Hannity: I'm voting for Trump
By Nick Gass
On the same day Donald Trump punched the press for the better part of an hour from Trump Tower, the presumptive Republican nominee on Tuesday sat down for an interview with Fox Entertainment News' Sean Hannity, who made his support of Trump explicit.
"I am not the corrupt press. I'm actually the conservative here," Hannity remarked during a discussion on possible contenders for Trump's running mate.
Trump responded, "That's true, by the way. You happen to be right about that."
"Well, I'm an opinion show," Hannity said. "And I don't hold back that I'll be voting for Donald Trump in November."
Trump offered a "thank you," and then Hannity suggested his preferred candidate put his ideas to paper.
"I have asked you repeatedly over the course of this campaign about specific issues," Hannity said. "You're going to build the wall. You're going to repeal Obamacare. You like health care savings accounts. You want to fix the V.A. You want to build up our military. You want to balance a budget. You want to define radical Islam as our enemies. You want to get rid of Common Core. All of those things."
"I have asked you in the past, does it work to put those ideas, those promises, those things you've said to me on paper? Trump's promises to America. Maybe put it in gold leaf. Make it Trump style. Maybe a little bit of marble like you have in the background," Hannity continued.
Trump replied that he had done similarly with his list of 11 judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court.
He added, "It's possible I will do something like that, Sean. I do think most people know my views, in all fairness. But it's possible I would do something like this."
June 01, 2016
Not kind...
Clinton's polling quagmire
The month of May hasn't been kind to Hillary Clinton — or to her poll numbers.
By Steven Shepard
From Bernie Sanders’ primary victories to the State Department inspector general’s report on her email server, the month of May hasn't been kind to Hillary Clinton — or her poll numbers.
Her lead over Donald Trump has shrunk to the low single digits. State polls tell a similar story: Clinton and Trump have run neck and neck in two separate polls in each of four key electoral battlegrounds.
Clinton’s favorable ratings — currently 41 percent favorable and 55 percent unfavorable, according to HuffPost Pollster — are virtually unchanged over the past month. But that was before the release of the inspector general’s report, which said Clinton didn’t comply with department policies when she used a private email account for government business and didn’t immediately turn over records of her correspondence.
Clinton’s ratings on trustworthiness were already woeful: A Fox News poll two weeks ago found just 31 percent of voters think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, while nearly two-thirds said they don’t think she is. And overall, her numbers are significantly worse than Trump’s scores on the same question. Among independents, nearly 80 percent don’t think she’s honest and trustworthy. Even among Democrats, a third don’t find her trustworthy.
It’s too soon to tell how much — or whether — the flap will exacerbate those already worrisome numbers. There hasn’t been any new polling on Clinton’s favorability or honesty since the report was released, but it’s also unclear whether Clinton’s honesty issues can get much worse. In any case, Clinton allies insist she will unite Democrats — and receive a corresponding bump in the polls — once she has dispatched Bernie Sanders. Sanders is running ahead of Clinton in matchups with Trump, in large part because some of his supporters would choose Trump over Clinton.
Bringing those Sanders voters into the fold will be a complex process. The protracted Clinton-Sanders primary fight is lurching toward an ambiguous denouement, even if the ultimate conclusion — Clinton’s nomination — is mostly assured. The results of the final slate of primaries and caucuses — the Virgin Islands (Saturday), Puerto Rico (June 5), California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota (all on June 7) and the District of Columbia (June 14) — are likely to be a mixed bag, with California and New Mexico the most hotly contested.
With less than eight weeks until the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the closing weeks of the primary process loom large for Clinton if she hopes to regain the commanding lead she enjoyed before Trump’s rise in the polls.
That rise has coincided with a rough period for Clinton. Aside from the email issue, she has lost three of the four binding primaries over the course of the past four weeks — Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon — and her only victory was a narrow, 1,911-vote win in Kentucky. (Clinton also won nonbinding, “beauty contest” primaries in Nebraska and Washington State, and the caucus in Guam.)
At the same time, Trump was locking down the GOP presidential nomination and consolidating the support of rank-and-file Republican voters — erasing most of Clinton’s lead in general election polling.
General election polls at this stage of the campaign — especially when one party’s nominating process has, for all intents and purposes, concluded while the other’s drags on — aren’t necessarily predictive of November results. But they are instructive in terms of Trump’s May rise, and Clinton’s slump.
Clinton led Trump by roughly 7 points at the end of April, but her advantage now is in the low single digits (RealClearPolitics has Clinton ahead by 1 point, while HuffPost Pollster gives her a more-generous 4-point cushion). State polls tell a similar story: Clinton and Trump have run neck and neck in two separate polls in New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida and Ohio. The two candidates even ran close in a New Jersey poll released Tuesday.
