Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 20, 2017

The Not-Hillary President

It is impossible to know what the Not-Hillary inauguration will bring. Not-Hillary because putting up Hillary as candidate was the most stupid thing the Democratic party and it paymasters could do. She had extremely high negative ratings and stood for everything that one could dislike with the party's policies. Many who ended up not voting or voted for Trump could have been easily won by a different Democratic candidate even with much of the same general policies (see: Obama, Barack).

Hillary would surely have lost against any middle-of-the-road Republican candidate. History will note that she was an arrogant but incompetent   Democratic candidate who lost against a rather bad Republican candidate, one who lacked support even from his own party. Trump won barely, but she lost completely.

Seen from the perspective of power centers Clinton once had all the support she needed. But she then lost a decisive group due to her uncompromising neo-conned foreign policy. Here is an interesting take based on a theory from the 1950s:

[T]he power elite can be best described as a “triangle of power,” linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: “There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today.”

The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

That is only a rough take. The corporate factions are divided within. The oil industry does not like it when wars disturb its long term businesses (see Russia and Libya). Boeing wants to sell planes to Iran. Other corporate parts don't mind such wars as long as they create new markets or easy access to cheap labor. The media love war as it creates ever thrilling content around which they can sell advertisements.

The decisive political point in this election round was the fight between neo-conservatives/liberal-interventionists and foreign policy realists. One side is represented exemplary by the CIA with the U.S. military on the other:

A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA. This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state’s covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated “color revolutions” that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

The CIA created bloodthirsty future enemies the military will later have to defeat. Fascists in Ukraine and Takfiris all over the Middle East are used by the CIA to further neocon aims but then require relative cheap military intervention at high human costs. The Generals do not like that. (The precedence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was enough for them.) Neither does the military industry. Fighting Takfiris does not require big ticket items. Ratcheting up the rhetoric against peer competitors (without ever fighting a real war) is the best justification for a two million strong military and huge military contracts.

It is still astonishing that the military Trump faction of the power triangle could win the fight. Trump made that possible when he used a hostile media for his gain. The corporate media stood strongly behind Clinton but that was not enough to hide her negative sides. Trump's salesmen bluster proved too fascinating to not be reported. In the end the media that hated him ended up making the very best advertisement for him. For weeks the neoconned Washington Post editorial page ran five or six anti-Trump pieces per day. That alone was for some reason enough to vote for Trump.

Trump will now have to win over other parts of the power triangle. The corporate part is the easy one. He will lower its taxes. He will also, in one form or another, reinstate tariffs along the U.S. borders. His confrontational position against main exporting countries, China, Germany, Mexico etc, will also transfer into higher U.S. corporate profits. It may even create some additional jobs in the U.S. which would help him to get reelected.

The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet. But soldiers do not like to go to war. That means that Trump will increase conflict rhetoric against some foreign countries but also that he will not start any serious war. Expect the announcement of some super nifty, new but useless military wonder weapon for which Trump will promise trillions (Reagan's star wars redux).

The most difficult faction to win over to his view is the political/executive/secret services side including many people within his own party. Neoliberalism has inflicted those on all levels. Trump will have to neutralize or fire people in their upper ranks early and often. If he fails to do that all his plans will be challenged and stymied in their early implementation.

Trump is a highly gifted salesman, one of the best I have ever seen. His general business skills are more average. He is full of bluster before going into negotiations. His current rhetoric in relations to other countries should be seen as opening shots. Such threats and offers alike are to him just parts of a negotiation process. His main aim with those will be to get some manufacturing back into the United States. He needs some success in this, in creating jobs, jobs, jobs and raising wages, to secure his reelection.

Economically Trump will lower taxes and increase spending (after some minor for-show cuts.) U.S. national debt will rise significantly. Interest rates will rise in conflict with his aim to lower the dollar value in exchange markets. His U.S. centric protectionism will allow other countries to also take steps in such a direction. At one point Trump will have to take up a fight with speculative Wall Street banking. It is an impediment for all his other aims. This will be his most difficult fight and the one he will probably lose.

