"Hungary" for Turkey?

 

Trump: I was very honored, there’s a man, Viktor Orbán. He’s the leader of Turkey pic.twitter.com/h3vrIESVrF

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 23, 2023

Perhaps it's a little petty of me to note that Trump should know better and doesn't it seem just a little like he's...losing it? But--oh heck, This isn't the first time that I've pointed it out, and it won't be the last. He's not a stable genius. He's met both Erdogan and Orban. 

He also said in his recent rambles that he just realized that the "US" is also "us." Aw. He compared himself to Nelson Mandela and said he was never indicted? He's claimed Sidney Powell was never his lawyer.

He thinks the United States could also use an "Iron Dome". (This isn't a new one for him. He's obsessed with "the nuclear" and I think wants something like Reagan's "Star Wars" program. I firmly believe Trump knows more about STI's than SDI. Also, I want to speculate again that it's possible that somehow, some way, secrets about penetrating Israel's Iron Dome got around...hm? Trump is always projecting and telegraphing. He's the Edison of inventing his own reality.)

Oh, that's right, and he also wants to pull out of NATO. I know, it isn't entirely new, but it feels like he's trying to get Daddy Putin's attention again. 

The man ran for office unprepared and ignorant of what was expected of him, served for four years, and LOST GROUND in understanding what the job entails. Isn't it time that the media focuses on that? Sure, he's criminally deceitful. But damn.

Sometimes I think he's also just dumb.

TWGB: Very Fast and Very Hard

The thing with Trump and his unique pathology (I don't know what else to call it) is that he isn't exactly transparent about the things he prefers others don't see, but then he goes and threatens things like obstruction of justice or war crimes or whatever in public. His sense of right and wrong isn't like an ethical thing so much as an optical one. The payola shit like who he owes money to makes him look weak, but he thinks blowing up mosques might make him look strong.

Does he really have 52 Iranian sites he's planning to wipe out in the event of Iranian retaliation for the death of Soleimani? Here's the thing--maybe. And they may include world heritage sites. A lot of commentators have pointed out that this is like ISIS or the Taliban targeting things of cultural and historical value because he, like them, has no idea of the value of these things. But there's more to it than that.

He refers in the Tweets to Iran's civil unrest and the crackdown. I don't think he realizes that instead of highlighting the social division of Iran internally, he might be providing cause for some cohesion--to rally against us. He doesn't think like that.

We know some things about how Trump thinks, though--he telegraphed in 2011 and 2012 that he imagined that a desperate president might try to go to war with Iran to save his political bacon. We know guests at the "Winter White House" might have heard as much about Trump's big plans against Iran as the Senate did, and we know he spoke with friendly GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, but not the Gang of Eight.  This makes the rationale behind the move suspect--because when he and Defense spokespeople suggest that this move was "to prevent a war not start one" or to "prevent an immanent attack" which they for sure and really no honest have proof of, I feel like the public should be demanding receipts.

It's especially troubling when VP Pence (and why don't we have more information on his conversations with the Ukrainian president?) just bald-faced lies about how Soleimani might have been involved with 9/11 terrorists, because he seems to think the justifications (potentially true but requiring verification) aren't valid enough without a total lie thrown on top (which tends to suggest they weren't all that valid, right?). It actually appears the likelihood of immanent attacks was "razor-thin".  It also seems that Trump was presented with an array of options of retaliations towards Iran aggression and picked the most severe one.

This makes me think of the "madman theory"--the idea that some countries will only respect a power if they feel that the person in charge is so insane that they will do anything and are best left alone. It's associated with Kissinger and Nixon.

It doesn't work, though. "Fire and fury" didn't get Trump anywhere with North Korea. (Nor did reversing course.) It hasn't with China trade negotiations, and it won't here.

Iran has time to do whatever they mean to do--they don't have to respond "very fast and very hard". The thing with asymmetrical warfare is that it can be as slow and grinding as possible for the "weaker" side. They reply on their own terms, and there is a limit outside of total war that Trump can engage in. But one shudders when Secretary Pompeo mourns the lack of support Trump has from European allies.  Maybe Trump threatening them with dumping ISIS fighters back on their soil was....not good? Will Pompeo express the same amount of surprise at the lack of assistance we might expect from the Kurds? Does he not understand why our good friends in Russia and Turkey will look at us blankly, as well?

