Trump Orders New Kavanaugh FBI Background Check: Although He Hates Process

Trump hates this route to find the truth about any topic

Trump dismisses FBI investigation by tweeting (via UK Daily Mail): 

“Kavanaugh WILL be a truly great Justice of the Supreme Court” and just hours after a Senate showdown forced Trump to order a new probe by the FBI even as he admitted Christine Ford was “compelling and credible.”

KEY ELEMENTS OF THIS STORY:

• Jeff Flake, the key Republican moderate, said he would only vote 'yes' with a guarantee of an FBI probe

• Leading Democrats agreed to the week-long time frame of a FBI probe and the Senate Judiciary Committee has requested an investigation into “current, credible” allegations

• But request does not precisely define whose allegations are both current and credible - meaning it is unclear if they include Debbie Ramirez, who claims he exposed himself, and Julie Swetnick, who alleges gang rape

• Flake negotiated with Democrats after getting dramatically confronted by activists and revealing he had the support of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) red state Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)

• At the White House Trump signaled his backing, saying he would let the Senate handle the issue

• Trump also called Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Ford's testimony “very compelling and credible”

• On Friday night, Trump tweeted: “Just started, tonight, our 7th FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He will someday be recognized as a truly great Justice of the United States Supreme Court!”

• Mark Judge, an alleged witness the night of Ford’s assault, said he is willing to cooperate with law enforcement

• Kavanaugh needs 50 votes from the full Senate to gain the nomination (the Senate has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats)

• Moderate Sen. Doug Jones (D-GA) already revealed that he believed Christine Ford and would vote no

Just updated from the Washington Post (via MSN) in part here:

The FBI has begun contacting people as part of an additional background investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, including a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, a Yale University classmate of Kavanagh and possibly Julie Swetnik.

My 2 cents: As noted above Trump hates formal inquiries to anything or anyone around him… he hand has been forced on this Kavanaugh mess and he looks to blame the process which he was obligated to enforce.

Now we wait to see the final results. 

Stay tuned and thanks for stopping by.

Donald J. Trump, the N-in-C (Narcissist-in-Chief): Boasting to UN General Assembly

The biggest liar in American history - believe me

Trump's one-man plan to run America

Donald J. Trump, the N-in-C (Narcissist-in-Chief): Boasting in front of the UN General Assembly in his latest one-man stand-up comedy show – for surely that is was it was.

Short video on that here:

It got plenty of laughs

Cite this from his UN appearance and the member nations present reactions to his speech.

Also, this is an excellent article that helps answer this obvious question on that subject: “Has America ever gone it alone?”

Short answer: “No, we have not and we never should.”

Specifically:

The problem with Trump and his “America First” approach is that it describes his attitude, and not any valid or logical purpose.  

It substitutes his selfishness for realism.

It implies that we can go it alone, that we stand for nothing beyond our immediate self-interest, and that we should give little thought to how the rest of humanity thinks or lives. 

It suggests that if we are strong enough, we can prosper no matter how much chaos, disorder, or injustice surrounds and impacts us.

My 2 cents: This is Trump’s M.O. – sell a line of BS hoping it sticks, and with his loyalists, it usually does – they lap it up.

That is the sign of a clever, seasoned, skilled con-artist like Trump, which above all else, is precisely what he is.

Sadly, he is not done yet. 

Thanks for stopping by.

Trump's Terrible Tariff Trade Troubles (T-5): Who's Hurt and Long Term Impact

Always black and white with Trump: His way, or hell to pay

Snapshot history of trade tariffs from a man who know economics, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, his latest article from the NY TIMES below in part:

In normal times, Donald Trump’s announcement of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, bringing us closer to an all-out trade war, would have dominated headlines for days. Things being as they are, it was a below-the-fold story, drowned out by all the other scandals underway.

Yet Trump’s tariffs really are a big, bad deal. Their direct economic impact will be modest, although hardly trivial. But the numbers aren’t the whole story. Trumpian trade policy has, almost casually, torn up rules America itself created more than 80 years ago — rules intended to ensure that tariffs reflected national priorities, not the power of special interests.