Over all I do not expect anything exceptional from Trump. His time in the White House will probably turn out to be minor remake of Reagan's.

Posted by b on January 20, 2017 at 16:55 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 21, 2017 10:00:03 PM | 197

Israel has never tested a Nuke.

Respectfully, the above and the rest, is merely more unsubstantiated, assertion. If you have working copies of nuclear weapons already tested by firstly the French, the original co-operative active enablers for Israel, and subsequently stolen designs via espionage from other nations, already tested, including the US ... what need for, 'testing'.

In any case there is also the 'open', publicly available info re the Israeli's direct assistance and long-term co-operation with the former Apartheid SA regime program to obtain nukes ... from 60's through to 80's until ANC took over in '90's ... including anomolous possible 'tests' of such a weapons in co-operation with Sth Africa and Botha.

South Africa and weapons of mass destruction

Powerful Nation State mainframes could substitute for live weapons testing, given the body of knowledge from the late '80's onwards, and have ever since. Cray's anyone ?

Have you read any of the declassified records ?

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 22 2017 3:32 utc | 201

@191, 197

Rubbish. That's not an argument or proof. They have NUKES and a whole lot more. Israel refuses to have Dimona inspected; so what is it hiding? If there's nothing to hide; why not let inspectors in? Ambiguity? Bull. Knowing how paranoid they are; they've got the nukes. What about Israel's collaboration with Apartheid South Africa's nuclear program? The U.S. knows they have them. Very disingenuous of you.

South Africa provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its nuclear weapons. South Africa built its own nuclear bombs, possibly with Israeli assistance.[51] Some Resolutions of the UN General Assembly in the early 1980s which condemned the cooperation between Israel and Apartheid South Africa, also mentioned nuclear collaboration.[52] U.S. Intelligence believed that Israel participated in South African nuclear research projects and supplied advanced non-nuclear weapons technology to South Africa during the 1970s, while South Africa was developing its own atomic bombs.[53][54] According to David Albright, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." He goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."[55]

Chris McGreal has written that "Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs".[22] In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, stated that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.[56]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations

Posted by: Circe | Jan 22 2017 3:44 utc | 202

OMG! lol. One actually concurs with circe on an issue ... OMG!

Unless ... there was an ID hijack ... even copied my link/reference ?

Think I'll take a couple of valium and have a little lie down and rest in bed ... after that ... :(

Out!

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 22 2017 4:13 utc | 203

Posted by: Circe | Jan 21, 2017 10:44:39 PM | 202

You (and Outraged) seem to be prancing awkwardly around the THRIFT factor. Considering all the Other Things about which "Israelis" tend to exhibit excessive thriftiness, ambiguous (non-existent) Nukes represent a serendipitous-ly good fit...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 22 2017 4:16 utc | 204

@ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 21, 2017 11:16:29 PM | 204

Absolute BS. That bogus 'Thrift' issue is also well documented. Have you ever read any of the declassified documents, even just one ?

As politely as one can possibly be ... you offer mere personally held assertions, only, based on your view/beliefs, which fail dismally, when balanced on the 'scales' against almost seven decades of documented, FACT! Respectfully, as an analogy, your mere assertions/belief amount to a feather weighed against a full volume set of encyclopedia.

Valid sources/references/links ... can you supply even just three to support your assertions/belief ?

Now most definitely ... OUT!

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 22 2017 4:30 utc | 205

Circe's accusations @183 against b are nothing short of amazing. From coddling Trump to having a narrow (pro-Russian) agenda.

In fact, these accusations are demonstrably false as anyone that peruses MoA posts over the last year can attest.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

In addition to his criticism of b, Circe urges us to ignore Hillary and Obama's failings and Democratic Party corruption. Where anti-Trump protest is concerned, we should not attempt to look for the man behind the curtain. Not because there isn't one, but because it's irrelevant to protesting against Trump, which should be our only concern.

Circe suggests this (false) equivalence:

Protesting against Trump
= protesting against the two-party system
= protesting against Zionism

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 22 2017 5:20 utc | 206

@203

Actually, you probably posted yours while I was getting my link and only after I posted and the page refreshed did I notice you referred to same.