This choice seems to have been made as if in a world where events never had consequences (much like Trump's decision to shake down Ukraine). If Trump is going to ever learn anything, he'd have to come to some kind of understanding very fast and very hard.

But he won't--it's off brand. He will stand by his decision and his people will stand by him--however it turns out.

Ladies and Gents, This is Lindsey Graham

Graham blocks resolution recognizing Armenian genocide after Trump-Erdoğan meeting https://t.co/VURZgeFkqn pic.twitter.com/PzGP1sHFUL

— The Hill (@thehill) November 14, 2019

Senator Lindsey Graham met with his golf buddy Trump and his golf buddy's good friend President Recep Erdogan and has decided that the US Senate should not be so hasty (It's been, like, a century, so?) about condemning the Armenian genocide. He says he's objecting "not because of the past, but because of the future." This is happening while, in the present, Kurds are being subjected to war crimes by Turkey.

Before we condemn Graham too swiftly, he never showed much interest in the history of the genocide of Armenians previously. Opposition to such a resolution has a bit of a history, actually, and it has been rejected before for the same kind set of general reasons--because what does it have to do with what is happening now?

The problem I have with this thinking is that not acknowledging the past is a way of denying the events that led to our present. Today, politicians are already coming up with their reasons for why we're going to be okay with ignoring what is happening to the Kurds. What we tolerated in the past, we demonstrate we can tolerate again. We have already witnessed the senator contort himself over whether Trump's concession to Erdogan in greenlighting his military advance into Syrian Kurdistan was a great "out of the box" idea. We will soon dispense with even sanctions, correct? if Graham become concerned about "the future" where sanctions inhibited Trump's out of the box thinking.

Which I think might mean something to do with Graham's perception of his own future in being elected once again to the Senate in the upcoming 2020 election? Because I know, because Graham has said so himself, he worries about the demographic changes the country is going through and what it means to his party, and he has seen that Trump can harness forces of isolation, resentment, division, and "economic anxiety" to establish a solid turnout regardless of issues of right or wrong, or even what conservatives have previously supported. (Or for that one time. In 2016. With a possible assist.)

Or maybe Graham still just doesn't give a shit about Armenians, because in South Carolina.... except South Carolinians actually do give a good goddamn about people who have suffered. Even if Graham cares a little bit more about himself and his Erdogan and Putin loving friend right now.

Graham is wrong an awful lot. It's the malleability and toady-ness of his wrongness, of late, that is simply striking. And I would be remiss if I did not point out that South Carolina has a lovely alternative who would like very much to work for them, and has not established himself as a Washington DC, Sunday chat show know it all hack who is, staggeringly wrong on moral concerns.

So Much Winning?

When Trump announced that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a military operation, this was supposed to be a win. He announced that there would be news coming Sunday morning the night before on Twitter, and within moments, it seemed, people knew this is what it was likely about. But instead of simply stating the bare facts of the operation and letting someone from the Pentagon field any questions, Trump's ego got the better of him, and he sort of killed the moment with his mouth. 

He compared the death of al-Baghdadi with the operation against Osama bin Laden (of course Trump says he got the bigger terrorist, and if people only listened to him, they would have known about bin Laden before 9/11, which is just absurd). He thanked Russia first, which was odd, because their Defense Ministry definitely seemed cool about what even happened. He also told them about it before notifying any Democratic lawmakers (which certainly wasn't about operational security--it was pettiness).  And, while he tried to make it appear that this operation came about as a result of his decision with respects to pulling back in Syria--that doesn't seem to have helped matters at all, but made them more difficult. 

He went on in morbid detail about crying, whimpering al-Baghdadi (rather more than good taste or sense would have allowed) but it appears that he wouldn't have seen anything from the tunnel in which the terrorist deployed his explosive vest. And he went on about Syria's oil again, which the US doesn't have a right to and wouldn't be that valuable to us, anyway. While the world won't mourn al-Baghdadi, Trump somehow managed to make his death announcement grotesque and pulled the sense of victory out of it. 

At the top of the post, I have the somewhat stagey-looking picture released by the White House of Trump in the Situation Room. That was supposed to be the iconic takeaway image of the day. The actual picture to take away from today is this:

This picture, showing an "Impeach Trump" banner being unfurled at Nationals Park where trump attended Game 5 of the World Series, shows the real story of the day: Trump was booed and met with chants of "Lock him up." Nothing he does will win with the people who have seen enough of his presidency for a lifetime. 