You could say that Trump is making tariffs corrupt again. And the damage will be lasting.

Until the 1930s, U.S. trade policy was both dirty and dysfunctional. It wasn’t just that overall tariffs were high; who got how much tariff protection was determined through a free-for-all of horse-trading among special interests.

The costs of this free-for-all went beyond economics: They undermined U.S. influence and damaged the world as a whole. Most notably, in the years after World War I, America demanded that European nations repay their war debts, which meant that they had to earn dollars through exports — and at the same time America imposed high tariffs to block those necessary exports.

But the game changed in 1934, when F.D.R. introduced the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. 

Henceforth, tariffs would be negotiated via deals with foreign governments, giving export industries a stake in open markets. And these deals would be subject to up-or-down votes, reducing the ability of interest groups to buy themselves special treatment.

This U.S. innovation became the template for a global trading system, culminating in the creation (in 1947) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). And tariff policy went from being famously dirty to remarkably clean.

Then came Trump.

So far, Trump has imposed tariffs on about $300 billion worth of U.S. imports, with tariff rates set to rise as high as 25 percent. Although Trump and his officials keep claiming that this is a tax on foreigners, it’s actually a tax hike on America. 

And since most of the tariffs are on raw materials and other inputs into business, the policy will probably have a chilling effect on investment and innovation.

But the pure economic impact is only part of the story. The other part is the perversion of the process. There are rules about when a president may impose tariffs; Trump has obeyed the letter of these rules, barely, but made a mockery of their spirit. Blocking imports from Canada in the name of national security? Really?

Story continues at the NY TIMES link above.

My 2 cents:  Also consider these Trump policy and proposed trade and treaty approaches on the stage of his greatest “one-man reality show” ever (one surprising point of view here): 

“Trump-world: I will rule the world – deal with it.”

All this is an ugly issue and comes from, need I remind anyone, from the “best and smartest man ever – believe me” or so Trump says about himself.  That on top of all his documented business failures, yet people still believe and trust him.

Boy have we lowered the bar on the common sense ladder of values and not just to the bottom rung, either. Seems in a sense that we have added a new lower rung. 

One needed for Trump to step on and ask his base to join him or so it seems almost on a daily basis or so it seems. The worst part – those Trump loyalist believe every word his says.  Why is that?

I still can’t figure it out except with one label: Their hatred for everything he hates is a stronger than the things they say used to be good about us and that only Trump bring back to life – whatever that means I also am pondering a logical answer. If you have one, let me know.

Thanks for stopping by.

Now check out the stories linked below. Real people stories.

Links to stories and impact of “The Terrible Trump Trade Tariffs”

·        Trump tariffs are hurting South Dakota's economy

·        Tariffs are slamming newspapers with higher costs

·        Feds hear how tariffs are hurting manufacturing

·        Lumber Tariffs are Hurting Americans

·        Tariffs are Hurting U.S. Competitiveness

·        Senators say Tariffs hurting farmers

·        Tariffs are hurting whiskey industry

·        Tariffs are Hurting American Factories

·        Alcoa says aluminum Tariffs are hurting

·        Auto Parts Manufacturers Hurt by Tariffs and Rising Metal

·        Tariffs are hurting the already struggling newspapers

·        U.S.-China Tariffs: What's behind them who is hurt

·        More news on Tariffs hurting

Trump's Terrible Tariff Troubles: To Get Worse With Huge Consumer Price (Tax) Hikes

80-year old billionaire & Trump pal Commerce Secretary

(Wilbur “Chicken Soup Fan” Ross)

This story now on top of the second Trump tax cut proposal now pending is the tariff tax hike about to hit consumers hard. Story here with the headlines: 

The Trump consumer tax could be permanent 

for many products

I note this reminder from Wilbur Ross awhile back from this article on this subject:

•  Ross dismissed fears about the effects of President Donald Trump's trade war on American consumers.