I'll even admit that you defended the point better than me. As I mentioned to you previously, I don't always disagree with you; I read some of your posts you know. I don't have time to read everything.

I won't get into what really bothers; suffice it to say, that I was glad to learn that there's only one blog police around here and it isn't you, and none of my posts were deleted; therefore the ad hom allegations were unjustified by you and jr. Let's just leave it at that.

Anyway, you argued this point well; and better than me. Kudos to you.

Posted by: Circe | Jan 22 2017 5:28 utc | 207

Thanks all for the responses on the Israeli nuclear weapons programs, all. Probably more of an open thread topic, although on the subject of the "Not-Hillary President", I don't think either Trump nor Clinton ever mentioned the Israeli nuclear weapons program - but there is room for negotiation here; China could be convinced to force North Korea into IAEA inspections if the USA agreed to pressure Israel into IAEA inspections, that could form the basis of a diplomatic approach to the issue. Hope springs eternal.

Posted by: nonsense factory | Jan 22 2017 5:51 utc | 208

@ Posted by: nonsense factory | Jan 22, 2017 12:51:08 AM | 208

Indeed ... possibilities. Thank you for the lead-in. Re OT, was a good discussion multiple refs, page 3 comments so, relevant to the new administrations possible policy options compared to Killary's certainly well known positions in comparison ... little harm done ...


@ Posted by: Circe | Jan 22, 2017 12:28:48 AM | 207

One had to have a little lie down, to contemplate & r-evaluate ones viewpoint/position.

Because a small portion of my perceived reality, imploded, upon your post following mine. Now only further confirmed by your post 207 above. Dived in on the opening nonsense factory created with his posts carefully thought out post/tactic ... IMV.

In response, I unequivocally & unreservedly apologize for my unwarranted remarks towards you, circe, a number of threads back, re the instance of T***l & F***-**f. Those remarks were not emotional, nor ever held personally ... was merely a tactic/role-play.

Due to health/issues treatment have been only a periodic lurker for the most recent few years ... given the nature, style & content of your posts, had you pegged as Hasbara ... Strategic Affairs ...

It has been Israeli rigidly enforced, official policy/position, since the very beginnings of their secret Nuclear weapons program to maintain exclusive, consistent, plausibly-deniable official strategic ambiguity re their nukes existence. This has not changed throughout almost seven decades of Israeli PMs/Presidents/Governments, regardless of political party or alliance, with the exception of 2-3 isolated minor incidents over that period. Anyone, anywhere on the payroll of the Israeli's, who steps out of that line, pays a price ...

Some have called me the Blog PC Spam police, as deliberate 'bait''provocation'. Have never claimed such. Try to be helpful, proffer sources/references, explain/clarify/inform re the flow of a Thread/Topic ... be confronting to certain posters, IMV, troubling, content/position ... as juannie has described, am often perceived as a voice made of grade 60 grit sandpaper, ingrained through service/experience, cannot change that at this late stage, just as one cannot wave a magic wand to cure twilight years ills.

Hoarsewhisperer has genuinely held, strong personal views & beliefs re a, particular topic, with which, we ... disagree ... though do have the greatest respect for Hoarses other views, over the years, so, we occasionally clash, cross swords, separate, and move on, no harm done. Hopefully Hoarse won't slag me now for expressing such, and even so, wouldn't take it to heart, even if Hoarse did ;)

Am still troubled by all this serial relentless Zionism, Trump, Putin, clairvoyancy and 'projection', so still have trouble understanding your true position/motivation/objective re all that, which, from my perspective, TBH, is still just crap.

Given your 207 and the above considered response, perhaps you may care to calmly, coolly, explain/clarify your position/viewpoint re the above keywords you use so frequently, instead of, perceived relentless proselytizing(?), by chance ? You appear to clearly have some other agenda, what is it ?

A courteous, polite, request ... with sugar on top ? ;))

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 22 2017 8:17 utc | 209

Posted by: nonsense factory | Jan 22, 2017 12:51:08 AM | 208
(Re: North Korea)

North Korea has been targeted by "anti-Communist" Totalitarian Capitalist psychopaths in the West since the (theoretical) end of the Korean War. Totalitarian Capitalists hate Communism because Communist states don't, or more accurately, didn't used to, allow private ownership of key infrastructure assets upon which every member of society depends.

