#trump's unfitness for public office | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months

Text

Whamond

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 12, 2024 (Tuesday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 13, 2024

Today, Democratic voters in Georgia gave President Joe Biden enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination for president when the Democratic National Convention is held in August. Republican voters in Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, and Washington gave Trump enough delegates to win the Republican presidential nomination, although former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who dropped out of the race last week, continues to win voters—more than 21% in Washington.

Also today, Special Counsel Robert Hur testified before the House Judiciary Committee about his report on Biden’s handling of classified documents in his possession from his years as vice president. The hearing appeared to show that the Democrats have finally found a way to defang the tactic Republicans have been using since the 1990s. For decades now, under the guise of the important function of congressional oversight, Republicans have weaponized congressional hearings to smear Democrats in the media.

In this Congress, and especially today, rather than accept the framework the Republicans advance as they try to craft a narrative for right-wing media, Democrats have pushed back with facts and their own story.

In January 2023, apparently wishing to avoid accusations that the Department of Justice was favoring Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Hur, a partisan Republican whom Trump had appointed U.S. attorney for Maryland, to oversee the investigation into whether Biden had mishandled classified documents.

In his final report, released last month, Hur concluded that “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter...even if there was no policy against charging a sitting president.” But then Hur went on for more than 300 pages to offer a picture of Biden as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Notably, Hur reported that Biden did not remember the date of his son Beau Biden’s death.

The media ran with that editorializing rather than the fact that Hur had concluded that criminal charges were not warranted. Stories about Biden’s age swamped the media. Judd Legum of Popular Information found that in the four days after Hur’s report appeared, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal together published 81 articles about Hur’s assessment of Biden’s memory, suggesting that Biden was sliding into dementia and should not be running for reelection.

Republicans immediately demanded the transcriptions of Biden’s interviews with Hur and his staff, saying they needed more information for their case for impeaching Biden. Republican House leadership issued a statement that “[a] man too incapable of being held accountable for mishandling classified information is certainly unfit for the Oval Office.”

House Republicans asked Hur to testify before the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Trump loyalist Jim Jordan (R-OH). Hur prepared for his testimony with the help of Trumpworld figures, and he resigned from the Department of Justice effective yesterday, so he appeared before the committee today not as a DOJ employee bound by certain ethical guidelines, but as a private citizen.

But while Republicans clearly designed their plans for this Congress’s investigations to seed smears of Democrats in the public mind, Democrats have come to hearings exceedingly well prepared to turn the tables back on the Republicans. That strategy was obvious today as it quickly became clear in the hearing that it was not Biden who was on the hot seat.

Hours before the hearing was about to begin, the Department of Justice released a transcript of Biden’s interviews, held in the two days after Hamas attacked Israel as he rushed to respond to that crisis. The transcripts belied Hur’s portrayal of Biden’s answers; among other things, he clearly knew the exact date Beau died.

The transcript also revealed a pointed contrast between Trump and Biden, with the president telling investigators he didn’t “own a stock or a bond that I’m aware of…. I never wanted to have any argument…. The thing I valued most my whole life, my reputation and integrity. So I never wanted to have anything that someone said, you bought that stock and it went up because you traded. Never did that.”

Democrats came to the hearing prepared to turn it into a hearing on Trump. Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) called out Hur for unprofessional behavior in disparaging the president after finding the matter should be dismissed. Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) suggested Hur was angling for an appointment in a second Trump administration and asked him to demonstrate his credibility by pledging that he would not accept such an appointment. Hur declined to do so.

The hearing was covered live on various television channels, and the Democrats used that media time to show videos of Trump slurring his words, forgetting names, and speaking in word salad, getting their own sound bites to voters. They got Hur to spell out the clear contrast between Trump’s theft of documents and Biden’s cooperation with the government.

Conservative lawyer George Conway wrote on social media: “I think Biden’s State of the Union address last week and Hur’s immolation today will go down in political history as Reagan’s ‘I am not going to exploit…my opponent’s youth and inexperience’ moment…only on steroids.” Conway was referring to Reagan’s response in a 1984 presidential debate to a question about his own age; Reagan’s opponent, Walter Mondale, later said he knew Reagan’s answer was the moment he had lost not only the debate but probably the election.

In other news today, pressure on House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to bring up the national security supplemental bill that includes aid for Ukraine continues to increase. Although the administration says it has found an additional $300 million from Pentagon cost savings to supply artillery rounds and munitions for Ukraine, national security advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters:

“It is nowhere near enough to meet Ukraine's battlefield needs and it will not prevent Ukraine from running out of ammunition."

House Democrats are working to get enough signatures on a discharge petition to force Johnson to bring up a vote on a supplemental bill—which is expected to pass if it makes it to a vote—and today, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also added pressure, encouraging Johnson to bring up the measure that passed the Senate in mid-February. “Allow a vote,” he said. “A vote. Let the House speak.”

Johnson’s control of the House, such as it is, got a little weaker today as Representative Ken Buck (R-CO) announced he is leaving Congress at the end of next week. “It is the worst year of the nine years and three months that I’ve been in Congress and having talked to former members, it’s the worst year in 40, 50 years to be in Congress,” Buck told CNN’s Dana Bash. “But I’m leaving because I think there’s a job to do out there…. This place has just devolved into this bickering and nonsense and not really doing the job for the American people.”

The Internal Revenue Service today launched a pilot program in 12 states to enable taxpayers to file their federal tax returns directly, for free. The Treasury Department estimates that about one third of all tax returns are simple enough to use this new system and that about 19 million taxpayers could use it this season.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#letters from an american #Heather Cox Richardson #Judiciary Committee #House democrats #discharge petition

6 notes · View notes

mitchipedia · 8 months

Text

Pandemic revisionism

Epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina discusses school closures, mask mandates and the pandemic response, on the Ezra Klein show, with guest host David Wallace-Wells, a New York Times science and public policy journalist

Political discussions today focus on school, shut-downs, lockdowns, masking, and whether the economic stimulus was too big. We're not discussing the big question of whether we could have prevented 1.1 million deaths in the US alone.

Katelyn Jetelina is an epidemiologist and the author of the popular newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist. She argues that we've entered a new phase of the Covid-19 pandemic: "pandemic revisionism." In her telling, the revisionist impulse seduces us into swapping cheap talking points for the thorny, difficult decisions we actually faced -- and may face again with the next novel virus.

No maybe about it. We will face those questions again.

In the 2020 election, Biden rightly said that Trump was unfit for office because Trump's handling of the Covid crisis resulted in 200,000 dead Americans. During the Biden administration, far more Americans have died than while Trump was in office, and many of those deaths were preventable

Biden's Covid policy has been to pretend that the vaccine solved the problem. 900,000 dead Americans disagree.