Clinton’s favorable ratings are virtually unchanged over the past month. But Trump’s have improved and are only slightly worse than Clinton’s: His favorable rating has risen from 34 percent to 38 percent, while his unfavorables are down from 61 percent to 58 percent.
Clinton’s stable image ratings aren’t the whole story, however. Even as Trump has closed in on the former secretary of state, he hasn’t gained the same kind of ground on Sanders in hypothetical matchups: RCP shows Sanders’ lead declining 3 points, from 14 percent to 11 percent, while HuffPost Pollster shows it declining by only 1 point.
Moreover, there are signs that Americans now see a Clinton-Trump contest differently — and Trump as a more plausible president. New data from Web pollster SurveyMonkey, commissioned by NBC News, show voters divided evenly on which candidate would win the general election, after weeks of significant Clinton advantages on this question.
There is some good news for Clinton: The Trump bump that began when the real estate mogul went on a winning streak in late April that would culminate with his rivals ending their campaigns appears to have crested. Clinton has now led Trump in the six most recent public surveys — albeit by small margins of 1 point to 5 points — after Trump claimed a slight edge in a handful of national polls in mid-May.
And even if Sanders insists on taking his candidacy all the way to the national party convention in late July — and regardless of what the first post-IG report polls reveal about the impact — most major news organizations will declare Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee on the evening of June 7. That’s because Clinton — factoring in the nearly 1,800 pledged delegates she’s won and the almost 550 superdelegates who are publicly backing her — needs only 71 delegates to secure a majority.
Beyond that, Clinton’s trajectory isn’t completely clear. Polling is sparse around Memorial Day, with many Americans away from home, so it will be a week or two until it can be determined whether the State Department report has affected the way voters feel about Clinton.
That only adds to Clinton’s high-stakes June, when the likely Democratic nominee will either regain her footing or the data will portend a long slog to the November general election.
The month of May hasn't been kind to Hillary Clinton — or to her poll numbers.
By Steven Shepard
From Bernie Sanders’ primary victories to the State Department inspector general’s report on her email server, the month of May hasn't been kind to Hillary Clinton — or her poll numbers.
Her lead over Donald Trump has shrunk to the low single digits. State polls tell a similar story: Clinton and Trump have run neck and neck in two separate polls in each of four key electoral battlegrounds.
Clinton’s favorable ratings — currently 41 percent favorable and 55 percent unfavorable, according to HuffPost Pollster — are virtually unchanged over the past month. But that was before the release of the inspector general’s report, which said Clinton didn’t comply with department policies when she used a private email account for government business and didn’t immediately turn over records of her correspondence.
Clinton’s ratings on trustworthiness were already woeful: A Fox News poll two weeks ago found just 31 percent of voters think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, while nearly two-thirds said they don’t think she is. And overall, her numbers are significantly worse than Trump’s scores on the same question. Among independents, nearly 80 percent don’t think she’s honest and trustworthy. Even among Democrats, a third don’t find her trustworthy.
It’s too soon to tell how much — or whether — the flap will exacerbate those already worrisome numbers. There hasn’t been any new polling on Clinton’s favorability or honesty since the report was released, but it’s also unclear whether Clinton’s honesty issues can get much worse. In any case, Clinton allies insist she will unite Democrats — and receive a corresponding bump in the polls — once she has dispatched Bernie Sanders. Sanders is running ahead of Clinton in matchups with Trump, in large part because some of his supporters would choose Trump over Clinton.
Bringing those Sanders voters into the fold will be a complex process. The protracted Clinton-Sanders primary fight is lurching toward an ambiguous denouement, even if the ultimate conclusion — Clinton’s nomination — is mostly assured. The results of the final slate of primaries and caucuses — the Virgin Islands (Saturday), Puerto Rico (June 5), California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota (all on June 7) and the District of Columbia (June 14) — are likely to be a mixed bag, with California and New Mexico the most hotly contested.
With less than eight weeks until the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the closing weeks of the primary process loom large for Clinton if she hopes to regain the commanding lead she enjoyed before Trump’s rise in the polls.
That rise has coincided with a rough period for Clinton. Aside from the email issue, she has lost three of the four binding primaries over the course of the past four weeks — Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon — and her only victory was a narrow, 1,911-vote win in Kentucky. (Clinton also won nonbinding, “beauty contest” primaries in Nebraska and Washington State, and the caucus in Guam.)
At the same time, Trump was locking down the GOP presidential nomination and consolidating the support of rank-and-file Republican voters — erasing most of Clinton’s lead in general election polling.
General election polls at this stage of the campaign — especially when one party’s nominating process has, for all intents and purposes, concluded while the other’s drags on — aren’t necessarily predictive of November results. But they are instructive in terms of Trump’s May rise, and Clinton’s slump.
