Tom Rinaldo
Tom Rinaldo's JournalDonald Trump slow walked negotiations regarding sitting down with Mueller's Team. The result...
He ran out the clock on Mueller over the course of almost a year of protracted "negotiations" and no sit down interview was ever conducted. Instead a limited set of written replies to censored questions was submitted with no follow up to those answers possible. It clearly hampered Mueller's investigation and we will never know how things might be different if either 1) Trump testified in person under oath OR 2) A subpoena to force Trump to testify had been issued in a timely enough manner to allow Mueller's investigation to remain ongoing until the Courts had exhausted Trump's attempt to avoid that subpoena, thus forcing his live testimony with follow up questions.
Now the same has happened in regards to Mueller's Report itself and the ability of Democrats to follow through forcefully in a timely manner. Congress is recessing for its summer break, much of the public is in summer vacation mode itself. It is hard to make old news fresh again even with expert compelling testimony at a hearing months removed from when the report was issued. Republicans have slow walked every step of compliance with Congressional constitutionally mandated oversight. How many subpoenas for witness testimony has the House issued that Trump's Administration is fighting? I've lost count. And of course those subpoenas were only issued after extended time consuming negotiations came up empty handed.
Timing may not be everything, but it sure as hell is a lot of it. Trump won a critical victory by foot dragging around his direct testimony. That delay may literally have changed the course of history. Once it became readily apparent that Democrats were loath to begin impeachment hearings without first laying the groundwork to build public support for that move with public oversight hearings,Trump knew how to respond. Those hearings remain hamstrung because key witnesses refuse to appear. When and if they ever do public attention will by then be muted by the passage of time and countless other intervening events.
A Democratic failure to initiate an Impeachment inquiry until Administration witnesses cooperate leaves Trump in control of the clock. That sure worked out well for him the last time.
What Epstein, the Great Recession, and the Opiod Crisis have in common
Wealth Privilege: The ability to leverage a nexus of connections facilitated by vast quantities of money, AND close proximity to the high and mighty, to reduce the chances to a bare minimum of ever personally being held accountable, let alone doing significant prison time, for actions that advanced selfish interests through means that predictably would and did destroy the lives of hundreds, thousands, and sometimes even millions of lives.
Wealth Privilege is almost always bestowed on white men in America, but it is only available to the wealthy. Being white or male alone is not enough. A token female or person of color wealthy person sometimes benefits from Wealth Privilege, but the poor never do. the working Class never do. Neither does the middle class.
It is impossible to commit the heinous barely veiled crimes that Jeffrey Epstein subjected hundreds to for decades without having Wealth Privilege. It is impossible to to giddily play roulette with the world economy, pocketing all the winnings with the regulators disarmed, without having Wealth Privilege. It is impossible to flood the nation with highly addictive prescription drugs for years while hundreds of thousands died, without having Wealth Privilege. In all of these cases some besides the direct perpetrators saw what was actually going on. But they were ridiculed, threatened, fired, fastidiously ignored, overruled, or simply bought off.
It goes far deeper than the term white collar crime implies. Wealth Privilege allows a few to custom order the laws they need to allow them to operate unimpeded. And when their greed and gluttony violates even those lax standards, they can hire an army of the most highly trained and connected lawyers in America to bargain down their pleas (if having political figures in their pocket was not good enough protection), paying large fines if need be rather than spending decades locked up in jail. Fines that they pay with a portion of the money that they looted to begin with, in those cases where their crimes were financial to begin with.
The Republican Party, for the last century in America, has always catered to the high and mighty.They have remained at their beck and call. But Republicans never have and never will occupy all of the political seats of power in this nation. So those with Wealth Privilege seek Democrats to influence also, sometimes in ways that are corrupt, sometimes in ways that seem far more innocent. As long as Democrats routinely travel in circles (or even just in private planes) of those who possess Wealth Privilege, however innocently they do so, a large swath of the voting public will see evidence that politicians are for the most part all alike, with few if an of them truly having their backs.
The New Deal, and later the Great Society, bestowed on the Democratic Party a legacy of fighting for the "common man". Far far more than with Republicans, that remains the truth But the perception of that once bold legacy has faded with the intervening decades.We are seldom thought of today as the party of Labor. Whether or not the time is now right to nominate a presidential candidate from the wing of our Party most associated with Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders; whether or not they are pitching the right prescriptions for the challenges now facing us, there are valid political reasons for why an economic message that steps outside the bounds of celebrating "the free market" and all the wealth accumulating at the top of it, has been resonating increasingly in recent years.