•  Ross said: “Nobody's going to actually notice it at the end of the day” (re: possible price increases from tariffs on imported Chinese goods).

The raw arrogance of Trump and Ross - mind-boggling to say the least.

On September 24, over 5,700 goods imported from China will be hit with a 10% tariff tax and unlike previous tariffs, many of these items are things directly sold to consumers instead of steel, aluminum, and raw materials (Trump’s original target), But things like luggage and seafood and toys and electronics, yes, even clothing. By the end of the year, that tax will rise to 25%. 

Some analysts speculate that some (a few at least) companies will choose not to pass on price hikes to consumers, instead taking a hit on their margins to perhaps gain more market share of the items impacted; but consumers are expected to foot the bill larger overall; not the companies, and certainly not China. 

But not every market experiences the robust competition necessary to provide the downward pressure to push prices back to pre-tariff levels. 

In some of the 5,745 product categories defined, consumers will doubtless experience inflation as pre-tariff prices fail to return. 

If prices do not fall after tariffs are removed, the tariffs will have come at a much higher price than advertised: A permanent price (tax) hike.

My 2 cents: All this from the brilliant, best ever, most-successful (his own evaluation even with  tons of failures) the businessman who then became a  TV reality show host to now is our president. One-man show squarely on the job and on the ball, right? 

How about a reminder of what so many forgot or never knew — oops...!!!

[Click image to enlarge]

Now more like the current TV commercial says: “What’s in your wallet?” 

The short answer thanks to Trump: Not much. 

BTW: People like him or the billionaire Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross – well they are so rich they don’t give a damn about paying higher prices for anything (and they don’t shop at Walmart or Target, either). 

So, the more pricey and luxurious for them, so what; no biggie. Just a better product and showmanship and slick PR that favors them and their ultra-rich BFF’s.  

Ross’s has a shady past with Trump, too. He helped bail out Trump with his failed Casino projects. Those guys are all joined at the wallet. 

Related: The story on the 2^nd Trump-GOP tax cut now in the works … and his plan to make some of it permanent here from The AP. 

Thanks for stopping by.

"Gaslighting" — Need for Power, Control, or Concealment Based on Lies and Denial

Seat of the National Gaslighting Center of America 

(Aka: Trump Empire, Inc. Annex)

Used frequently (daily actually) by the G-in-C

(Gaslighter-in-Chief)

INTRODUCTION:

I first heard and read about the term “gaslighting” in the CNN article noted below wherein they pose this question:

“How can a highly unstable President, whose agenda revolves around white nationalism and “America First” so dominate politics in 2018?”

That article is from CNN vis-à-vis Bob Woodward’s top selling book: Fear — article by Julian Zelizer, CNN Political Analyst, and it is an excellent article.

(Note: Some of my editing and highlights are used to make it fit the blog … check out whole piece at the CNN link – it is keeper for sure).

Fifty years after the civil rights movement transformed the country by pushing it in a progressive direction on matters of social justice, we seem to have taken a massive step backward.

Fifty years after it seemed that George Wallace's brand of politics was banished forever, his legacy lives on in the Trump White House. Our political processes were so broken that a political novice with a checkered business history and claim to fame from reality television rode his way to the presidency.

While many people in the electorate were not happy with Trump or the system that produced him, and he actually lost the popular vote, the President was still able to win, thanks to the Electoral College. His victory was likely enabled by a combination of factors – including (1) a growing inequality and the uneven recovery from the Great Recession, (2) the rot in our campaign finance system, (3) the failure of Congress to govern effectively, (4) the flaws of Hillary Clinton, (5) the growth of conservative news media, (6) the use of social media by Russian hackers, and (7) the continued popular strength of reactionary social ideas in certain parts of the nation.

As a matter of fact, Trump's support among Republican voters stands at some 85%. They would not tolerate this from any DEM president (cite: Obama in particular), so why do they tolerate Trump?

Why is this happening? The answers have less to do with the President than with everything that surrounds him. These are questions that demand the historian's interest in context rather than the reporter's thirst for detail.