NK is just another US Phantom Menace, created out of thin air and has been under US/Christian sanctions for most, if not all, of its existence. Communist countries run what is known as a Command Economy (centrally controlled by the govt with subsidies for ppl who can't afford to pay for the basic necessities of Life) - with varying success. Search North Korea as a topic, paying particular attention to anything which runs counter to US/Western assertions.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 22 2017 12:27 utc | 210

@ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 22, 2017 7:31:53 AM | 211

We're on page 3 comments, in the shadows, down the back of the alleyway ;)

And it all relates to Not-Hillary President's Administration possible future actions, re the nations/situations discussed, no ?

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 22 2017 12:36 utc | 211

Now this is very interesting ... buried deep down at the back end of a Bloomberg article, without any wider context, nor lead-in, about 'The Hungarian government intentions to Ban All Soro's NGO's' in the country:

Trump, has also accused Soros, 86, of being part of "a global power structure," that "robbed" the working class in favour of putting "money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities".

In a pre-election commercial, he showed images of Soros along with Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, all of whom are Jewish. The Anti-Defamation League criticised the ad for touching on "subjects that anti-Semites have used for ages".

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 22 2017 16:20 utc | 212

b: The most difficult faction to win over to his view is the political/executive/secret services side including many people within his own party. (…) Trump will have to neutralize or fire people in their upper ranks early and often. If he fails to do …

I agree. But the most important point to consider ‘down the road’ is how his followers or ‘groupies’, who are a very determined and now active set, will react to the future events. These are not Dems swooning over Barry’s elegance, faint dusky coloring, and Nobel Prize, and getting on with eating organic aragula and supporting gays.

Hillary would surely have lost against any middle-of-the-road Republican candidate.

Imho, No …Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Jeb…? She would have won. That is part of the reason that Trump was accepted as a R candidate…even if the party split on it and was in major disarray.. The only ones who could have beat her are Trump, who did, and Sanders who might have prevailed against Trump / any standard Rep.

Over all I do not expect anything exceptional from Trump.

I get the argument, but Trump has broken some kind of mold and imho surprises (positive or horrific) will certainly arise. As for his appointments, ppl judge that from the past bios, allrighty, but don’t take into acount that in a ‘new’ administration with a ‘different agenda’ (if not -arr hem- well worked out and DT is out of his depth on many issues, etc.) ppl can change on a dime, be it for opportunistic reasons, follow the leader, adhere to some new boondoggle, etc. Many of the ‘political belongings’ or supposed ‘beliefs, positions’ of US pols have no depth or conviction and are only publically touted for personal advantage in a tribal system ( = fake duopoly.) When that system is jarred, upset a bit (not massively.. not revolutionary..) - as it has been by the Donald, like him or hate him - changes do occur.

As for HRC losing, imho the revelation of an ‘unexpected’ event was her being outed as in desperately poor health, maybe even terminally ill with some dread disease, therefore incapable of assuming the Presidency.

A Commander-in-Chief who is a doddering elderly woman, with no glorious past, a fake plastic face and expressions, zero charisma, scooting along on ‘fake’ (divise, obnoxious) identity politics and some kind of assumed heritage and privilege, who collapses in a neuro-spastic fit at a 9/11 memorial ceremony!… No, never.

The basement server e-mail scandal, Wikileaks, Podesta e-mails etc., are trivia of ‘politics as usual’ to many. Who knows about all that, etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 22 2017 16:35 utc | 213

"Not Hillary"? Maybe "Not Democratic Party" is more accurate.

Comments like this:

But as for the Democratic Party? Fuck ’em. Disband the party, arrest the members, waterboard them, and execute them all for treason. Then move on to the Republicans.
- "Reich: 7 Hard Truths for Democrats—The Future Is Bleak Without Radical Reforms" posted Jan. 22 at nakedcapitalism.com
are found are many post-election blog posts.