#covid #covid 19 #pandemic #public health #donald trump #joe biden

6 notes · View notes

muddypolitics · 1 month

Photo

(via A Wild Weekend Of Trump Telling You Exactly What He Will Do)

In a wild rally in Ohio and Fox News sit-down interview, Donald Trump continued to demonstrate this weekend how utterly unfit for any public office he is, how disastrous a second term would be, and how much pain and suffering he would inflict on actual people.

Trump casually engaged in dehumanizing rhetoric, threats of violence, vows of retribution, and unhinged commentary. Nothing new, you say? Perhaps. But at this point if you can no longer register alarm for the country or for yourself, muster it for those who are and will be direct targets of Trump’s fantasies of revenge and systemic violence. In the meantime, what are we left to do if not document day by day, step by step the rapid descent into madness that Trump promises in a second term?

#maga going to nazify the US #if given the chance

2 notes · View notes

sethshead · 2 months

Text

youtube

-- Trump Guilty of Civil Fraud in New York --

The fact that enough Americans are prepared to vote for a man whose character is so grossly unfit for any public or private office that he may again become president is evidence to me that America's great experiment with democracy has already failed.

#Youtube

2 notes · View notes

plurdledgabbleblotchits · 1 year

Quote

"In fact, there is clear evidence of black intellectual superiority: in 1984, 92 percent of blacks voted to retire Ronald Reagan, compared to only 36 percent of whites."

-Barbara Ehrenreich

(not to mention that Blacks voted to retire Donald Trump by at least 87%, whereas 58% of Whites voted to keep him, even after giving the entire world more than ample evidence that he was manifestly unfit for any public service office. Oh, and I would say that voting for mere race or politics can make us act, or vote, stupidly, rather than saying that one race is inherently smarter than another, but that is just the way I would have said it.)

10 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

After serving for a mere 45 days, Liz Truss has become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. George Canning, the previous holder of this record, was forced from office because he died of tuberculosis. Truss, by contrast, is entirely the author of her own demise. But even though her short premiership has no doubt left her own political talents utterly discredited, it would be a mistake to stop apportioning blame there. In fact, Truss’s elevation and downfall show how the British Conservative party has lost touch with reality over the past decade in ways which mirror the descent of the American right.

Truss was forced from office after unveiling a budget that was profoundly out of touch with the realities of modern Britain. A diehard libertarian, she announced steep tax cuts for the rich, including removing an immensely popular cap on bankers’ annual bonuses. Much like the Trump tax cuts of 2017, these moves were supposed to be paid for by generating trickle-down economic growth – and when that failed to happen, as it inevitably does, public service and welfare cuts would follow. This kamikaze libertarianism was combined with sheer nastiness towards the poor, such as when the chair of the Conservative party told voters worried about rising energy bills to either go and get a better-paid job or “freeze”.

So dire were Truss’s plans that even the markets rejected them, causing a financial crisis and ultimately her unceremonious ejection from office. But just getting rid of Truss is not going to solve the Conservative party’s problems. Instead, it must face up to ideological blinders and delusions of grandeur which led it to put Britain in this situation to begin with.

The first entry on the charge sheet is the party’s long-running flirtation with an extreme variant of libertarian economics. Far from being some bizarre outlier, Truss was comfortably elected in a party leadership race this summer despite making no secret of her plans. She was also enthusiastically embraced by rightwing talking heads and thinktanks who have long advocated for precisely the measures in Truss’s budget. Truss was not on a lone ideological bender but was seeking to implement the orthodoxy of a key set of conservative elites – precisely the reason they promoted her into a job she was manifestly unfit for in the first place.

But a much larger issue is the way that Brexit transformed British political discourse, introducing a fetish for anti-intellectualism and bold, ill-thought-through action which is reminiscent of how Trump transformed Republican politics in the United States. The party has become addicted to elevating cranks who promise an impossible return to Britain’s former heyday and to sneering at the policy and economics experts who point out the reasons why this is impossible. For a party that has long cast its critics as unpatriotic and over-educated, it was a small step from the fairytale of Brexit to the fairytale of Truss’s economic program.

Another way in which the party is culpable is its refusal to face up to the contradictions of Brexit, which was always animated by two very different impulses. The first, most important to the average Brexit voter, was to reduce immigration and embrace the culture wars which went along with that goal. The second, embraced mostly by Tory party elites, was to turn Britain into a libertarian economic paradise, which by contrast would require liberal immigration policies to replace the workers shut out by Brexit.

Much like their counterparts in the modern Republican party, Tory elites failed to realize how successful their cynical turn against immigration and towards the culture wars would be. What they originally saw as an electoral strategy to get them into office and allow them to move onto their libertarian agenda eventually became the defining characteristic of their whole movement. In America, this process produced Donald Trump. In the UK, it produced Boris Johnson, who pledged to deport unauthorized immigrants – even those fleeing Ukraine – to Rwanda. Truss seems to have entirely failed to notice this change in conservative politics and tried simply to ignore it, setting up a collision with a large chunk of her own party.

So completely did Truss’s premiership embody the policies and tendencies of a certain set of Conservative party elites that its implosion seems to herald the final destruction of their project. This might seem like something to celebrate, but it will in fact probably lead to the further Trumpification of her party. Facing the direct repudiation of their libertarian program and unable due to their own ideological blinders to consider realigning with the EU, Conservatives are likely to see only one way forward: rushing into the culture wars and trying to smuggle whatever parts of their plutocratic agenda they can along with them.

For America and the rest of the world, this means a Britain that will continue to become more insular, smaller in its ambitions, and weaker in its capabilities. Conservative elites will continue to find many people to blame for this rather than looking in the mirror. But if they really want to repair the damage to their house, they have to begin by looking at the rotting foundations that they themselves laid.

4 notes · View notes

dankusner · 20 hours

Text

Former National Enquirer Head Admits 2016 Oswald-Cruz Story ‘Created’

But testifying in the Donald Trump trial, he appears to be fuzzy about some supposed photo manipulation

A 2016 National Enquirer story linking Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s father to Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassination was “created,” the tabloid’s former publisher admitted in court Tuesday.

David Pecker, testifying in the trial of former President Donald Trump, who faces charges related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, acknowledged that the Oswald-Cruz falsehood was part of a larger National Enquirer effort to smear Cruz and other Trump opponents in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

Pecker also said the newspaper engaged in some photographic chicanery for the Oswald-Cruz story, which focused on a photo taken in New Orleans in August 1963 that showed a man apparently assisting Oswald distribute pro-Fidel Castro literature to passersby.