Of course, it's a job well done for Delta Force and the rest of our fighting men and women, and our partners in the region. To them all thanks. But a dose of reality should be Trump's reward.

"The Hospitality Business" Huh?

US promised to build beach resort in North Korea during nuclear talks https://t.co/s1gCVlFn5Y pic.twitter.com/mO2zzQvbSc

— New York Post (@nypost) October 19, 2019


The funny thing about what Mick Mulvaney said yesterday about Trump still considering himself to be in the hospitality business is it's probably true. Being president basically seems to be a side hustle he picked up to burnish his brand and create opportunities in exciting new countries.

I wonder if Trump is going to have to broaden his real estate operations in Turkey....

 

UPDATE: He's still going on about that Doral thing, tho':

 

It's about the hospitality!

TWGB: Time's Arrow

“The cease-fire agreement reached with Turkey by Vice President Mike Pence amounts to a near-total victory for Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who gains territory, pays little in penalties and appears to have outmaneuvered President Trump#.” https://t.co/hiMEvi1kFM

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 18, 2019

There is an annoying refrain I am hearing among people who don't like the impeachment inquiry that it is being used as a means to "cancel" the 2016 election because Dems haven't "gotten over" the results. First of all, I am still not over the 2000 election, thank you very much, but there's a few simple, sad things that have to be recognized. The first is--impeachment is right there in the Constitution as a device for removing a president for high crimes and misdemeanors, but there is no tool for nullifying the election itself, or reversing all that that president has done in whatever time they have been president. History does not work that way, and Trump's years in office, his appointments to the bench, his policies, will continue to affect us even once he's out of office. The process can't unravel existing damage. (And should not be blamed for astonishingly poor decisions that the president makes during the process, either in obstructing justice or in making bad policy decisions.)

Democrats can't use the impeachment inquiry to undo the three years of Trump's presidency any more than he can go back and revise his own history, or the history of what other presidents have tried to accomplish by stating that one's most recent duct-taping* of a self-created disaster was something that had been tried without success for ten years. History, like time, marches on in one direction.

So it goes for defenses of Trump's foreign policy in general: that elections have consequences, and that Trump's foreign policy was bound to be a change from his predecessors'. But should it have meant an entire change in our goals and alliances?  Should it have meant a break with the reputation Americans have worked so hard to create? As I have argued before, alliances aren't easy to create and trust, once broken, isn't easy to mend--Trump gets this wrong. To employ a metaphor that Gen. Colin Powell has used--he has broken something and it must be bought, but Trump gives no thought to who actually pays for it.

With this thought in mind about how history can't be taken back, I think we should also look at something Acting COS Mick Mulvaney would like to take back: his comments about whether of course there are quid pro quos and we do it all the time (and people should get over it). Once that statement was not just made, but so enthusiastically, it's a bit hard to take back (especially when the appearance of a quid pro quo has been outlined in better detail by people with some first-hand knowledge). This tactic (if it is one) of announcing "Yes it happened and it quite all right" as front page news for Trump (and Trump fans) and walking it back as page six news for the benefit of rule of law enthusiasts shouldn't be allowed to fly.

But as we continue to uncover what depths Trump's actions have reached, Trump has also lost nothing (despite his claims of great sacrifices) having awarded the contract to host the June 2020 G7 summit to his own (failing) Doral property. The administration can claim he will not profit from this situation (trying to say it is not an emoluments clause issue at all, at all) because Trump will be doing it "at cost". (And we will see the receipts later--just like his tax returns!) But the boot to him of being able to sell his property as a world-class venue hosting world leaders is a priceless advertising opportunity. He will proceed as corruptly and unmindfully of any law--until prevented. We can not undo Trump's history and barely affect what he does presently.

We must act for the future.

*UPDATE: Just to be clear, even if Trump himself isn't, entirely, and in case I'm not being clear enough myself, we don't have a five-day ceasefire so much as the imposition of some order on an ethnic cleansing.

UPDATE: Turkey has ceased exactly nothing.

TWGB: All Roads With You Lead to Putin

There really just might be something to this idea of Trump being self-impeachable after all, as is becoming more evident with each advancing news story.  I've been an advocate of impeachment, but also an admirer of Speaker Pelosi's slow-burn tactics--she seems to be running the impeachment inquiry at a pace that gives the unstable non-genius enough rope to hang himself (and several of his cohorts) with.