Party loyalists, hangers-on, and insiders are desperately trying to hold on by playing their Trump card. The Party is no longer the "Democratic Party", it is the "Anti-Trump Party".

The D-Party had opportunities to change. The D-Party had opportunities to be more populist. The D-Party leadership rejected those opportunities because they are all Centrist sell-outs that cherish their lucrative role in the two-Party system.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 22 2017 17:47 utc | 214

I guess there some good CIA people: Phill Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Victoria Plame, Robert D. Steele Vivas, Michael Schuer, Steve Pieczenik...?

Posted by: ProPeace | Jan 23 2017 4:41 utc | 215

I'm not worried about Trump, because I think I know where this is heading and why in this way - but I will keep my "noble silence"...

Posted by: ProPeace | Jan 23 2017 5:19 utc | 216

Looking back on it all, it seems the most consequential domestic political moment in the last decade was the coordinate media assault on the public image of Howard Dean during his 2004 campaign to become the Democratic Party candidate for President. This was the DLC Washington mafia making sure the keep the Democratic Party under corporate and neocon control. There was no way they were going to let this popular populist piss-ant take their machine from them. But fate has had the last laugh as the populist electorate, shut out from its natural home, found an unnatural one in an unnatural and surprising candidate the anti GOP, GOP candidate and now POTUS Donald J Trump. "Those guys with pick ups and gun racks, those are our guys we should be going out and getting them"; ah but nothing is as scandalous as a truth in politics and the DLC Washington brain trust didn't care to listen. To add insult to injury they sabotaged Dean and his 50 state strategy as head of the DNC, being too fearful to let power and policy making and money be decentralized to the state parties. But Karl Rove was listening and he knew a good idea when he saw one, and he took Dean's 50 state strategy and implemented it - for the GOP. The result is a flood of republican governorships and state legislators with the control that goes over the Presidential electoral process and the electoral college. Again, Dean was sideline and ignored by mental midgets and selfish sycophants.
And now the Democratic Party, the only potentially good party in America, is where it has been every year since Carter went down in 1980, waiting for a structural reform that will de link it form the committee to elect the president and make it a real party following the wishes of its voters and supports rather than the top 100 dicks in DC, NY and LA who think they fucking own liberalism and its voice. Fuck the corporate cunts and their spokes weasels, fuck Hillary Clinton and all she stands for, fuck the DLC and its triangulating political failure. Give the peoples party back to the people and watch the power flow back to the good of America.
This is more important than anything else, give the party back to the states and back to the American people - anything else means ongoing failure and delivering America over to the tender mercies and ideas of the right, a fate not worse than death but brutal and cruel nonetheless. We will see.

Posted by: Northern Observer | Jan 23 2017 14:56 utc | 217

Hm, all this talk of energy independence is all good & well ... though do like the association of Saudi Arabia with 'our enemies' part though.

However, diverting energy exports to serve domestic consumption in order to achieve 'independence' isn't going anywhere without a massive investment & commitment to renewable alternatives, to make up for lost time (lots a new jobs, too!). It's just crap without it. China shows the way there ...

This poster has lived close to 90% off-grid, electricity & natural Gas independent for 16+ years, with battery storage from the very beginning, Grid-Tie and Off-Grid Solar PV, Over-sized scale Solar Vacuum Tube Hot-Water system, supplemented by a 2KW wind Turbine.

Only ever need to purchase a small amount of electricity from the grid during winter, and that only accounts for 10% of my annual needs. And here is the kicker, that 10% expense is exceeded by the income from the excess PV electricity sold into the Grid annually!

By the way, Tesla powerwalls, using Lithium-Ion batteries, in a 'Powerwall' 'Inside' your dwelling, are a wonderful way to have your house eventually burn down in flames, and maybe you and your family with it ;)

Freeing the U.S. From OPEC No Longer Just a Dream: Bloomberg Government Energy
In one way, President Trump has a very real path to success.

...

To all of this, we’re here to tell you that in one way President Trump has a very real path to success. An America First Energy Plan, posted on the White House website soon after noon on Friday, said he would focus on lowering energy costs and "freeing us from dependence on foreign oil."