“We mashed the photos and the different picture with Lee Harvey Oswald. And mashed the two together. And that’s how that story was prepared — created I would say,” Pecker testified, according to NBC News.

However, judging by the photograph the Enquirer published on its front page for the story, the image doesn’t appear to have been manipulated.

Rather, the tabloid simply declared, with no apparent evidence, that the person next to Oswald was Cruz.

Above, the National Enquirer’s cover story that uses the Pizzo exhibit 453-A photograph from the Warren Report showing Lee Harvey Oswald and a man the tabloid identified as Rafael Cruz.

Below, another view of the photo.

‘The Whole Thing is Ridiculous’

When the story first appeared in May 2016, Trump used it as yet another political cudgel against Cruz, referring to it repeatedly, if rather obliquely and disjointedly.

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said on Fox News.

Similarly, on “Good Morning America,” Trump said, “I think they didn't deny it. I don't think anybody denied it. No, I don't know what it was exactly, but it was a major story in a major publication, and it was picked up by many other publications."

He went on to say “You can't knock the National Enquirer. … It's brought many, many things to light, not all of them pleasant,” the Washington Post reported.

‘The Master Conspiracy Theory of them All’

For the legacy press, Trump’s embrace of the Cruz-Oswald story was more proof that the New York real estate tycoon was an unhinged conspiracy theorist unfit for office.

The New Yorker’s resident polymath, and lone-assassin adherent, Adam Gopnik declared in his opening paragraph on the affair:

“It is no surprise that, by feverishly indulging conspiracy theories of many kinds, Donald Trump would end up reintroducing America to the master conspiracy theory of them all, the first of the modern kind, and still the biggest and strangest: the one surrounding the assassination of J.F.K.”

While admitting there was some evidence the senior Cruz was in New Orleans at the time, Gopnik concluded there was scant proof that he was the man in the photo with Oswald. (JFK Facts editor Jefferson Morley, who is quoted in the piece, agreed.)

Vox published a story at the time entitled, “We shouldn't have to explain that Ted Cruz's dad didn't kill JFK, but here goes, I guess,” which goes to some length explaining the circumstances surrounding Oswald’s handing out leaflets in New Orleans.

Similarly, the Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote a thoughtful background piece on the story. In so doing, Bump came out as a Kennedy assassination buff:

“I am a Kennedy assassination buff; I own the Warren Commission report and books arguing one side or the other of the conspiracy controversy. (For the record, I think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.)”

(In their articles, both Gopnik and Bump cite official narrative defenders Gerald Posner and the late Vincent Bugliosi.)

In the end, the man next to Oswald remained unidentified.

Taking the Big Easy way out

The notion that Cruz’s father — who by 1963 was in fact virulently anti-Castro — helped Oswald pass out pro-Castro leaflets on the street in New Orleans in August 1963, just three months before JFK was killed, seemed on its face to be easy to dismiss.

However, while the story on the whole perhaps deserved all the incredulity and arrows heaped upon it, its outrageousness also allowed the press to sidestep very real and equally inexplicable interactions that took place between Oswald and other, CIA-financed anti-Castro Cubans based in that city at the time.

As Oswald passed out his Fair Play For Cuba Committee literature on Aug. 9, 1963, he was confronted by and got into a scuffle with members of a Cuban anti-Castro student group (the Cuban Student Directorate, DRE, which was being underwritten by the CIA to the tune of $51,000 a month), including its New Orleans chapter leader Carlos Bringuier.

Inexplicably, just days before, Oswald had gone to Bringuier to offer his services as a former Marine to go after Castro — hence Bringuier and his associates’ supposed anger at the suddenly pro-Castro Oswald on the street that day.

Indeed, in the aftermath of President Kennedy’s murder, the CIA destroyed any and all records of its New Orleans office and assets’ interactions with the man charged with the assassination.

Hunter Leake, deputy chief of the agency’s New Orleans office in 1963, told historian Michael Kurtz in the 1980s “in a quite definitive manner, that Oswald indeed performed chores for the CIA during his five months in New Orleans” in 1963. Leake was ordered by Langley to destroy the New Orleans records.

(JFK Facts recently produced a podcast discussing these events.)

And, in true tabloid style, the DRE, with the green light from its CIA handler George Joannides, on Nov. 23, 1963, published what proved to be the first “conspiracy theory” in the aftermath of the assassination of John F. Kennedy: Oswald did it, in league with Castro.

I know what I remember’

During cross-examination, Trump lawyer Emil Bove sought to undermine Pecker’s credibility.

Bove asked Pecker whether he had inaccurately testified that Trump thanked him at the White House for handling the negative news stories.

That conflicted with a report by FBI agents who previously interviewed Pecker, which said Trump had not expressed gratitude. Pecker, 72, said the FBI report could be wrong.

“I know what I testified to, and I know what I remember,” Pecker told the New York court’s 12 jurors and six alternates.

Bove asked Pecker whether his statements aligned with facts contained in an agreement by the Enquirer’s parent company to cooperate with legal authorities to avoid prosecution.

Pecker denied any substantial mismatch.

Bove also sought to illustrate that Pecker’s checkbook journalism was not confined to Trump.

Under questioning by Bove on Thursday, Pecker said the Enquirer paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain stories from women who came forward during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2003 run for California governor to say they had affairs with him.

Pecker said the first time he gave Trump a heads up about a negative story was in 1998 in relation to Marla Maples, his wife at the time.

Prosecutors say Pecker’s arrangement with Trump corrupted the 2016 election.

He agreed to cooperate to avoid criminal charges.

Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges.

The trial, which is expected to run through May, could be the only one of his four criminal prosecutions to be completed before his Nov. 5 election rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden.

One of those cases, which charges Trump with trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, has been delayed for months by the U.S.

Supreme Court, which signaled on Thursday that it might be open to giving him some immunity from criminal charges.

Justice Juan Merchan, who is hearing the New York hush money case, has yet to rule on a request by prosecutors to punish Trump for allegedly violating a gag order that bars him from publicly criticizing witnesses, some court officials and their relatives.

Merchan said he would hold a hearing next Thursday to examine what prosecutors say are further gag order violations.

Trump could be fined $1,000 for each violation or jailed, though prosecutors say they are not seeking imprisonment at this point.

0 notes

arpov-blog-blog · 1 month

Text

Biden Campaign Hits 'Feeble' and 'Confused' Donald Trump in Gloves-Off Statement

President Biden's campaign has escalated its criticism of Donald Trump, characterizing him as both feeble and desperate.

Johnny Palmadessa Meidas Touch Netork

President Biden's campaign issued a statement denouncing Donald Trump's recent behavior, declaring, "Trump is weak and desperate — both as a man and as a candidate for President." The statement continued to lambast Trump for spending his days golfing, likening himself to Jesus, and dishonestly claiming to possess wealth he clearly lacks.