I'll be blunt. Democrats help "normalize" Trump if we wait for an election to hold him accountable
To be clear, it is not yet certain that Democrats won't move to impeach Trump in the House rather than leave it for voters to decide whether he's committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" sufficient to remove him from office. But some prominent Democratic voices have argued that "impeachment " would be a divisive course of action that could complicate Democratic Party chances prior to the 2020 elections. And the clock keeps ticking.
Not formally moving toward impeachment of Trump shuts down the prescribed constitutional remedy for extraordinary Presidential misconduct, and punts Trump's behavior to the realm of politics as usual; opposing views on issues litigated via an election: Those who support Trump vote for him, those who don't vote against him. Which is what American voters do under normal circumstances every four years. We choose between (almost invariably) two individuals who are presumed to be at least arguably qualified to become or remain President.
But someone found to have committed significant unlawful acts is not qualified to be President. Someone who advances unconstitutional means of pursuing an agenda is not qualified to be President. There are distinct legal and constitutional checks on either of those behaviors It is normal for voters to litigate via elections which set of policy objectives they prefer, and/or who they more trust with the Presidency. But for our democracy and system of law to prevail in the future as it has so far since our nation's founding, elections should not be expected to decide whether lawful or illegal actions are preferred, or whether constitutional or unconstitutional means should be pursued by a President.
If a President of the United States commits crimes they must be investigated and documented and judged to the extent that our legal system allows. It should not be seen as subject to a public referendum. It is law. The average voter can't be expected to have either the time nor access to specialized expertise to serve as a jury in the context of a partisan election campaign where no rules of evidence prevail. Not after those who had all the needed tools chose not to use them. If a President of the United States fails to uphold our Constitution, our Constitution provides a specific remedy for that behavior; the impeachment process. It was not left to the electorate to decide when the Constitution has been violated, and if so whether or not that's OK so long as they support the President who did so. Congress has a prescribed role that it is expected to play when high crimes and misdemeanors have credibly been accused of a President. Not to play that role infers that the grounds do not exist to trigger that obligation.
We are dealing with Donald Trump now yes, but we are also establishing new constitutional norms and precedents if we just leave it to voters to either condone or condemn the undermining of our system of law and our American Constitution. Demagogues flourish in that type of environment, when the most flagrant abuses of power are passed off for voters alone to face or ignore in the heat of a partisan electoral campaign. That leaves treason subject to a popular vote and normalizes whatever behavior is necessary to secure victory at the ballot box.
I believe that Trump wants ICE agents to be attacked amd hurt during Sunday raids
He is broadcasting in advance exactly where and when and who will be raided. That violates all law enforcement procedures. It puts all agents involved in those raids at much greater physical risk of harm with absolutely NO benefit of surprise working in their favor. Some of those who have now been warned that they might be raided might well use that warning to help evade capture, but the chance that a handful might instead fight back also increases.
Trump gives me absolutely no reason to believe that the latter isn't his actual goal. He would gladly sacrifice some ICE agent as a martyr for his anti-immigrant crusade, and he would knowingly set up a scenario where that becomes a more likely scenario. Because he would serve his political ends. I would not be shocked if he's already had some aid prepare a generic eulogy that he can personally deliver were an ICE agent to die this weekend.
The Fourth of July is the quintessential Anti-Trump Holiday
It is "We the People", not "Me the President". It's about Power to the People, not Pomp and Pageantry. It celebrates a Revolution against the concentration of power in the hands of a ruling family.
We celebrate Independence Day because it repudiates the type of oligarchy that Donald Trump seeks to reign over. I condemn everything about Trump's "Salute to America" infomercial for himself, and for that reason I still emphatically celebrate the Fourth of July.
Initially McCain was the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination. Than his support collapsed.
IT IS TOO EARLY TO WRITE OFF ANY MAJOR CANDIDATE OR TO ASCRIBE WINNING MOMENTUM TO ANYONE.
Consider the Republican race for the 2008 nomination.