"President Trump is committed to achieving energy independence from the OPEC cartel and any nations hostile to our interests."

Weaning the U.S. from OPEC’s whims has long been a goal of American leaders -- at least rhetorically. From the days of Richard Nixon that’s been a pledge of U.S. presidents. But Bailey Lipschultz and Mark Shenk say that unlike those earlier calls, Trump may actually be able to succeed. U.S. imports are back up, but because of the shale boom U.S. production is up and there’s scope for it to rise further.

"Signs point toward possible energy independence," they say. "To achieve that, though, the country may need to reconsider a push for exports that was supported by Republicans. Since scrapping restriction on sales to countries other than Canada at the end of 2015, U.S. crude exports have risen to more than 700,000 barrels a day."

...

Trump’s Vow to Break From OPEC Oil Imports Echoes Old Refrain

...

Saudi Arabia and Venezuela lead the pack of OPEC suppliers to the U.S. They account for more than half of U.S. imports from the 13-nation group. Ministers of the two countries, meeting in Vienna over the weekend, shrugged off Trump’s statement, saying the world’s biggest economy would continue to need crude from abroad.
...

Potentially benefiting from a shift away from OPEC are Canada and Mexico. They are two of the largest suppliers to the U.S. and don’t belong to the group.

...

“Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to work for energy independence but most have done nothing,” Lynch said.

...

OPEC Shrugs Off Threat of U.S. Cutting Oil Imports

Trump Aides Prepare List of Early Energy Changes, Sources Say

- Advisers create list of policy changes primed for quick action
- White House website now has ‘America First Energy Plan’

...

Whitehouse.gov - America First Energy Plan

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 23 2017 14:59 utc | 218

Yeah, this particular 'Campaign' has been building up in the #Fake MSM for over a week now, lots of vacuous BS rhetoric talk of Impeachment, utter projection & deluded fantasy. Now it's moved to the next, 'Stage'. Note the key players in the Drivers seat:

Donald Trump faces lawsuit accusing him of violating US constitution by accepting foreign payments
The Independent - UK

'We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office,' says Mr Bookbinder, director of watchdog filing lawsuit

A group of constitutional scholars and legal experts, including former White House ethics lawyers(Under Bush Jr & Obama Administrations), are filing a lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of violating the US constitution by allowing his hotels and other business operations to accept payments from foreign governments.

The legal action, brought by watchdog organisation 'Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington' (CREW), will seek a court order on Monday forbidding Trump from accepting such payments, which it will allege are forbidden by the Constitution's emoluments clause.

Such lawsuits are among the few outlets through which the administration can be challenged now that Republicans are in control of the government.(Executive, House & Senate!)

...

The lawyers on the case reportedly include CREW’s board chair and vice-chair Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, the top ethics lawyers for the previous two presidents(Bush Jr & Obama), as well as Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky, Laurence H. Tribe and Zephyr Teachout.

CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said: “We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office.

“He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action.”

...


Posted by: Outraged | Jan 23 2017 15:29 utc | 219

@219 'former White House ethics lawyers' ....did I really just read that?

Posted by: dh | Jan 23 2017 15:56 utc | 220

@ Posted by: dh | Jan 23, 2017 10:56:43 AM | 220

Yes, the *ahem*, 'Ethics Lawyers', an oxymoron if ever there was one, of the last sixteen years of the two recent Dem/GOP WH Administrations. Very LOL :)

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 23 2017 16:07 utc | 221

someone over at Consortium News posted a link to this New Yorker (April 2016): What sort of foreign policy hawk is Hllary Clinton? for anyone needing a quick reassurance about the "bullet we dodged" in the last election... or -- if still trying -- to demonstrate just how much of a hawk Hillary Clinton is/was, etc.

My anger at the Democrats for running Clinton as candidate surged seeing her in the audience on Friday ... how exactly did she rationalize being there, smiling grimly, even if she (and others) were "reserved" in their response. Oh, and she wore white ... "referencing the suffragettes" ... so many people speaking "for" Clinton .. no one apparently brave enough to confront her about what she (and her ego) has "wrought" ...