This unravelling of the president was in disturbing force today, as President Trump had a bit of a public meltdown where he demanded to know where "the server" was like an unsatisfied patron at a midrange chain restaurant. (Which is about a nonsensical conspiracy theory it is hard to believe that the president actually takes seriously, but in a world of hurricane nukes and windmill cancers, who am I to judge?) He then had a meltdown behind closed doors, when Madame Speaker treated him to exactly the message his disastrous recent policy with respect to Syria deserved:

Pelosi explained to Trump that Russia has always wanted a “foothold in the Middle East,” and now it has one with the U.S. withdrawal, according to a senior Democratic aide who was also granted anonymity.

“All roads with you lead to Putin,” the speaker said.

 And they certainly do. Both the Ukrainian exploits which have brought about his impeachment inquiry and his precipitous Syrian decision with respects to Erdogan do not at all seem to further US interests, so much as Russia's. Trump can pretend that it was she, not he, who "melted down", but the picture above shows a woman with more political experience than Trump ever will have, letting him know something about himself. And once again, he is responding by reflex--"I'm rubber and you're glue".  A schoolyard tactic--not a presidential one.

Perhaps Trump has reasons for his obvious disturbance. I'm going to elide the steady drip-drip-drip of the Ukraine testimonies by simply saying: It looks bad because it is bad, and the testimony of various officials seem to be painting a picture where people were clearly acting on Trump's behalf, not for broad policy goals, but specifically to be of use to Trump and where Energy Secretary Perry, OMB/Acting COS Mulvaney, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and special envoy Kurt Volker apparently conspired to ensure certain business and political outcomes were ensured. It is looking like the very opposite of a bid to combat corruption; a directed effort to control who benefits from it.

This Approach to Foreign Policy Looks Inconsistent

BREAKING: Amid Pres. Trump's decision to remove US troops from northern Syria and his vocal criticisms of US military presence in Middle East, Pentagon announces the deployment of more US troops “to assure and enhance the defense of Saudi Arabia.” https://t.co/bPdc9T4D5O

— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 11, 2019

I don't really have a lot to add to this announcement that I haven't already said with respects to Trump and Saudi Arabia. We've got another announcement of manpower deployment for Saudi Arabia, on a Friday, amidst a sea of bad Trump news. Trying to reconcile the move with any sense of strategy--a "Trump Doctrine"--just doesn't make sense, any more than the Syria move makes any sort of strategic sense. There's nothing that should have been unpredictable about what Turkey is doing now, and there's no, to use a phrase "unknown unknowns" about what engagement with Iran to defend Saudi Arabia ('s oil)is likely to mean--it's a likely clusterfuck.

But is it inconsistent? I have a standing joke with respects to Republican conflicts of interest: "If one always acts in one's own self-interest, there's no conflict." Trump is the apotheosis of that maxim. I am not above assuming he would use our folks in uniform for his ends because he is not above doing it. It's not even very well hidden.

UPDATE: Mnuchin says we could shut down Turkey's economy with sanctions if they don't knock off what they are doing. I mean, we aren't doing it right now, but. We could.  From the Pentagon, we're "very disappointed" in Turkey right now.

UPDATE: Some ISIS militants have escaped prison and Turkey has bombed US Special Forces in an apparent error.

He Thinks He's King Solomon, Over Here

This is a screencap of the real account of President Trump, who is confronting criticism over the likely disastrous consequences over his Turkey decision by touting his "great and unmatched wisdom".

Great and unmatched wisdom? Who is staying in the bunker with this self-aggrandizing goof?

While this sort of thing might just barely sound sarcastic (if Trump had self-awreness and a sense of humor, which would be a "no"), it hearkens back to his "chosen one" comments from not-so-long ago. Trump has surrounded himself with "yes-men", and he's definitely been told by evangelicals that he's part King Cyrus, part Queen Esther.

It's just worrisome, is all.

Whose Foreign Policy is This?