Clinton led Trump by roughly 7 points at the end of April, but her advantage now is in the low single digits (RealClearPolitics has Clinton ahead by 1 point, while HuffPost Pollster gives her a more-generous 4-point cushion). State polls tell a similar story: Clinton and Trump have run neck and neck in two separate polls in New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida and Ohio. The two candidates even ran close in a New Jersey poll released Tuesday.
Clinton’s favorable ratings are virtually unchanged over the past month. But Trump’s have improved and are only slightly worse than Clinton’s: His favorable rating has risen from 34 percent to 38 percent, while his unfavorables are down from 61 percent to 58 percent.
Clinton’s stable image ratings aren’t the whole story, however. Even as Trump has closed in on the former secretary of state, he hasn’t gained the same kind of ground on Sanders in hypothetical matchups: RCP shows Sanders’ lead declining 3 points, from 14 percent to 11 percent, while HuffPost Pollster shows it declining by only 1 point.
Moreover, there are signs that Americans now see a Clinton-Trump contest differently — and Trump as a more plausible president. New data from Web pollster SurveyMonkey, commissioned by NBC News, show voters divided evenly on which candidate would win the general election, after weeks of significant Clinton advantages on this question.
There is some good news for Clinton: The Trump bump that began when the real estate mogul went on a winning streak in late April that would culminate with his rivals ending their campaigns appears to have crested. Clinton has now led Trump in the six most recent public surveys — albeit by small margins of 1 point to 5 points — after Trump claimed a slight edge in a handful of national polls in mid-May.
And even if Sanders insists on taking his candidacy all the way to the national party convention in late July — and regardless of what the first post-IG report polls reveal about the impact — most major news organizations will declare Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee on the evening of June 7. That’s because Clinton — factoring in the nearly 1,800 pledged delegates she’s won and the almost 550 superdelegates who are publicly backing her — needs only 71 delegates to secure a majority.
Beyond that, Clinton’s trajectory isn’t completely clear. Polling is sparse around Memorial Day, with many Americans away from home, so it will be a week or two until it can be determined whether the State Department report has affected the way voters feel about Clinton.
That only adds to Clinton’s high-stakes June, when the likely Democratic nominee will either regain her footing or the data will portend a long slog to the November general election.
Norwegian Air again...
Obama's bad plane deal
The administration is set to allow Norwegian Air to fly into the U.S. while avoiding Norway's labor laws.
By Richard Trumka and Edward Wytkind
America’s working people are rightly suspicious of trade policy. For too long our trade strategy has protected corporate interests while fueling a race to the bottom in living standards for working families. That sad legacy is now rearing its head in the aviation sector. As you read this, a Norwegian airline is seeking our government’s blessing to launch new trans-Atlantic service into the U.S. that violates our trade rules. Norwegian Air International is just the latest symbol of failed American trade policy and toothless enforcement of trade agreements.
Norwegian Air Shuttle, the parent airline attempting to launch NAI, likes to pride itself on being a low-cost European airline, but the launch of NAI isn’t an attempt to enter the U.S. market. In fact, Norwegian Air Shuttle already flies into the United States. Instead, the operating model it plans for its Norwegian Air subsidiary takes a page from the unfair trade playbook. NAI will use temporary labor by employing Bangkok-based flight crews under short-term Singaporean or Thai employment contracts. This move will allow Norwegian Air to boost profits by beating down workers’ wages and benefits and gaming trade rules.
Norwegian Air Shuttle already serves U.S. cities such as Las Vegas and Orlando and does not need additional authority from the Department of Transportation to expand its flights to American destinations. The company has collective-bargaining relationships with its employees in Norway, but its expansion plans using the NAI subsidiary would sidestep its workforce in Norway in favor of low-cost Asian crews. It is a timeless strategy to bolster its profits: cut costs by circumventing labor standards.
Norwegian Air was formed as a flag-of-convenience subsidiary and incorporated in Ireland, with a clear plan to evade Norway’s employment and tax laws and gain an upper hand on those airlines on both sides of the Atlantic that actually abide by the rules. No one should hold their breath for the company to honor its obligations under its collective-bargaining agreements and use its own workforce. That approach would disrupt the company’s poorly veiled plan to scour the globe for lax labor standards and social laws and use the advantages it acquires to chase profits while destroying middle-class living standards in this industry.
This scheme not only crushes workers. It also violates the worker protections embodied in the U.S.-EU Air Transportation Agreement’s labor provision, known as Article 17 bis, which states: “Opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor-related rights and principles contained in the Parties’ respective laws.” Both sides publicly hailed these protections as a “breakthrough.” Together our nations embraced a high-road approach by which markets and jobs can expand, airlines can grow profits and consumers can secure better air service without undermining wages or gutting collective-bargaining rights. By skirting its labor obligations and undermining airline employees’ rights, Norwegian Air’s business model fails to meet that standard.