"McCain began the campaign as the apparent frontrunner among Republicans, with a strategy of appearing as the establishment, inevitable candidate; his campaign website featured an Associated Press article describing him as "[a] political celebrity"
"By a few weeks prior to making his announcement on Letterman, McCain was already beginning to trail behind former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani in the polls, a situation attributed to his steadfast support for the Iraq War troop surge of 2007.
In March 2007, with considerable press attention and in hopes of reigniting his efforts, McCain brought back the "Straight Talk Express" campaign bus that he had used to much positive effect in his outsider run in 2000."
"....by July 2007 his campaign was forced to restructure its size and operations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_2008_presidential_campaign
And how many temporary "frontrunnerss" did the Republicans cycle through in 2012? Remember Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum etc. etc. etc.?
I don't care if we consider the prospects of Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren of Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, or even Steve Bullock. A single exchange in a single debate can move the needle up or down for anyone, and then that needle can swing again in a subsequent debate. And none of that factors in what will happen when those who like a particular candidate now are forced to move onto supporting another one when their first chosen choice is eliminated.
Any Democratic candidate for President with an at least modest national profile, some ability to raise money for their Presidential campaign, and continued inclusion in the national Democratic Party debates can still either rise or fall, in or out of contention. It all is fluid and will remain so for quite awhile.
Warren, among others, is absolutely right. The super wealthy must be forcefully countered
It's not about this or that billionaire being an intrinsically bad person. It's not that all super rich people are incapable of being empathetic of those who are much less fortunate. It's not that some super wealthy folks have not been true progressive heroes in either the past or present. It's that highly concentrated wealth in America is severely eroding our democracy, and consigning most Americans to an increasingly marginal economic existence, or worse.
I have a few very wealthy friends from prior business contacts. I like them, that's why they're my friends. They care about the suffering of others as much as most folks do. But human nature is what it is. They tend to think they earn every penny they make as much as any ditch digger or farm worker laboring in the hot summer sun does; likely even more because most super wealthy believe that while anyone can do unskilled labor their own "talents" are extraordinarily special, even if what they do is manage a hedge fund.
They think so even though they couldn't survive an hour doing hard manual labor in the noon day sun. They think so even though agriculture would collapse, and water systems would fall apart, were it not for the manual laborers who can. They think so exactly the same regardless of whether they get paid ten times the hourly wage of an "ordinary worker" or one thousand times the hourly wage of an "ordinary worker". By and large these people are incapable of curbing their own greed because the don't recognize it as greed at all, at most they simply acknowledge that they "are fortunate." They don't see any link between how their own good fortune contributes to the bad fortunes of others
When asked if they would rather earn more than less, most people reflexively say more. When asked if they would rather pay lower rather than higher taxes, most people reflexively say lower. The super rich are not so different when it comes to basic human nature. Sure, some are personally very generous. So are many very poor people, even though the cost of generosity for those living a marginal life style falls much more heavily upon them.The thing is that there are no true victims in a so called "war on the rich", because the rich will continue to thrive even if they are the so called losers in such a conflict. They will continue to be rich, only marginally less so.
The same is not true in the kind of sustained war on the poor and middle class that American has lived through now for several generations. When someone falls out of the middle class the hardships are very immediate and real. When further hardships fall on the already poor the consequences are frequently fatal. Each year millions more Americans find themselves living at or near the event horizon of an economic black hole that is swallowing their resources. At the literal core of that economic black hole is a tiny percent of a percent of Americans holding hyper concentrated wealth disproportionately in their hands. It this were merely a Star Trek episode the red alert alarm would be sounding, and whichever Captain was at the helm would be trying to enter full warp drive to back away from a pending apocalypse.
And much of the deadliest effects we are experiencing come not at the hands of the super wealthy themselves. They often are too well off to sweat the details involved in making themselves more wealthy. No, the most dangerous work is usually being done by those who work for them, that small army of trusted aids and advisers and hired guns who must perpetually justify their own existence by finding new ways to make their patrons even more wealthy, while also enriching themselves. In a society that by and large uses overt criminality as the yardstick for determining where lines should be drawn, the game plan is to custom write laws and regs to condone and facilitate the "legal" continued transfer of vast wealth to those at the very top of the economic pyramid. It is the way business is done, and it is how our government increasingly functions.