BREAKING: In an extraordinary Sunday night statement, the White House announces that the US "will no longer be in the immediate area" of Northern Syria, allow Turkey to launch an invasion in the region and give Turkey responsibility for captured ISIS fighters in the area. pic.twitter.com/tUES5gsqtF

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) October 7, 2019

So, under the auspices of one Donald J. Trump (who is unhappy because he thinks impeachment will look bad on his resume), the US is abandoning the Kurds, our allies in the fight against ISIS, to a potential slaughter by Turkey and giving Turkey "responsibility for captured ISIS fighters in the area" which basically just sounds like masses of them will be dumped out on the street available to return to ISIS(and ISIS is still active, weakened, but still a threat) or wherever else. And he's doing it despite warnings that this really doesn't further US policy interests? Announced late on a Sunday?

I'm not saying that Trump is playing foreign policy games to screw with the news cycle because he doesn't understand that nations have interests and no policy moves, but especially not foreign policy moves, should be conducted in one's own self interest, but yeah, I'm kind of saying that because I've said it before. I'm not even above speculating that Erdogan (or Putin, because why not?) may have made this choice easy for Trump, even while it is misery for the region.

Trump thinks it's being impeached that will look bad. He does not appreciate that what is bad are the many ways he is impeachable and untrustworthy. The message this sends to our allies: "Don't count on the United States." Or maybe, "Don't count on the United States (unless it benefits Trump's whims in some way)."

TWGB: Persistent Illegality

There's something indelibly shady about Donald Trump that casts a kind of fug around the people in his orbit and all the things he does. Maybe not for his base, the brain-wormed bastions of MAGA minions who believe Trump's turds can be polished into gold, but for the people who have become increasingly dubious not about Trump's good intent, but whether he's ever capable of it. Take his charity--oh, wait. NY has already taken it. The Trump Foundation has been ordered to shut down and sell off its assets (such as portraits of Trump, purchased with Foundation money and presumably on display at properties he holds) due to "persistent illegality". 

Trump is not a generous man; he is tighter than a flea's withers and about as small about his purse. He once basked in applause for crashing a charity event for which he gave exactly nothing whatsoever. For kids with AIDS.  Washington Post's David Farenthold during the 2016 campaign did a bang up job of trying to track down whether there was even a whiff of the philanthropic about Trump, and found that Trump's foundation was made up of other people's money as of late, distributed to satisfy Trump's own needs. Sometimes the donations out of the fund looked like a reward for doing business with the Trump Organization. And looking at the 990's, I wondered myself if the foundation was being used as a Trump Campaign Kickstarter. He used Trump Foundation funds to donate to the campaign of Florida's AG Pam Bondi, who had settled the Trump University complaint for him. Trump can brag that he never charged his foundation for rents or whatever using his properties, but this is because his "board" (which included his children as fiduciary members) didn't apparently have any meetings. (But is that really so--see the Trump's structuring of their deal for a golf outing for St. Jude. Sad thing is, Eric Trump might have wanted to do better, but that old Donald Trump shadow just fugged him up.)

But this post isn't really about the persistent illegality of the now-defunct Trump Foundation (anyone in the market for a Trump portrait, though?) but rather, what the TrumpWorld aura seems to do to people--take Flynn's sentencing delay. The same day that we heard about the Trump Foundation being kaput, Mike Flynn (having been wished "Good Luck" by the former boss) thought he was going to have a great time at his sentencing because Mueller said he shouldn't have any jail time, and his defense agreed, except for the whining about it. Because the FBI was being meanies asking him questions like he was supposed to be responsible like the head of some kind of intelligence agency and whatnot, you guys. And they wanted him to be truthful which was supposedly amazeballs and tew much. Gah, adulting, amirite?

Now, I outsource my legal opinions these days because I was a literature major which means I should doubt my capacity for close readings, but I have complaints with the reading where Judge Sullivan was incorrect for dropping the T-word. Flynn has a clear violation of FARA in addition to making false statements, plural. There is more redacted in what's up with Mike, and Sullivan has read it. Flynn was given a great deal, and trying to insert some conspiracy theory nonsense in the proceeding was dumb as hell and those supposedly intemperate words were about waking Flynn's ass the hell up and reminding him that to whom a fucking raft has been given, a failure to float equals drowning. Maybe Flynn thinks a pardon is his best bet, but the legal wheels are trying to get him on the cooperating path. Trump's good luck nod is wishful that nothing has been given up. But it would be out of Trump's actual make-up to deliver without seeing the goods. He is not charitable. 