TrumpGolfCount reports that Donald Trump played golf almost 300 times throughout his presidency, resulting in substantial costs to taxpayers for his recreational pursuits.

Additionally, Trump frequented Trump Organization properties on 428 days during his presidency, averaging about one visit every four days. This pattern raised significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the allocation of taxpayer funds.

Since leaving office, Donald Trump has struggled to leave the comfort of The Biden campaign directly remarked, "His campaign can’t raise money, he is uninterested in campaigning outside his country club, and every time he opens his mouth, he pushes moderate and suburban voters away with his dangerous agenda." The statement underscored the campaign's criticisms of Trump's fundraising, lack of effort, and rhetoric, suggesting a pattern of behavior that is detrimental to those Trump is seeking to represent as President.This pattern is further reflected in the onslaught of insults delivered by Donald Trump to Nikki Haley's supporters after she had suspended her presidential campaign following Super Tuesday. In contrast, President Biden embraced Haley's supporters, expressing a welcoming attitude by stating, "Donald Trump made it clear he doesn’t want Nikki Haley’s supporters. his own home, with reasons speculated to include deteriorating health or an inability to garner crowds at his events.

As of March 26, 2024, Donald Trump's campaign website does not list any events, indicating a reluctance to engage in public appearances. This suggests that Trump may be planning to remain out of the public eye for the foreseeable future.

I want to be clear: There is a place for them in my campaign."

The Biden campaign's statement emphasized a stark contrast between Trump and their vision for America, declaring, "America deserves better than a feeble, confused, and tired Donald Trump." This statement highlights President Biden's view of Trump as unfit for the presidency, further emphasizing his campaign's inclusive approach compared to Trump's divisive rhetoric."

0 notes

xtruss · 1 month

Text

Why Robert Hur Called Biden An “Elderly Man With A Poor Memory”

In His First Interview After the Release of His Controversial Report, the Former Special Counsel Insists That it Was Not His Job to Write For the Public.

— By Jeannie Suk Gersen | Friday March 22, 2024 | The New Yorker

Illustration By Nicholas Konrad/The New Yorker; Source Photographs From Getty

When I first approached Robert Hur for an interview, soon after his appointment as special counsel, fourteen months ago, he demurred, saying, “I’m boring.” Then his circumstances changed. When we finally met, he pulled up in an armored black government S.U.V., accompanied by two U.S. marshals. Hur had completed his report on whether President Joe Biden had mishandled classified documents—he had declined to prosecute Biden but had impugned the President’s memory in the process—and members of both parties were furious. “I knew it was going to be unpleasant,” he told me this past week, “but the level of vitriol—it’s hard to know exactly how intense that’s going to be until the rotten fruit is being thrown at you.”

Hur’s report stated that his investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.” Yet Hur concluded that “the evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” He reasoned that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” In Hur’s view, “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

The report was designated confidential, but the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, had already promised to make as much as possible of it public. When he did so, on February 8th, Biden immediately held a press conference, which turned chaotic. Reporters yelled over each other, and Biden pushed back on Hur’s characterization of him, saying, “I’m well-meaning and I’m an elderly man and I know what the hell I’m doing.” The President was particularly incensed by Hur’s claim that he did not recall what year his son Beau had died: “How in the hell dare he raise that.” Afterward, the White House continued to fight back, calling the references to the President’s memory “unnecessary, inflammatory, and prejudicial statements” that are “unsupported personal opinion criticism on uncharged conduct that is outside the Special Counsel’s expertise and remit.” (The Justice Department immediately defended Hur’s report as entirely consistent with legal requirements and Department policies.)

This past week, during a four-hour hearing in Congress, lawmakers from both political parties rebuked Hur. Republicans accused him of going easy on the President by not charging him despite the evidence of criminality; Democrats alleged that, because Hur could not indict the President, he had set out to hurt Biden politically. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, claimed that Hur had deliberately played “into the Republicans’ narrative that the President is unfit for office because he is senile.”

During his time as special counsel, Hur refused to speak to the press, but, shortly after he gave his congressional testimony, we sat down for a conversation, in which we spoke about his approach to prosecution, his commitment to the United States as the son of Korean immigrants, and why he took the special-counsel job. As we delved into how he wrote the report—and I shared some of my own concerns about his approach—it became clear to me that we were talking across something of a disconnect, between what the public needs from a special counsel and how a well-trained Justice Department prosecutor conceives of the role.

From the beginning, the investigation into President Biden has been double-edged: it was always about both Biden and Donald Trump. In September, 2022, after the F.B.I. found that Trump had taken boxes of classified documents from the White House and stored them at Mar-a-Lago, Biden called Trump’s conduct “totally irresponsible.” Two months later—shortly before the special counsel Jack Smith was appointed to investigate Trump’s alleged election interference and retention of classified documents—Biden’s lawyers alerted the government that boxes of materials from the Obama Administration had been found at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank where Biden spent time after his Vice-Presidency. The boxes contained some classified documents, and subsequent searches found more, at Biden’s Wilmington home and at the University of Delaware. In January, 2023, without informing the President, Garland appointed Robert Hur to investigate Biden’s retention of classified documents.

According to Justice Department regulations, a special counsel must be a lawyer selected from outside the federal government “with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking” and “appropriate experience.” Hur was an obvious choice. At fifty-one, he had spent a total of fifteen years at the Justice Department, including roles as the top aide to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—which involved work on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election—and as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Hur, a registered Republican, was nominated to the U.S. Attorney role by Trump (and confirmed unanimously by the Senate), but he insists that he does not have a partisan mind-set. “I’m just doing the work,” he told me. “I don’t have a particular ideology or crusade that I’m trying to go after.” When news broke of his appointment as special counsel, many of his friends, Democrats and Republicans alike, were supportive but said it was a little crazy to take such a thankless job. It was guaranteed that “this part of the country, or that part of the country,” he said, raising his arms to shape the two swaths, would be angry with him.

I asked Hur why he accepted the appointment. He explained that much of it had to do with his family’s history. His mother’s family fled from North Korea to South Korea shortly before the Korean War. Hur’s parents arrived in the U.S. in the early seventies, and he was born soon after. His father, now retired, was an anesthesiologist, and his mother, who trained as a nurse, managed her husband’s medical practice. “I know that my parents’ lives and my life would have been very, very different if it were not for this country and American soldiers in Korea during the Korean War,” Hur said. “There is a real debt that my family and I have to this country. And in my view, if you’re in a position where the Attorney General of the United States says there is a need for someone to do a particularly unpleasant task, if it’s something that you can do, ethically and consistent with your own moral compass, then you should do it.”