Elizabeth Warren is right. Bold ideas, bold actions, and bold structural changes are needed now, not later. Marshaling our forces to preserve small segments of an imperfect safety net is not the answer, not when the whole circus tent is ablaze. Bring on a wealth tax, bring on higher tax brackets, bring on stock transaction fees and the eradication of special interest loop holes in the tax codes. Nothing less will turn this ship around. We are at red alert, we must engage warp drive.
We have to deal with all of this head on, in the open, with a direct appeal to the American people to intervene. Measured, balanced tones will not penetrate, not when a call to arms is needed. When stolen goods are confiscated and returned to their rightful owners, that is not called Socialism, that is called Justice. And when it comes to putting food on the table, when it comes to healing the sick, caring for the old, educating the young and housing us all, simple justice is what the overwhelming majority of Americans seek. Democrats will do well in 2020 if we have the courage to fight for the people.
Worth remembering: the roots of Al Qaeda go back to the U.S. inserting troops inside Saudi Arabia
Anyone trying to "game out" the ultimate costs to the U.S. of armed conflict with Iran can't confine that ledger to initial military costs involved in "winning", not even if the short and mid term effects on the world economy of the energy disruptions that armed conflict with Iran would trigger get factored into the equation.
Even if, through military action, the U.S. could achieve Bolton's wet dream of complete regime change in Iran, why would anyone think that would reduce rather than increase the use of terror against the U.S. world wide by Shiite extremists angered at U.S. efforts to topple the Iranian theocracy? Where is the "game plan" to counter that?
I think Biden muddled the message that helped give him such a strong launch
The single strongest message conveyed in the prepared video that Biden used to formally announce his run for president was his resolute and unyielding opposition to what Trump has done to America. That launch video wasn't big on policy specifics, but it was huge when it came to "the Resistance." Biden called Trump out in the strongest terms possible, in essence stating that Trump, and all that he stands for, is inherently Un-American. Biden minced no words in identifying Trump as an existential threat to our very Republic. It placed Joe Biden in the forefront of the battle being waged in real time today to preserve and protect our Democracy and all that it stands for. It emphasized Biden's contemporary role in America's politics, facing off against and staring down Donald Trump.
The problem for Biden is that Trump does not rule and threaten America all on his own. He is deeply aided and abetted in all of the damage he is causing by today's national Republican Party, and all Democrats active today know that. Biden's current pitch that he can best reach across the partisan divide undercuts the effectiveness of the message that gave Biden his powerful launch. He compounds that problem by referencing the politics that existed in America generations ago, right after staking a claim on being our foremost partisan warrior in the present, in regards to Donald Trump..
To be clear, I am not here commenting on whether or not Biden is making an accurate point about the path America needs to take long term to restore health to our political system. Even in today's climate, if you go digging deeply in the weeds, one may find some faint signs that someday Republicans may partially be freed from Trump's malevolent spell. But Democrats are not focused on gardening right now. We are instead mobilized to fight a devastating wildfire.
In my opinion Biden stepped on the message that propelled him strongly out of the gate into his large lead in the polls of Democratic candidates for President.
Politicians don't tend to get much credit for slowing down the rate of deterioration
This OP contains sweeping generalities and I know it, but sometimes it is necessary to view a pattern from a distant height in order to make out its outline clearly, and when you do so shades of gray shift toward black or white.
Since the mid seventies there has been, by every account, a massive shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the very wealthiest of Americans. Since the mid seventies the ratio of pay separating CEO's from their lowest paid employees has shot through the roof. Since the mid seventies the inflation rate for higher education and for health care has sky rocketed compared to baseline inflation. Since the mid seventies the affordability of basic housing, at least in most major cities, has pushed home ownership increasingly out of reach and rental costs are not hat far behind. Since the mid seventies job security for most workers has virtually vanished, and dependable pensions should be placed on the endangered species list.
The Republican Party, especially since Reagan became president, has virtually without exception kept their foot on the accelerator furthering all these trends. Democrats have been left to ride the brakes. The economic plight of most Americans would be worse were it not for elected Democrats. But Democrats won't be heaped with high praise for keeping a bad situation from becoming even worse.
I know that the difference between America's two major parties is stark. But as long as the long term trend lines continue as they have for decades, a lot of folks absorbed with the daily struggle of keeping their heads above water may not automatically view Democrats as their protectors. I suspect that lies at the root of a lot of non voter apathy.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PMNumber of posts: 22,918