What's fascinating is to see what Trump's recent maneuvers post the terrible day where Flynn's sentencing is postponed (contingent upon his very good cooperation with the Mueller investigation) and the death of his slush fund. Oh, wait--and the revelation that he signed a letter of intent regarding Trump Tower Moscow, because that could be a big thing. See, that--that right there, makes the statement he made about not having an financial interest in Russia during the 2016 campaign a total lie, and also makes Rudy Giuliani, who admitted that maybe there were talks about a Trump Tower Moscow up to November 2016 but that no LOI was signed, a bit of a liar, unless he was just being blindsided by the kind of thing Trump wouldn't necessarily see fit to share with his defense counsel. 

Because he is innately shady. Made of shade. Shadulent. Foggular. Of and pertaining to a thing very much of not clear and clouded with complications. 

Anywho, when his NSA is possibly a little bit treasonous and his charitable foundation is a slush fund and he's been caught with his wee hands in the Moscow Tower cookie jar, of course the next day he is pulling out of Syria and cancelling sanctions on Oleg Deripaska. (I never know where Deripaska really stands in Putin's estimation, do you?) I do know ISIS is probably not really a victory because the Pentagon says it isn't. But since when did Trump trust our nation's best intelligence? (And maybe we know one of his hand-picked intelligence geniuses did a failure to be anti-ISIS because of being on Turkey's payroll.)

Am I saying Trump is making presidential decisions based on his personal animus, his need to deflect, his natural shadiness, his allegiance to foreign powers? I don't even know! But there is a shadow of persistent illegality about things Trump does. We can't just assume his reasons are any good, ever. 

TWBG: Deja vu, all over again

This TrumpWorld Grab-Bag post (available wherever TrumpWorld Grab-Bag posts are sold, which is here, for the exact price of "free") is going to be short and sweet, because, honey, I already feel like we've been over this stuff before. 

Take the information that we got from the report recently released by US Senators to the effect that the Russian support of the Trump campaign was waged largely on social media and targeted certain demographics, like African-Americans, with the aim of voter suppression.  That is very interesting, because, for one thing, people realized the presence of "bot" accounts and disinfo in real time back in 2016, but also because this strategy by Russia paralleled the Trump campaign strategy actually discussed publicly by Brad Parscale.  

The same strategy--interesting, right? But I feel like we should have known that by now.

Two associates of Mike Flynn's, Bijan Kian and Ekim Altepkin, were indicted for their involvement in seeking the extradition of Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, which shouldn't feel like a surprise, because that's pretty dodgy, but you know, Flynn was in the room when that was discussed. And it seems like a whole bunch of principals in the Trump Administration knew about it, too, as it was happening. Just like they probably knew he was talking with Kislyak, and they also sounded like they knew the election had received Russian assistance. 

It seems to me like we all should have known this much. Also, the released 302 on Flynn's wee talk with the FBI basically backs up what Mueller was saying in response to Flynn's defense sentencing memo: he had been lying, stuck by his lie, was given reason to know that the FBI knew he was lying, kept lying, and didn't step up until he really had no choice--that's not a perjury trap, that's a bunch of bad life decisions. And his sentencing deal looks like either Mueller is a fool and gave him a featherbed (nah!) or Flynn rolled on somebody well up the chain. 

And both the Flynn and digital strategy stories tie in with the investigation opening up to Wikistrat. The cast of characters here is fascinating. (I am but a poor blogger and there feels like there's a grift in there that hoovers money for vague results, but who knows?) But Don Jr and Flynn mentioned in the same breath with UAE is nothing, because we already know about Erik Prince and George Nader meeting in the Seychelles for...some reason. (From a security standpoint, these folks were talking about nuclear nonproliferation pertaining to the Middle East. From a hustle standpoint, Flynn at least at some point wanted to spread nuclear power plants in the Middle East. I have nothing to say about that, because screaming myself hoarse before bed makes me so wretched to be around the next day, you know?) 

Anyway, for people just tuning in, these are all really interesting developments that would have been great if we knew about them way earlier and in some cases, we could have. I hope we have a nice national discussion about them now. I don't know why I selected the picture above. Maybe recalling a simpler time in the White House, hm?