Hur grew up in the Los Angeles area, where he attended Harvard School for Boys (now a coed school called Harvard-Westlake). He recalled that the actor Tori Spelling was at the sister school: “There were lots of Hollywood people. I felt very much an outsider from all of that because of my strict Korean upbringing.” He explained, “It was quite stern. Excellence was expected. Fun was severely optional.” He played piano and violin. “I played drums, too, for a while,” he said, “because that was my form of rebellion.”

Hur went to Harvard for college, where, he said, he was “regularly floored by how effortlessly classmates of mine could become fluent in things that took me quite a while to get on top of.” He continued, “I’ve never been the person whom people look at and say, ‘That person is a rare generational brain.’ But I’m going to work harder and grind it out.” He started out studying premed but was “weeded out” by a course in organic chemistry. He went on to study English, and wrote a thesis that was “an ethical analysis of William Faulkner’s ‘Absalom, Absalom!’ ” Hur traces his interest in literature to his high-school English teachers, who included the journalist Caitlin Flanagan. Flanagan remembers Hur, too—she recently chided him on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” saying, “As I taught Robert and so many students fortunate enough to benefit from my tutelage, when writing, the most important thing in an essay is we keep related ideas together.” She continued, to big laughs from the studio audience, “Robert, the assignment is ‘Should criminal charges be issued for this thing?,’ not ‘Can you give us an armchair neurological report of the man you’re investigating?’ ”

Contrary to the stoic persona he displayed at the congressional hearing, Hur is lively and humorous in person. But I couldn’t help but connect his self-described fun-optional upbringing—and the unspoken pressures of being the first nonwhite person in this very prominent job—with his insistence that his work as a prosecutor is plodding and not creative. “I view it almost like an engineering task or a construction task. I am building a case,” he told me. “There are planks and nails and hammers. How does this thing get built with the requisite solidity and seaworthiness that it actually will hold up?” His goal, as special counsel, was to call as little attention to his work as he could. He resigned before his congressional testimony, he explained, simply because his predecessors had. “Look, if Mueller did it this way, then there must be some reasons,” Hur said. “I don’t want to make history here.”

Hur’s report was refreshingly blunt and direct, but it still led to misunderstandings. The White House and Democrats have managed to spin his conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to convict Biden as something separate from his observations about memory and forgetting. Republicans who wanted Biden to be charged are similarly motivated to see the two issues as distinct, so that they can depict him as both criminal and senile. But the failing-memory issue was not extraneous to the evidence in this criminal matter; indeed, it was integral to Hur’s decision to not recommend indicting Biden. Hur concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to convict Biden in large part because of his memory.

The federal crime for which Biden was being investigated makes it a felony for a person who has “unauthorized possession” of a document “relating to the national defense” to “willfully retain” it. After Biden left the Vice-Presidency, in 2017, he was no longer authorized to possess classified documents. Hur found—and Biden has not disputed—that Biden did possess them, at his home and offices. The only open question in this investigation was whether his retention of the documents was “willful.” The answer would have been a clear, easy, and resounding “no” if Biden was unaware that classified documents were in his home or office, or if he discovered them and promptly reported their presence. The trouble is that Hur’s evidence included an interview recorded in 2017, in which Biden told a ghostwriter, “I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Hur also found, on recordings, that Biden read aloud classified information from a notebook to the ghostwriter “on at least three occasions.”

Given these findings, one has to wonder why Hur didn’t charge Biden. Based on my reading of Hur’s report and conversations with him, the answer is that Hur believed that Biden—who certainly knew that he possessed classified documents in 2017—may have forgotten about them. The report points to where some documents were found: “in a badly damaged box in the garage, near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket,” and so on. This, the report notes, “does not look like a place where a person intentionally stores what he supposedly considers to be important classified documents, critical to his legacy.”

Then There are Hur’s Observations that Biden’s “Memory was Significantly Limited”—That, in Interviews with Hur and the Ghostwriter, He Displayed “Limited Precision and Recall.” After reading the transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden, many Democrats noted with relief that the President remembered a lot: from the details of a home renovation to a 2011 visit to Mongolia. Reading the transcript, I was at first surprised that his attorneys had let him ramble to that extent—having represented clients in interviews with federal prosecutors, I wanted to bury my head in my hands. At one point, Hur even said to Biden, “Sir, I’d love—I would love, love—to hear much more about this, but I do have a few more questions to get through.” But I eventually surmised that Biden’s lawyers had been right to allow him to make the impression of a highly likable man with diverting stories and fuzzily selective recall. My impression, from examining the evidence of his conduct regarding the classified documents, is that Biden came uncomfortably close to being indicted. Hur’s most damning words—that a jury would perceive the President as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” and thus be unlikely to convict—seem to have saved him from that outcome.

In Congress, Hur defended his report’s discussion of Biden’s memory by saying, “I had to show my work.” In our conversation, I suggested to Hur that he might have been able to avoid some misunderstandings if he had shown his work even more. Hur’s report rolled the prosecution case and the defense case together into a realism-oriented prediction of what an eventual jury could conclude—that “the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” I proposed that he might instead have laid out, step-by-step, as one would for a law student, how the evidence he found went to each element of the crime, including the key element of willfulness. He might then have drilled down on how the defense—which had already emphasized to Hur that Biden forgot about the classified documents—could successfully undermine proof of willfulness with arguments about Biden’s memory, bolstered by his likely demeanor at a trial years from now. Hur told me, “I didn’t write it for law students. I didn’t write it for the lay public, and I didn’t write it for Congress. I wrote it for the Attorney General of the United States, who himself was an experienced prosecutor.” Hur was aware that Garland had said he was “committed to making as much of his report public as possible, consistent with legal requirements and Department policy.” But Hur insisted that his audience was still Garland alone, citing a regulation which states that the special counsel should prepare a confidential report for the Attorney General.

A confidential report that everyone understands will become public seems like a paradox, but it reflects the long-standing norms and blinkered training of people who do the job of special counsel. Hur worked the case like he would any other criminal investigation, and he wrote his report in the way he would have written many memos as a federal prosecutor. But the potential defendant he was investigating was the President of the United States. At the hearing in Congress, Hur refused to “engage in hypotheticals,” but he has previously prosecuted people for the same crime, including an N.S.A. employee who kept classified documents in his home and was convicted and sentenced to more than five years in prison. Hur’s decision not to charge Biden was based on the view that he could not realistically persuade a jury to convict not just any defendant but this particular President. The job was inevitably special. And its special obligation—to undertake a federal investigation of the boss who oversees the Justice Department, an inherent conflict of interest, while maintaining public trust—can come into conflict with the D.O.J.-molded circumspection that characterizes special counsels and certainly came through in my interview with Hur.

