Dialogue with a Reader on Trump
Re: the Trump presidency and his possible removal from office, a reader asks: Good grief, do you guys ever give up? Will you spend the next 1000 days, eagerly awaiting the fulfillment of your fantasy? I realize you don’t like the president or his administration, but there comes a time to accept reality, stop obsessing, and just make the best of the situation.
That’s a hard question to answer. Three things would have to happen:
• No evidence of collusion
• No evidence of violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution
• Trump somehow gets reined in and stops blurting classified information to U.S. enemies and destroying relationships with important U.S.allies, each time showing more clearly that he’s mentally and emotionally unfit to discharge the duties of the office
If all three of these happen, I suppose he’ll be around for four years, because the rest of what he’s doing are really just policy decisions that won’t get him expelled from office, regardless of how deeply hurtful they are to the vast majority of the American people and to the reputation of the U.S. on the world stage:
• Praising the world’s most egregious butchers
• Axing tens of millions of people from healthcare
• Destroying the environment
• Rolling back rights for women, workers, and minorities
• Making the lives of poor people more miserable, and making it tougher for them to rise out of poverty
• Taking ridiculous numbers of vacations paid for with tax dollars
• Ruining public schools
• Offering huge tax breaks for the wealthy that will cause the national debt to skyrocket
• Misleading the American public with essentially everything that comes out of his mouth
• Repeated (albeit unsuccessful) attempts to implement policies that violate the Constitution and/or international law, e.g., torture of prisoners and travel bans for Muslims
Again, these last ten items are deeply destructive to and humiliating for our formerly great nation, but they will not get Trump removed. Having said that, I think it’s extremely unlikely that he’ll be around in four years, though I grant that it could happen.
Craig,
In other words, if Donald Trump agreed with you and behaved the way you believe he should, then he shouldn’t be “impeached” uh ?
But that’s not how representative government works !
Whether you like it or not, President Trump is elected and represents the wishes of those who voted for his platform.
Once elected, he’s free to make his own decisions,( within the restraints of the constitution, and congress), that’s the US political system.
The only other restraint on President Trump is whether he wishes to serve a second term. That’s a matter for his judgement. If he doesn’t, then opinion polls etc, don’t really matter. If he does, it’s still purely his decision to estimate the record of his Presidency when submitted to the judgement of the voters.
In a way, it’s fortunate for the President that the storm has come early in his Presidency, once it passes (as it will) he has the opportunity to put it behind him and allow his achievements,(if any) outshine any early controversies.
The Congressional public hearings with former FBI director James Comey, were very revealing.
Although inevitably, the President’s detractors will interpret the testimony one way and the President’s supporters will interpret the testimony very differently, there was little substance except the fascinating insights into the personalities of the two men involved.
As an observer, I try to remain as objective and analytical as possible, and I understand we are not seeing the whole picture.
From my observation (and purely my opinion) James Comey’s testimony reveals personality clash between to very different men and styles.
My impression of James Comey was of a honest and upright man, with an undertone of arrogance and priggishness. His disapproval of the President and the administration was obvious.
It’s true his steadfast defense of FBI independence is commendable, but in his handling of the President he seems to have adopted the attitude of a wily investigator-prosecutor gathering evidence, rather than a senior government employee advising a new and very inexperienced President completely ignorant of of the norms and protocols of government service.
One thing that did become obvious, was James Comey regards Russia as the most important threat and enemy to the US. His testimony in this regard was extremely passionate, and revealed deep conviction not just as a government official sworn to uphold the law, but on a more political level of policy.
James Comey revealed himself to be very comfortable with conventions and protocols of “Washington government culture”. He came across as an insider.
I gained the impression his testimony was honest and candid, although from his own perspective, which is understandable.
From the testimony a picture emerges of President Trump. The President is portrayed as an “outsider”, one who lacks understanding of Washington protocols, and no experience of government service.
The picture also emerges of a President with a different agenda when it comes to Russia. The President doesn’t see Russia as “the enemy” but as a rival power, whom from time to time can be used as an ” ally of convenience” to contain other power blocks.
The Trump administration believes he can “do business” with Russia to further US interests. He’s willing to downplay the importance of Russian transgressions, for strategic benefit.
The President may be right or wrong, but as President, strategic policy is his call, and not in the purview of FBI Directors.
Trump’s style and lack of carefully constructed phrasing, are the hallmarks of inexperience in public life. In a more experienced politician, inference and innuendo may be interpreted as significant, but in the case of an outsider like Trump, the same connotations can’t fairly be drawn.
What did emerge from James Comey’s testimony was he felt comfortable with the more politically professional Obama administration, who understood the culture and spoke the same “insider” language as the Washington political and bureaucratic class.
It’s also true, the President disapproves of such people and customs,persisting with a style more suited to business than government.
My conclusion (and it’s just my impression) was former FBI director James Comey’s testimony provided no “smoking gun”, certainly no evidence of any misdeeds.