This TrumpWorld Grab-Bag May Contain Deliverables

Just to start with the amusing thing that happened this week, you know that story about how President Trump was trash-Tweeting Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski and aimed low, calling both of them crazy and insulting Mika because she had a little work done (but no, she was not bleeding all over, that's just nasty)? Well, the fun thing is, this prompted the MSNBC morning show hosts to recall that there was this campaign of intimidation and harassment where some thin-skinned politician and his aides wanted them to apologize or bad dirt would come out about them in the obviously well-respected supermarket tabloid, The National Enquirer. Which basically just gives us all the impression that Trump can use his relationship with the publisher of that outlet to blackmail journalists using...fake news. Because let's be brutally frank: The National Enquirer does not hold to the same journalistic standards about sourcing and whatnot as the mainstream media. Fact is, they are a ripe field for planting deza. People who think The National Enquirer is the straight shit are fooling themselves--maybe 10% of the stories have a kernel of truth--but no, that ain't journalism.

This is just such a beautiful side-track from all the work Trump was trying to do regarding CNN. Something, something, picking fights, something, something, buys ink by the barrelful. If only Trump had an attention span!

You know who I don't think has an attention span? Carter Page. Recent word is he sat and was interviewed by the FBI for ten hours without a lawyer. I've seen this guy on tv. He's one of the lawyer-needingest people I've ever seen. His eventual public hearing will be delightful, I have no doubt.

But you probably know what I think the big story is--a person connected to Michael Flynn was trolling the DarkWeb for Hillary Clinton's emails--that's right, the guy who already wasn't admitting he was paid by Russia and Turkey and contacting foreign agents here and there, was also trying to interface with haxxors. Now, I guess on one hand you could just look at Mike Flynn as your obvious burnable scapegoat--a bad-idea engine that the rest of the campaign should really distance themselves from, right? But keep in mind that the President-elect had this guy onboard through the transition even when what he was about was supposedly coming to light via warnings from Deputy AG Sally Yates. (But you know what? I think they knew before that. I just do.)

But it gets weirder--Matt Tait shares a little more info at Lawfare, and drops other Trump campaign and transition names into the mix. Trump and them can shill O'Keefe taping CNN personalities saying that the Russia investigation is a "nothingburger". (I point to Van Jones' very capable defense of himself and indictment of O'Keefe's methods.) But this is on a par with Comey's presumable assurances that Trump wasn't under investigation--the missing word is "yet". The collusion isn't a "slam-dunk"--yet. Trump wasn't under investigation--until he clearly had to be because of apparent obstruction: which begs the question--why is he so loathe to being transparent about the Russia question at all, if transparency would put it to bed? Answer--I don't know, but I know what it looks like.

But on the subject of "deliverables", which is the theme of this Grab-bag post, Trump has been beating around for some "deliverables" to court Putin with.  I'm not sure why President Trump of the United States of America thinks he needs to provide Putin with treats when Putin seems to have interfered in our elections and is not a good global citizen (as is borne out by the whole trying to annex Crimea thing, and don't get me started on how former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort is all up in that.) We (the US) should just have the presence of reputation and character to lean on them, instead of having to "deal". But...Trump. Could someone this compromised be said to be a free actor on the behalf of his country?

But there is this one interesting thing--we know Russia was looking for state voter registration data. Trump's bogus-ass voter commission thingie, which is following up on his entirely unsubstantiated claim that there were several illegal voters in the 2016 elections, recently asked for tons of personal voter data, which has prompted several states to tell the Administration where to stick it.

For which I can't blames them--who are they to tell states how to run their elections--whatever happened to states' rights, right? Why shouldn't states protect their sensitive voter data from big government? (This is clearly on-the-books law for many states.) I think the request for data itself is ominous--how it is going to be used--to purge voters--legitimate voters? To target groups for exclusion from voting? This looks like a civil rights complaint in the making, right?)

But maybe this data is just another "deliverable" to Putin. After all, Trump hasn't given us any reason to trust him, and his Homeland Security has no plan to secure our elections.

Another Trumpworld Grab Bag

I just want to point out that this weekend is another weekend where President Trump visited a couple of his golf courses to hit the links and schmooze in familiar surroundings, like he does most weekends since he became president, and Fox Mushroom Farm is being a little less than honest in pretending that he literally spent the whole weekend at the White House. There is photographic proof he did not. Just because he went to the golf course that he owns closest to the White House does not mean he worked at the White House. He smacked a little white ball around. And I get that Republicans have very little trouble with Trump always being golfing. So Eisenhower! Very suburban! Oddly, they never liked to see Barack Obama smacking little white balls around.