The White House has attacked Hur’s report with the goal of winning the Presidential election—but, in doing so, may have put Biden at greater risk of prosecution in a future Trump Administration. The more Democrats insist that Biden is in fact sharp as a tack, the more they suggest that he may have been guilty of “willfully” retaining classified documents that he knew he wasn’t authorized to have. And, conversely, the more Republicans insist that Biden is “senile”—though Hur never used that word, nor the word “unfit”—the less likely he is to have willfully retained the documents. For both parties, the political and legal risks point in opposite directions.

Biden and Trump, however, are in certain respects aligned in their legal defenses. In his report, Hur appeared to think that jurors would be convinced that Biden sincerely believed his notebooks containing classified information were his personal property. (In the interview, Biden noted that Ronald Reagan kept diaries containing classified information in his home after leaving the Presidency, without having been investigated or required to return them.) Trump has also claimed that classified documents he retained were his personal property, and the parts of Hur’s report that seem lenient toward Biden’s “my property” notion may throw a bit of a lifeline to Trump’s defense. Indeed, it wouldn’t be outlandish for Trump’s defense attorneys to subpoena Biden to testify as to his belief that he was entitled to keep notebooks containing classified information. (As a matter of law, there is no relevant distinction between notebooks containing classified information and documents that are marked classified.)

Hur declining to prosecute Biden has another implication for Trump’s defense. At trial, Trump’s attorneys may well be able to present him, too, as an old man with mental impairments that undermine the prosecution’s proof of willfulness. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden—and, in 2017, a broad perception that Trump suffered from mental deterioration led Jamie Raskin, a Democratic congressman and former constitutional-law professor, from Maryland, to propose establishing a body to determine that the President was unfit for office. (At this month’s hearing on Hur’s report, Raskin rebuked Republican colleagues for “being amateur memory specialists giving us their drive-by diagnoses of the President of the United States.”) If Jack Smith’s case against Trump goes to trial, it would be surprising if Trump’s attorneys didn’t raise his impairment in his defense, especially now that we have the Justice Department precedent of declining to prosecute an elderly President based on what a jury would likely think of his memory. Smith would probably insist that Trump’s mind and memory are just fine. There may be uncomfortable moments for Biden if the Trump case goes to trial, with the Justice Department all but claiming that Trump’s mental faculties are superior to Biden’s.

Hur’s conclusion, as spelled out in his report, was ultimately not that Biden’s memory is actually failing (or abnormal for a man his age). It was, rather, a trial lawyer’s assessment that a jury, with persuasion from defense lawyers, might not be able to rule out that Biden just forgot he had the documents. But that imagined jury has a lot in common with us as voters, distressed about our choices and concerned about the candidates’ age. Biden in particular is perceived even by a majority of Democrats as too old to be President. Hur himself was tight-lipped about how the report resonated with the public. But, whether we are talking about Biden or Trump, Hur’s report has forced us to contemplate voting for a candidate while believing that he is impaired enough to fall short of a “willful” mental state. Perhaps Hur, while doing a thankless public service, also offered a generational lament at our gerontocratic government. ♦

Robert K. Hur serves as Special Counsel with the U.S. Department of Justice. In January 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Mr. Hur to conduct the investigation of the possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents discovered at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement and the Wilmington, Delaware private residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Before his appointment, Mr. Hur was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Crisis Management Practice Group. A seasoned trial lawyer and advocate, he brought decades of experience in government and in private practice, including service in senior leadership positions with the U.S. Department of Justice, to guide companies and individuals facing white-collar criminal matters, regulatory proceedings and enforcement actions, internal investigations, and related civil litigation. He was also a member of the firm’s White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Group and the National Security Practice Group.

Before joining Gibson Dunn, Mr. Hur served as the 48th United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. Presidentially appointed and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, he served from 2018 to 2021 as the chief federal law enforcement officer in Maryland, setting strategic priorities for and supervising one of the largest and busiest U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the nation. Before serving as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Hur served as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. from 2017 to 2018.

Mr. Hur received his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he served as Executive Editor of the Stanford Law Review, was elected to the Order of the Coif, and won the Kirkwood Moot Court Competition. He served as a law clerk for William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Hur received his A.B. degree, magna cum laude with highest honors, from Harvard College and studied philosophy at King’s College, Cambridge.

#Joe Biden | Special Counsel | Classified Documents #Robert Hur #Demented Ginocidal Joe Biden #“Elderly Man with a Poor Memory”#Jeannie Suk Gersen #The New Yorker

0 notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year

Photo

DeSantis's "Russia, if you are listening . . . ." moment. :: March 15, 2023

Robert B. Hubbell

As Joe Biden took decisive action to stabilize the US banking system, the media-created aura of Ron DeSantis's inevitability and invincibility suffered major hits. DeSantis has barely dipped his toe into the presidential primary waters but has already demonstrated his manifest unfitness to hold public office, much less serve as president. We can't count on Republicans to defeat themselves, but neither should we assume they are free of the laws of political gravity. We can beat them, especially if we exploit the stumbling, erratic performance by DeSantis and the rightward lurch of Trump in response to DeSantis's culture war in Florida.

As to DeSantis, after the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, he blamed its collapse on the bank's "woke" policies—specifically citing its commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity in employment practices. The blazing ignorance of the remark makes it appear that DeSantis does not understand what a bank is, how it generates revenue, or why banks fail. See Business Insider, DeSantis, and other prominent Republicans blame 'woke' politics for Silicon Valley Bank's collapse instead of bankers miscalibrating risk. His big-money donors must be having second thoughts about a guy who doesn't know the difference between a bank run and a book ban.

DeSantis followed his fatuous comments on the SVB failure with a disturbing description of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "territorial dispute." He made that comment in response to a questionnaire that Fox disinfotainment czar Tucker Carlson sent to all GOP presidential candidates. Calling Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine a "territorial dispute" amplifies Vladimir Putin's effort to rewrite history to conceal his expansionist policies.

Moreover, the comment is an insult to the tens of millions of Ukrainians who are engaged in an existential struggle for their country's survival. DeSantis's statement was too extreme even for the Russian apologists in the GOP, who condemned DeSantis's comment. See Insider, Top Republicans bash DeSantis for calling Ukraine war a territorial dispute: 'Obviously, he doesn't deal with foreign policy'.

As a matter of politics, these events confirm the rap on DeSantis—that he is a stilted, flat-footed, uncomfortable politician who cannot extemporize beyond the four corners of the flashcards in his pocket that say, "Woke = bad. Grievance = good." If DeSantis tailors his policy positions in the 2024 campaign to please Tucker Carlson, he is charting his path to defeat.

