, and the facts are these ..."
DeleteDems need to nominate whoever is most likely to give us the "at long last, sir, have you no decency, have you no shame?" moment.
To Jim: I don't see the goals of the liberal elite as humane. They just want to crack the windows of their limos at the stoplight and throw money out at those who need day care, a living wage, health insurance, food stamps, etc. They are not inclined (or at least not able) to strengthen social institutions like unions, OSHA, minimum wage laws, community organizations, etc.
Liberal elites are often doing nothing but offering subsidies for benefits that employers used to provide.
Katherine, maybe you could get your relative to start smoking again. Is dying of lung cancer worse than living in a world of lies?
DeleteBTW Jean, I think you are right about the need to keep hammering away at Trump about his lies. Bcause he just keeps them up until people believe them. The Dems need to keep up the counterpoint and doing the fact checking.
DeleteTom: "Should the D's fight Trump on his ground or ignore him? In other words, go low or go high? This is important because of the explosive nature of his following. It would be easier to govern if the D could win over or at least neutralize them before the election..."
ReplyDeleteJean: "Dems need to nominate whoever is most likely to give us the "at long last, sir, have you no decency, have you no shame?" moment."
Me: How about the Republicans coming to grips with the week-end of the long knives: Kirsten Nielsen, SS head Tex Alles fired, nomination "actings" who won't be confirmed, putting Stephen Miller (our Himmler doppleganger)in charge of immigration, and bringing back family separation, creating a generation of unhappy, miserable children who will become revolutionaries and terrorists, if they survive their incarceration).
Sorry...just finished reading the morning's paper!
Yeah, what's up with the Department of Homeland Security? The weekend of long knives is an apt description. So the people who got fired weren't mean or tough enough for the job? Stanley was talking about velociraptors a while ago. Stephen Miller is about as close to one as a human can be.
DeleteJean's buddy, Chuck Grassley is showing some life:
ReplyDelete"A top Republican senator has warned Donald Trump to halt an apparent purge of the top ranks of the Department of Homeland Security, amid forced resignations, a renewed hardening of the White House stance over immigration and accusations that the president is manufacturing a declared crisis at the US-Mexico border...."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/09/republican-senator-chuck-grassley-warns-trump-halt-homeland-security-purge
God bless his little corn-fed heart. Similar story in the WaPo. I like reading his Twitter feed. The man is a hard worker and stays in touch with his constituents.
DeleteIt's okay to make money up the kazoo, Mr. Trump; it's only a commercial arrangement:
ReplyDelete"Clark’s article notes that in more than 50 legal opinions over some 150 years justice department lawyers have interpreted the clause in a way that barred any foreign payments or gifts except for ones Congress approved. But filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” the professor writes.
The justice department stance now closely parallels arguments made in a January 2017 position paper by Trump Organization lawyer Sheri Dillon and several of her law partners. On 11 January 2017, just days before he was sworn in, Dillon said Trump isn’t accepting any payments in his “official capacity” as president, as the income is only related to his private business. “Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present, and it has nothing to do with an office,” Dillon said.
That goes against what many experts believe.
“For over a hundred years, the justice department has strictly interpreted the constitution’s anti-corruption emoluments clause to prohibit federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments, absent congressional consent,” Clark told the Guardian."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/09/dojs-new-stance-on-foreign-payments-or-gifts-to-trump-blurs-lines-experts
Once upon a time, politicians were told to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of-interest. Now, if you got it, flaunt it. No good will come of this.
Delete"Emoluments clause", did that go away when we weren't looking? We have lie after lie, massive corruption and incompetence, and purges of high government officials, with no explanation. What's it going to take for one of the "never Trump" Republicans to step up to the plate and try to primary him?
DeleteJohn Kasich has flirted with primarying Trump.
DeleteI think it would be better if Trump went down to a Democrat preaching America's role in the world is to lead, not bully. On the other hand, if a Republican were to take out Trump, the normal Republicans (if that isn't an oxymoron) could get the party back into contact with higher life forms.