The questions need to start with the Republican Party, which has provided a safe home for the reactionary brand of politics that Trump champions.

As has been well-documented, despite every offensive or false statement and tweet that comes from this White House, and shocking policies such as family separation at the border, Republicans in Congress essentially do nothing.

When serious questions have been raised about the ethical practices of the commander in chief or about how much he will do to protect our election processes, congressional Republicans haven't acted to constrain Trump.

Even as the President mounts an all-out assault on the free press, some Republicans on the Hill yell and scream but undertake no real oversight. Partisan loyalty too often trumps political courage in an age of intense polarization.

More and more Republicans have been willing and eager to have the President's endorsement in the primaries. And so, the story of Trump has raised as many questions about the state of the GOP as it has about him.

The Trump presidency also raises serious questions about our cherished system of checks and balances. Just how much can we count on the checks to restrain an out-of-control president? Hollywood filmmakers have imagined scenarios where we end up with leaders willing to do dangerous things. But audiences tend to believe this couldn't happen in real life.

My 2 cents: Related to that assessment which I agree with is this from Pogo.org re: Trump blames the DEMS (as usual) for the high death toll following Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico as their way to harm him. 

What a shameful, shameful man – yet one who remains shameless, too – how ironic is that? Pogo’s main point and excellent summary to all this is simply this: Gaslighting the country by pretending that thousands did not lose their lives is beneath the Office of the President.

Then this gaslighting ref from Psychology Today:

Thanks for stopping by.

Trump Again Praises Kim, Jung-un: Wants Second Confab Date & Place TBA

Good grief: He didn’t really say and propose that did he

(Old stink eye from Bolton noted)

Parts of LA TIMES story here:

Preparations are underway for a second face-to-face meeting between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, the White House says despite the lack of any clear movement toward denuclearization three months after their summit in Singapore.

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders told reporters that the White House had received a letter from Kim requesting a meeting. She described the letter as “very warm, very positive.” She cited the release of three American detainees in May, the return in July of possible American remains from the 1950-53 Korean War and a major military parade recently in Pyongyang that did not include any ballistic missiles for the first time in more than a year. The parade, she said, marked “one of the first times they have had a parade where they weren’t highlighting their nuclear arsenal. We consider that an act of good faith.” 

Sanders would not say how quickly or where a second summit might take place, or if it is likely before the November 6 midterm election.

One potential possibility is on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York. Trump is scheduled to address the gathering on September 25. At this point Kim is not scheduled to attend that session.

The announcement marks an about-face by Trump since August 24, when he complained of a lack of “sufficient progress” and abruptly canceled a scheduled visit to Pyongyang by Secretary of State Pompeo and a new U.S. envoy to the stalled disarmament talks.

Despite the lack of any demonstrable progress since then, Trump is moving ahead with preparations for a second summit based on what Sanders described as good faith efforts by Kim.

A day after Trump met with Kim in Singapore on June 12, he declared that North Korea was “no longer a nuclear threat” even though the two leaders produced only a brief joint statement, with no timetable or specifics, about denuclearization. 

The two sides later differed about what the vaguely worded agreement meant.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the UN nuclear watchdog agency – reported last month that North Korea was continuing to develop its nuclear weapons, and expressed “grave concern.”

I note: All that is despite Trump statements otherwise about progress…!!!

Other skeptics also weighed like this from Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst on the Koreas who is a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who said: “It is premature to hold another summit meeting without any evidence of North Korean commitment to abandon its nuclear arsenal.”

Summary: Trump ordered a halt to the annual U.S. military exercises in and with South Korean military forces as a confidence-building measure while Trump also called the long-planned exercises “provocative and war games,” which is the precise lingo that Pyongyang uses in their tons of anti-American propaganda. Examples from their playbook:

Rip Old Glory; Bomb the Capital; Stomp on U.S. Forces
[click image for larger view]

Trump after ordering Pompeo to scrub his visit to Pyongyang last month toggled back last week after a new book (“Fear”) by famed journalist Bob Woodward that portrayed the White House in perpetual chaos came and instead Trump pointed to validation from a distant admirer tweeting (naturally a tweet): “Kim Jong-Un of North Korea proclaims “unwavering faith” in President Trump. Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!”