As a matter of substance, however, DeSantis's support for Putin's war of aggression continues the unholy alliance between the GOP and Putin that Trump created in 2016. The only explanation for the continued effort to win Putin's favor is the need of a dying party to secure foreign assistance in corrupting US elections. Candidate Trump was explicit in his quid pro quo to Russia:

Russia, if you're listening — I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

Russia couldn't find the 30,000 emails, but it did flood swing states with social media bots that spread disinformation about Hillary Clinton. See Indictment, US v. Internet Research Agency, dated 2-16-2018. ("By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton . . . .").

DeSantis's description of Russia's war of aggression as a "territorial dispute" is his version of "Russia, if you are listening". But DeSantis's offer to Putin is more dangerous and deadly than Trump's invitation. DeSantis has essentially promised Putin that if Russian troops can hang on for another two years, DeSantis will cut off aid to Ukraine—threatening the elimination of Ukraine as an independent country.

Worse, it will teach Putin that he is right in his (thus far) erroneous belief that the West will waver in its commitment to check Russian expansionism. DeSantis's reckless statement threatens not only Ukraine but NATO nations in Europe and, ultimately, the peace and security of the US.

The problem for DeSantis is that complex questions of international relations do not fit neatly into the mindless syllogism created by his campaign handlers that asserts, "Woke = bad. Grievance = good. Despite his Ivy League education, DeSantis does not appear to be smart enough to navigate the complexities of American electoral politics, let alone the more difficult issues of international relations in a nuclear era.

What's the takeaway? That we must do all we can to defeat DeSantis and Trump early. Each is worse than the other—and neither deserves the GOP nomination for president. Tell a friend!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

#Mike Luckovich #War in Ukraine #Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #DeSantis #Russia #Putin's war of aggression #propaganda #FAUX News propaganda #Robert B Hubbell

6 notes · View notes

catesshaffer62 · 2 months

Text

Donald Trump vs. The Deep State: A Defend America's Future

The term "Deep State" refers to a network of influential people within the federal government, military, intelligence agencies, and other governmental institutions who are believed to have considerable power and impact over policy-making and governance. The Deep State runs behind the scenes, often beyond public scrutiny, and is believed to have its own agenda that may not align with the interests of the elected government or the American individuals. The principle of the Deep State has a long history in American politics. It can be traced back to the early days of the Republic, when President George Washington cautioned versus the risks of factionalism and the influence of special interests. With time, the Deep State has progressed and adapted to altering political landscapes, however its core characteristics stay the exact same - a shadowy network of unelected authorities who wield considerable power and influence over policy-making. The effect of the Deep State on American politics is profound. It can form policy choices, undermine chosen authorities, and perpetuate a status quo that might not be in the very best interest of the American people. The Deep State's influence can be seen in locations such as diplomacy, nationwide security, economic policy, and even social issues. Comprehending the Deep State and its impact on American politics is vital for anyone looking for to comprehend the complexities of governance in the United States. The Rise of Donald Trump and the Difficulty to the Deep State Donald Trump's increase to power as President of the United States was a direct obstacle to the Deep State. As an outsider without any previous political experience, Trump campaigned on a platform of anti-establishment rhetoric and guaranteed to "drain pipes the overload" in Washington D.C. His triumph in the 2016 presidential election sent out shockwaves through the political facility and posed a direct challenge to the power and impact of the Deep State. The Deep State initially saw Trump's candidacy with apprehension and opposition. Lots of within the Deep State became part of the political establishment that Trump campaigned against, and they saw his victory as a danger to their power and influence. The Deep State's opposition to Trump appeared in the media coverage of his campaign, which typically represented him as unfit for office and questioned his certifications. Trump's success in the 2016 election was a significant challenge to the Deep State's power and impact. It demonstrated that the American individuals wanted to reject the political facility and elect an outsider who assured to shake up the system. Trump's victory likewise exposed the deep departments within American society and highlighted the growing frustration with the status quo. The Deep State was now faced with a president who was freely crucial of its impact and figured out to dismantle its power structure. The Deep State's Opposition to Trump's Policies and Agenda Because taking workplace, President Trump has faced substantial opposition from the Deep State in his efforts to execute his policies and program. The Deep State has actually utilized different tactics to withstand and weaken Trump's efforts, including governmental obstructionism, leaks to the media, and legal difficulties. One example of the Deep State's resistance to Trump's policies is seen in the location of migration. Trump campaigned on a pledge to secure the border, punish prohibited immigration, and execute stricter migration policies. However, his efforts have been met with resistance from within the bureaucracy, especially within firms such as the Department of Homeland Security and Migration and Customs Enforcement. These firms have been implicated of dragging their feet on implementing Trump's policies and even actively working versus them. Another example of the Deep State's opposition to Trump's program is seen in the location of diplomacy. Trump has taken a more isolationist technique to foreign affairs, challenging enduring alliances and questioning global contracts. This has put him at odds with many within the intelligence community and military facility who have generally favored a more interventionist approach. The Deep State's opposition to Trump's foreign policy program has been evident in leaks to the media and public statements slamming his choices. The Deep State's ideological and institutional interests also play a role in its opposition to Trump. Lots of within the Deep State have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and protecting their own power and impact. Trump's populist program and outsider status threaten these interests, causing resistance and opposition from within the Deep State. Trump's Reaction to the Deep State: Fight or Cooperation? President Trump has actually taken a confrontational approach to the Deep State, openly slamming its impact and looking for to dismantle its power structure. He has implicated the Deep State of working versus his administration and undermining his policies. Trump's confrontational method has actually resonated with his base of supporters, who see him as a champ of their interests and a disruptor of the political establishment. There are possible benefits and disadvantages to partnership with the Deep State. On one hand, partnership could result in more effective governance and policy-making. The Deep State has a wealth of understanding and expertise that could be important in shaping policy choices. Collaboration might likewise assist bridge the divide in between the political establishment and the Trump administration, causing more productive relationships and much better results for the American people. On the other hand, collaboration with the Deep State could likewise lead to a perpetuation of the status quo and an extension of policies that might not remain in the very best interest of the American individuals. The Deep State has its own agenda and interests, which might not line up with those of the chosen federal government. Cooperation might also undermine Trump's populist agenda and alienate his base of supporters who voted for him specifically since he promised to challenge the political establishment. The function of political polarization likewise plays a substantial role in forming Trump's response to the Deep State. The deep departments within American society make it challenging for Trump to discover commonalities with those who oppose him. This polarization has fueled the confrontational approach that Trump has taken towards the Deep State, as he seeks to rally his base and maintain their support. The Function of the Media in the Trump vs. Deep State Fight The media has played a substantial function in shaping the story of the Trump vs. Deep State fight. The media's coverage of the Trump administration and the Deep State has actually been extremely polarized, with some outlets depicting Trump as a victim of a "deep state conspiracy" and others portraying him as an unsafe and unfit leader. Media bias and sensationalism have actually had a significant impact on public understanding of the Deep State. The media's portrayal of the Deep State as a secretive and effective network has actually fueled conspiracy theories and mistrust in federal government organizations. This has actually further polarized popular opinion and made it challenging to have a reasonable and informed argument about the function of the Deep State in American politics. However, there is likewise potential for media responsibility and openness in forming the Trump vs. Deep State story. Journalists have a responsibility to report the facts accurately and objectively, without catching bias or sensationalism. By holding the media responsible for their reporting, the general public can have a more informed understanding of the Deep State and its effect on American politics. The Mueller Examination: A Weapon of the Deep State Versus Trump? The Mueller investigation into Russian disturbance in the 2016 election has actually been a main focus of the Trump vs. Deep State fight. The origins and scope of the examination have been subject to much debate, with some arguing that it is a legitimate effort to uncover wrongdoing and others claiming that it is a politically determined witch hunt. Critics of the examination argue that it is being utilized as a weapon by the Deep State against Trump. They point to the truth that a number of those involved in the investigation belong to the political facility that Trump campaigned against, and they question their motivations and biases. They likewise argue that the examination has actually been used as a tool to undermine Trump's presidency and delegitimize his election success. The impact of the Mueller investigation on Trump's presidency and the Deep State's impact is considerable. The investigation has consumed much of the administration's time and resources, diverting attention far from other policy top priorities. It has actually also created a cloud of uncertainty and suspicion that has made it challenging for Trump to govern efficiently. The Deep State's influence in forming the investigation and its findings has actually even more sustained the understanding that it is working against Trump. The Intelligence Neighborhood and the Deep State's Impact on National Security