A wiser and more experienced President may have been more diplomatic and careful, while a more humble,diplomatic FBI director might have handled the situation better and more effectively. This may have saved the unhappy loss of an important, and effective official and the distraction of these hearings would not have occurred.
At the end of the testimony, no one is any wiser and no one emerges with any credit. Both men are vindicated, yet both lessened by the experience.
Trump’s Presidency will be judged by how well he learns from this experience.
One thing that did emerge, was the amazing indignation at Russia seeking to interfere to it’s advantage in the US political process.
It’s a little hypocritical for the US to complain, considering US agencies have been interfering in the political processes of nearly every nation, whether friendly ally, enemy or just neutral, for at least 75 years !
1) What I think is “impeachable” is irrelevant (obviously). What Bob Mueller thinks about this actually means something, however. We’ll see.
2) It’s obvious Russia meddled in the election; no one doubts that. And yes, we’re been meddling in others’ election for at least as for at least as long as I’ve been on the planet. If the Trump administration was unaware of this and played no role in it, they’re fine. Again, we’ll see.
Craig,
Yes indeed, but the investigation by Bob Mueller will hopefully resolve the issue.
The conduct of General Flynn will certainly have to be explained more fully. On the surface, it seems inexplicable such a highly qualified and astute officer could suffer what on the best interpretation be described as a serious lapse of judgement and careless observation.
For those not familiar with military personnel undergoing a change of environment like general Flynn, it must seem very sinister, but in reality, it’s not uncommon. Without the rigid support structure, such personalities often become erratic and cavalier with rules.
In a more experienced politician, especially one with legal training, Trump’s request to Director Comey might well be interpreted as improper, but President Trump isn’t an experienced politician, he has no legal training, he’s a business deal maker, who may not have fully appreciated the connotation of his request.
It’s quite possible the President feeling sorry for Flynn, (and looking at his lifetimes service record who wouldn’t), simply expressed a hope that the director could deal with the Flynn affair with a minimum of fuss and decorum.
It’s possible the President sees Flynn’s transgressions as tragic for Flynn, but not serious for the nation and was simply anxious that it shouldn’t become a needless distraction. In a business setting that would be a fair and reasonable conclusion.
If the President isn’t involved, then Bob Mueller’s investigation should prove useful in heightening awareness and constructing new rules and guidelines for government officials.
The conduct of General Flynn may be explained by the shabby treatment he received from President Obama for persistently opposing Obama’s support against Assad. Flynn was alone voice in complaining Obama’s policy would lead to a resurgence of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other extremist groups.
He felt, with some justification, Obama’s Deputy-Attorney-general Sally Yates continued to persecute him even after he left the service, and continued to do so after the new President was elected. Sally Yates testified her dismay that Flynn was trying to “besmirch President Obama’s legacy”.
With all this going on, it quite possible President Trump simply saw Director Comey as a calm, reliable official who could deal with the problem with a minimum of fuss and humanity.
Director Comey, took alarm, and instead of taking the opportunity clarify the request, decided to act in a very defensive and “correct” manner. He could have been more helpful and explained to the President the restrictions of the FBI, and tried to assist the new President to understand what’s appropriate, and what’s inappropriate.
Instead, he chose to act as a potential prosecutor, and upon leaving recorded everything carefully for future credibility.
Correct, yes, but also a little priggish, revealing a degree of animosity.
As I said, I don’t believe his testimony displayed either personality favorably.
Craig,
I’ve just been watching the President adopting exactly the wrong position and attitude.
By angrily denying James Comey he’s poured fuel on the controversy.
As it stood James Comey’s testimony wasn’t a good day for either men, but would basically have settled down into an argument about interpretation, with sympathy building for an inexperienced President against a priggish director.
But trump can’t help himself, he’s got to display the uglier side of his personality and hit back. Unless he’s really got incontrovertible proof, he will only damage his own credibility and lessen goodwill and the element of doubt.
No man is perfect, but the President must curb this urge and learn to pick his battles more astutely.
While none of this is still impeachable, fighting unnecessary petty squabbles is hardly Presidential behaviour. All very unseemly.
Over confidence and hubris can lead to disaster when dealing in the public area, look at Theresa May’s horrible miscalculation.
There is no doubt that Trump is good at certain things. One, obviously, is lying with a straight face. Another, as you’ve suggested here, is getting even with those who anger him.
Fortunately, this whole deal looks like it’s crashing to pieces. What do you think Congress (as corrupt as it is) is going to do if Trump fires Mueller?
Craig,
I think Bob Mueller is going to have an incredibly difficult job.
As we witnessed from the disgraceful way Ken Starr behaved toward Bill Clinton,the Special Counsel investigations should be allowed to take on a life of their own and create a paralyzing and obsessive press frenzy for months or even years.
Firing Bob Mueller would be counter-productive since congress can also appoint Special counsel and there would be sufficient numbers to support such an appointment.
It’s understandable that the President wants to move on, and sees this as an unnecessary distraction, but a resolution must be found.
It’s an unedifying spectacle watching continual moves by opponents of the administration obsessively determined to “get’ the President by any means.
It weakens not just the administration, but the entire nation.