My 2 cents: Ho Lee Sheet – praising Kim and North Korea while basting Americans who work day and night to keep us safe and before that praising Vladimir Putin in Helsinki – and yet Trump loyalists say: “Great job Mr. President, keep it up.”

Wow – loss of words to say the least.

More to come I am sure – wait and see – this reality show has months to run, the renewal of it is uncertain at this point –that is up to S/C Mueller in the end.

Thanks for stopping by.

The $64,000 Question: What Leverage is Vladimir Putin Holding Over Donald Trump

Darkness surrounds this American president (what is it)

Introduction to this story here from the NY TIMES with this headline:

The Urgent Question of Trump and Money Laundering

Sub-Title: “How Bruce Ohr, President Trump’s latest Twitter target, fits a suspicious pattern of behavior on Russia”

Donald Trump has a long history of doing what he thinks is best for Trump. If he needs to discard friends, allies, or wives along the way, so be it.

Trump once said at a rally in Iowa: “Now, I’ll tell you, I’m good at that – so, you know, I’ve always taken in money. I like money. I’m very greedy. I’m a greedy person. I shouldn’t tell you that, I’m a greedy – I’ve always been greedy. I love money, right?” 

It’s important to keep this trait in mind when trying to make sense of the Russia story. Trump’s affinity for Russia, after all, is causing problems for him. It has created tensions with his own staff and his Republican allies in Congress. 

Most voters now believe he has something to hide. And the constant talk of Russia on television clearly enrages Trump.

He could make his life easier if only he treated Vladimir Putin the way he treats most people who cause problems — and cast Putin aside. Yet Trump can’t bring himself to do so.

This odd refusal is arguably the biggest reason to believe that Putin really does have leverage over Trump.

Maybe it’s something shocking, like a sex tape or evidence of campaign collusion by Trump himself.

Or maybe it’s the scandal that’s been staring us in the face all along: Illicit financial dealings — money laundering — between Trump’s business and Russia.

Continue at the TIMES link above – a very good read.

Thanks for stopping by.

Is History Repeating Itself: Trump on the Path as Nixon to Resignation and Dishonor

This scenario leaves a lot to imagine but little wiggle room

Introduction: Timely topic for this moment in history with the Trump White House similar to that described below in the Nixon White House as Watergate came to a final chapter in 1974 when on that Richard M. Nixon resigned and left office – this historical reference comes from Politico (August 11, 2017).

The scene from the White House south lawn on August 9, 1974, is vivid in the nation’s memory. That morning, President Richard M. Nixon famously boarded Marine One for the final time, put on a wide grin and fired off a final double-V to the assembled crowd.

But one of the most interesting aspects of that day is what didn’t happen on the south lawn: Even though Nixon had more than two hours left in his tenure, the most critical tool of the modern presidency had already been taken away from him. He never noticed it, but the nuclear “football” didn’t travel with him as he boarded the helicopter, and later, Air Force One for his flight back to California.

In a democratic country without hereditary power, royal crowns or bejeweled thrones, the nuclear football is in some ways the only physical manifestation of our nation’s head of state.

Yet, on that August day, it had been quietly removed from Nixon’s hands – remaining behind at the White House with the incoming new Commander-in-Chief, Vice President Gerald Ford.

The key to this came from Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who recalled years later that in the final days of the Nixon presidency he had issued an unprecedented set of orders this way, in part that said: That if the president gave any nuclear launch order, military commanders should check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before executing them. 

Seems that Schlesinger feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon. Nixon himself had stoked official fears during a meeting with congressmen earlier in which he reportedly said, “I can go in my office and pick up a telephone, and in 25 minutes, millions of people will be dead.” 