But you know, this is Fox News, after all, the official sponsor of saying stuff out loud that Trump doesn't want folks to know came from him, except that you do. Sean Hannity, a very special Fox News personality, got told by one Ted Koppel just what he thinks of him. He's bad. (I note that Sean Hannity came off a bit defensive and threw a "with all due respect" in there like we don't know what that means--bless his heart.) It shouldn't be anything but transparent that Hannity is not merely an opinion-journalist (if you want to call it journalism) but an extreme partisan (and if you want to call that "propagandist", in my book, you go on ahead). I am reminded of the time Jon Stewart told Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala that their version of "Crossfire" wasn't helping anything at all. Except Koppel isn't a comedian who does news, but a guy who did straight news his whole career. And if Hannity wants to pretend this is some so-called "liberal media" figure he just dissed, nope. Just nope.

There are not always words.

Yesterday, there were attacks on human beings in Berlin, in Ankara, and in Zurich. I have blogged about violence a lot, always with the same theme: it is pointless and senseless to perpetrate more misery through acts that don't strike at the heart of oppression, but only further it. I don't know any other way to say it or to let people know it. In the Berlin case, the wrong man seems to have been held for a while, but it still looks like an act of terror. In Ankara, the assailant called out the political support of Russia for what was being done in Aleppo--but phrases were used that tied the killer's outlook to al Qaeda. In Zurich, the puzzling thing I find about the reporting is that the shooter of a mosque had "no Islamist link"--why would we suspect a person committing an act of terror against a mosque to be linked to Islam in the first place?

Sometimes, when it seems like horrifying things have happened so closely, it feels like perhaps the world had gone mad, or maybe the people on it have. But I don't think that's the case. It's just that outrages are better reported now, and seem more immediate because we so often have video and first-hand accounts broadcast to us. Humankind, if history gives the accurate indication--has never been entirely well. But days like yesterday make one wonder what the hell we are doing to try and get right. Or if we even are trying at all.

What I'm trying to say is--if this is, as some news outlets have opined "the new normal", then how am I to remark on something "normalized" at all? If this normal isn't even all that new, what insight is there to add? Human nature hasn't changed in some significant way. The tragedy is fresh, and I offer condolences to those appropriate to receive them, and abjuration to those who should have blame assessed. And then we go on.  We just do.

None of these acts did anything but hurt people. That is all they did, and won't change a single policy or make anyone feel better about themselves or life as a whole. They won't even stop other people from hurting still other people.  People need to learn that hurt is not a language but the absence of sense and hurt after hurt doesn't bring understanding--but rejects the capacity to communicate at all. Force acts on bodies, but it doesn't change what humans are. We are creatures with speech and some capacity to reason. And we need to do these things.

It's the best we have got. Speak truth to power. Make sense. Enlighten. When you don't have words, then wait until they can come. But don't think this darkness helps anything.

So, I Was Wrong About Turkish Democracy

The way I was seeing it, Turkish president Erdogan would have understood that democratic fervor and social media basically saved his ass, and he should have seen his return to power as reflecting new respect for democratic values and openness of political speech.

This is exactly what we are not seeing. His government has now seen fit to punish more people for the coup than actually ever could have participated in the coup, because if so many had, it might have actually been successful. It was almost as if he had an "enemies list" handy, to have found so many intellectuals and academes culpable.

This is, of course, an appallingly wrong way to do democracy--for the love of stability, Erdogan should want to reinforce the idea that he is most definitely not a tyrant and follow up with more liberalization of the media. Give people a reason to think you actually want to do better and be accountable.

He is doing the idea of democracy a mischief, the way he is doing it.

The Coup in Turkey Could Mean Democracy Wins?

I have not actively covered how much Recep Tayyip Erdogan is  a minute away from being some kind of dictator, but I think the military coup attempt sort of highlights just how much he isn't especially liked, except for the weird thing, which is that even though he's not greatly popular, the folks in Turkey seem to have come out for democratic ideals.  Now this theory could totally crumble in a minute. but I would very much like to think that if the coup crumbles, it is sort of proof that democracy is only the worst form of government, except for all the others. And it might just remind us of how fragile, after all, is a government build on a certain degree of popular consensus.

It is very terrible when a significant population ceases to believe in the government at all. Which is why a government should take pains to stay believable.