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 23 2017 17:24 utc | 222

@ Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 23, 2017 12:24:28 PM | 222

One always saw and still, sees, the classical middle ages 'Grim Reaper'(Image), standing and speaking in her stead, gesturing, enticingly ... Not a suffragette in virginal & pure white!

Same same for Obama, Bush the Younger, too.

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 23 2017 17:56 utc | 223

a nice, concise summary of the - not only not-hillary but not usa - president ...

America’s Putin Derangement Syndrome

... americans really did vote for putin. the choice was the usa or russia ... the lessor of two evils. russia won.

Posted by: jfl | Jan 23 2017 20:01 utc | 224

@218 or, 'This poster has lived close to 90% off-grid, electricity & natural Gas independent for 16+ years, with battery storage from the very beginning, Grid-Tie and Off-Grid Solar PV, Over-sized scale Solar Vacuum Tube Hot-Water system, supplemented by a 2KW wind Turbine.'

is 'this poster yourself', or? if so, have you written up a description of the evolution of your plant, and your experiences? and if so is such a memorandum available?

Posted by: jfl | Jan 23 2017 20:08 utc | 225

Apparently "not caring" about Russian interference in our elections is akin to not caring about your child playing in traffic or being abused by a pedophile ... that seems to be getting some traction "on principle" although a quick reminder that we are yet to see anything that might be considered "evidence" wakes some people up to the subliminal "manufactured consent" that's been perpetrated.
Stephen Cohen hour-long interview by David Barsamian at the Nation is instructive and worthwhile (and reassuring) ... so many claims have been made so often (Putin kills journalists, for instance) that even-if-you-know-better it seems fruitless to argue with what others consider a true-everybody-knows-known-fact ...

I'd love to hear him take down the similar "faulty logic / line of responsibility" wrt to the apartment house bombings -- I mean, I know that the explosives found could have been stolen or planted ... and I've seen no evidence that links back to Putin's office ... but it's so reminiscent of the facile and stupid Assad/Hussain "he kills his own people" meme ...

yes, the reaction of the state to insurrection is "usually" brutal; no, we Americans don't have much analogous history ... but the Civil War was pretty fucking brutal as well.

It's worse and stupider than I remember from the 1950's of my childhood and elementary school days ... bizarrely free of any fear of nuclear attack .... a sort of sigh of regret with the passing of the Geneva Conventions, quite possibly the United Nations ... with strange arguments wrt the necessity of NATO so we can "protect" all those small nations from "Putin's aggression" that no one demonstrate beyond Crimea ... who's none to unhappy to be back as part of Russia ... sigh.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Jan 23 2017 20:21 utc | 226

@ Posted by: jfl | Jan 23, 2017 3:08:59 PM | 225

Yes, this poster.

Have discussed details over the years with contributors who were interested within MOA. Also designed and built 100% electric car and MC over 10 years ago, before all this LEAF/Volt/Tesla 'stuff'. If interested. Said EV is configured and able to be connected to Multi-source DC/AC Inverter so as to occasionally be used as additional emergency battery storage backup/source when the grid is offline, batteries are low and PV and Wind is not producing.

Have not written a 'memorandum'. Unwilling in a public forum to provide 'critical' details, that would have to be sanitized, that would be able to be used to identify ... this poster ... happy to discuss any design/considerations/aspect/considerations/refinements/improvements/optimizations over those 16+ years, if any so wish ?

Detailed discussion specific to that 'experience' would be best in an Open Thread.

Peace

Posted by: Outraged | Jan 23 2017 20:22 utc | 227

Hillary had promised an 'intelligence surge', in the wake of the Orlando shooting. I understand no one was injured until the cops entered. When in doubt I ask "What would James Jesus Angelton do?". Thanks for the insights b and all

Posted by: failure of imagination | Jan 24 2017 5:39 utc | 228

May says: "The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over."
Then quit messing in ours in the U.S.
NEVER has Britain allowed the U.S. to be its own sovereign nation. NEVER.

Posted by: Tony B. | Jan 27 2017 22:21 utc | 229

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.