Senator Alan Cranston then phoned Schlesinger, warning about: “The need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”

My 2 cents: So, would Donald J. Trump under that kind of pressure even consider or pull a stunt like that now?

Yes, I think he would, and would in the blink of a tweet. Why do I say that? 

These key points illustrate my view:

— Such an act would keep Trump in the #1 spot on the world stage as the man who triggered nuclear Armageddon — the place he hungers to stand daily.

— It would put and keep Trump in the historical spotlight ever since the world entered the nuclear age.

— It would keep that spotlight on Trump in whatever history were to follow, and that assumes anyone would be left to even write any more history.

— It would be right up Trump's alley.

— Trump probably would announce it in his usual way: via a series of tweets, once cleared by Fox and Friends.

Something to ponder isn't it? Thanks for stopping by.

Sen. Booker Cites “Committee Confidential" Information: GOP Threatens to Expel Him

Sen. Booker (D-NJ) questions nominee Judge Kavanaugh on his

“Racial Diversity” views

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) had threatened to expel Sen. Booker from the Senate

(A very bad move - We the People have a right to know the truth)

Updated from NBC News, and just before the original story below – makes for a very good read:

Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) defended the decision to keep “committee confidential” documents private, saying that redactions were often needed to protect personal information.

A Grassley aide told NBC News shortly after the exchange that the email Booker referenced was now eligible for release, and no longer considered committee confidential.

Original post and stories here from Vox.com and also from Roll Call.com here:

The designation: “Committee Confidential” itself is not uncommon...

If is used for intelligence hearings since a fair share of documents that are classified can be labeled as “committee-confidential.”

What is uncommon is the way that Kavanaugh’s documents have been vetted and designated, re: The National Archives would usually lead this process, but because their approach would purportedly take too long, Bill Burck (a private attorney for former President George W. Bush) ran and expedited a parallel process, and that process is what DEMS have repeatedly pointed out as completely unprecedented.

Sen. Durbin (D-IL): “By what right, by what authority can Mr. Burck designate a document as “committee-confidential” – he as the consent of the Republican committee.” The exceedingly partisan nature of that process has infuriated DEMS – as they say it offers no insight into how things are done and it chips away at the previously-established methods for doing that same thing.

Sen. Feinstein (D-CA): “There is no process for determining “committee-confidential” – it used to be that both sides had to concur. Now, this is just simply not the case. “Committee-confidential” becomes kind of a crock. For all I know, some Republican staffer could have made this decision. It becomes a way for the majority to put all information through a strainer.”

Background: From the beginning, DEMS have objected to the timeline GOPers have used to usher Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court before midterm elections even without fully releasing documents related to Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush White House and not as a District Judge, and that conflict has been simmering ever since Kavanaugh was nominated.

He served as both White House counsel and staff secretary during the Bush administration. As staff secretary, for example — a time that he’s characterized as a formative experience for his judicial practice, it is possible that he engaged with millions of documents, a trove that DEMS have been interested in mining.

His extensive document trail is one of the reasons GOP Majority McConnell (R-KY) warned before his nomination that Kavanaugh could take longer to confirm because the number of pages is said to run into the millions and McConnell feared could hand Senate DEMS an opportunity to delay the confirmation vote until after the new session of the court begins in October.

But once Kavanaugh was nominated, Senate Republicans changed their tune.

Now, and in the interest of expediting his confirmation process, they have decided to skip a great number of documents usually released as a matter of transparency, including the ones from his time as staff secretary.

My 2 cents: That is the heart of this story and confirmation process – and. it is potentially a very serious dilemma for the GOP this way: They constantly preach openness, candidness, transparency, and dedicated service to the people – but is method clearly shows their hypocrisy and total BS on a grand scale. Seeing it for what it is up to the people – the ones they profess to serve. 

So, I say, put up or shut up, or better yet: Get the hell out office with your petty BS phoniness.

Please do or say as much as possible to get involved in this mess and maybe help to straighten things out and anyway you … this divisiveness in name of democracy for the people must stop. But, how – that is the $64,000 question isn’t it?

Thanks for stopping by.