youtube

The intelligence community plays an essential function in forming national security policy, and its relationship with the Deep State is complex. On one hand, the intelligence neighborhood supplies valuable details and analysis that can assist inform policy decisions. On the other hand, the intelligence neighborhood becomes part of the Deep State and may have its own agenda and interests that do not align with those of the elected federal government. The potential for the Deep State to undermine Trump's nationwide security agenda is significant. The intelligence community has traditionally preferred a more interventionist method to foreign affairs, while Trump has taken a more isolationist position. This has actually resulted in stress in between the intelligence community and the Trump administration, with leakages to the media and public declarations slamming Trump's choices. Political polarization likewise contributes in shaping the relationship between the intelligence neighborhood and the Trump administration. The deep departments within American society make it hard for Trump to discover commonalities with those who oppose him, consisting of those within the intelligence neighborhood. This polarization has actually even more sustained suspicions of a "deep state conspiracy" and made it tough for Trump to efficiently govern. QAnon symbols and meanings and Trump's America First Program

youtube

The financial interests of the Deep State likewise play a substantial function in shaping policy-making. The Deep State includes individuals from numerous sectors of society, including Wall Street, industry, and the monetary market. These people have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and preserving their own economic power and impact. Trump's America First program poses an obstacle to the Deep State's financial top priorities. Trump has promised to renegotiate trade offers, enforce tariffs on foreign items, and bring jobs back to America. These policies straight challenge the financial interests of the Deep State, which has actually gained from globalization and open market. The capacity for financial cooperation and dispute between Trump and the Deep State is considerable. On one hand, there may be areas of commonalities where Trump and the Deep State can work together to promote economic growth and task creation. On the other hand, there may be locations of dispute where Trump's policies directly challenge the economic interests of the Deep State. Trump's Populism and the Deep State's Elitism: A Clash of Ideologies The clash between Trump's populist agenda and the Deep State's elitist worldview is a main theme in the Trump vs. Deep State battle. Trump campaigned on a platform of putting "America First" and challenging the political establishment. His populist program resonated with many Americans who felt left behind by globalization and free trade. The Deep State, on the other hand, represents a network of influential individuals who have actually benefited from the status quo. They become part of the political facility and have a beneficial interest in preserving their own power and influence. The clash between Trump's populism and the Deep State's elitism is a clash of ideologies that reflects the deep divisions within American society. There is capacity for compromise and cooperation in between these 2 completing ideologies. Trump has actually revealed a desire to deal with members of the political facility who share his objectives and top priorities. There might be people within the Deep State who are open to working with Trump to accomplish common objectives. Political polarization makes it challenging for compromise and cooperation to happen, as both sides are typically reluctant to find common ground. The Future of American Politics: Can Trump Prevail Versus the Deep State? The future of American politics is uncertain, and the result of the Trump vs. Deep State battle is still unclear. There are several possible outcomes that might shape the future of American democracy and governance. One possible result is that Trump dominates against the Deep State and is able to execute his policies and program. This would need Trump to overcome substantial opposition from within the Deep State and discover ways to deal with those who oppose him. It would also require a shift in popular opinion and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Another possible result is that the Deep State prevails and has the ability to keep its power and impact over policy-making and governance. This would need the Deep State to successfully undermine Trump's presidency and delegitimize his election triumph. It would also require an extension of the status quo and a rejection of Trump's populist agenda. A third prospective outcome is a compromise and partnership in between Trump and the Deep State. This would require both sides to find common ground and work together to attain typical objectives. It would also need a shift in popular opinion and a rejection of political polarization. The Stakes of the Trump vs. Deep State Fight for America's Future The stakes of the Trump vs. Deep State fight are high, with considerable ramifications for American democracy and governance. Comprehending the Deep State's effect on American politics is vital for anybody looking for to understand the complexities of governance in the United States. The potential consequences of the Trump vs. Deep State fight for American democracy and governance are substantial. If Trump dominates versus the Deep State, it might cause a shift in power and influence within the government, as well as a reevaluation of enduring policies and practices. If the Deep State dominates, it might cause a continuation of the status quo and a rejection of Trump's populist program. Openness, responsibility, and compromise are important in shaping the future of American politics. The American individuals have a right to know who is making choices that affect their lives and to hold those individuals responsible for their actions. Elected officials have a duty to work together to discover typical ground and attain common goals. Just through transparency, accountability, and compromise can the Trump vs. Deep State battle be dealt with in a way that is advantageous for American democracy and governance.

#qanon conspiracy theories #qanon #QAnon beliefs #QAnon theories #QAnon conspiracy theories explained #QAnon symbols and meanings #QAnon debunked #QAnon conspiracy theories list #QAnon research sources #conspiracy theories

1 note · View note