Even though Norwegian Air’s plan to offer trans-Atlantic air service blatantly violates our aviation trade agreement, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an order in April that could pave the way for NAI’s launch in the United States. The department’s order is especially troubling because it effectively claims it can’t enforce the strong labor standards that were previously negotiated by its own administration. The department’s general counsel concluded that the labor chapter of our aviation agreement “does not provide an independent basis” for denying an “otherwise qualified” carrier a permit — even though the agreement explicitly states that its labor standards “shall guide” implementation of the agreement. If the labor chapter does not provide the basis for denying a carrier a permit, then Article 17 bis has no teeth.
Norwegian Air’s flag of convenience model has no place in our growing trade relationship with Europe. As the labor movement wages a fierce campaign to change the way America negotiates trade agreements, at the heart of that campaign is the principle that expanded trade must not come at the expense of working people. And embedded in that principle is the idea that our government will not only negotiate employee protections into trade agreements but also will actually enforce them.
The Department of Transportation must hit the stop button on this order before it sanctions an airline business model that seeks to avoid the clear requirements of our trade rules with the EU and puts thousands of U.S. aviation jobs at risk. If the administration does not reverse course and deny NAI’s application, it will be yet another reminder that American trade policy is failing working people. It will also show the failure of the administration to enforce its own explicit employee protections.
Unless Norwegian Air’s application is rejected, the administration would be saying it’s OK for an airline from Europe to avoid social laws in its own country, escape its obligations under existing union contracts and shop the globe for the cheapest labor, tax and regulatory compliance costs without having to worry about compliance with explicit labor protections in the U.S.-EU accord. That is a raw deal for working people and puts another great American industry at risk.
The government should not let this airline fly.
The administration is set to allow Norwegian Air to fly into the U.S. while avoiding Norway's labor laws.
By Richard Trumka and Edward Wytkind
America’s working people are rightly suspicious of trade policy. For too long our trade strategy has protected corporate interests while fueling a race to the bottom in living standards for working families. That sad legacy is now rearing its head in the aviation sector. As you read this, a Norwegian airline is seeking our government’s blessing to launch new trans-Atlantic service into the U.S. that violates our trade rules. Norwegian Air International is just the latest symbol of failed American trade policy and toothless enforcement of trade agreements.
Norwegian Air Shuttle, the parent airline attempting to launch NAI, likes to pride itself on being a low-cost European airline, but the launch of NAI isn’t an attempt to enter the U.S. market. In fact, Norwegian Air Shuttle already flies into the United States. Instead, the operating model it plans for its Norwegian Air subsidiary takes a page from the unfair trade playbook. NAI will use temporary labor by employing Bangkok-based flight crews under short-term Singaporean or Thai employment contracts. This move will allow Norwegian Air to boost profits by beating down workers’ wages and benefits and gaming trade rules.
Norwegian Air Shuttle already serves U.S. cities such as Las Vegas and Orlando and does not need additional authority from the Department of Transportation to expand its flights to American destinations. The company has collective-bargaining relationships with its employees in Norway, but its expansion plans using the NAI subsidiary would sidestep its workforce in Norway in favor of low-cost Asian crews. It is a timeless strategy to bolster its profits: cut costs by circumventing labor standards.
Norwegian Air was formed as a flag-of-convenience subsidiary and incorporated in Ireland, with a clear plan to evade Norway’s employment and tax laws and gain an upper hand on those airlines on both sides of the Atlantic that actually abide by the rules. No one should hold their breath for the company to honor its obligations under its collective-bargaining agreements and use its own workforce. That approach would disrupt the company’s poorly veiled plan to scour the globe for lax labor standards and social laws and use the advantages it acquires to chase profits while destroying middle-class living standards in this industry.
This scheme not only crushes workers. It also violates the worker protections embodied in the U.S.-EU Air Transportation Agreement’s labor provision, known as Article 17 bis, which states: “Opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor-related rights and principles contained in the Parties’ respective laws.” Both sides publicly hailed these protections as a “breakthrough.” Together our nations embraced a high-road approach by which markets and jobs can expand, airlines can grow profits and consumers can secure better air service without undermining wages or gutting collective-bargaining rights. By skirting its labor obligations and undermining airline employees’ rights, Norwegian Air’s business model fails to meet that standard.
Even though Norwegian Air’s plan to offer trans-Atlantic air service blatantly violates our aviation trade agreement, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an order in April that could pave the way for NAI’s launch in the United States. The department’s order is especially troubling because it effectively claims it can’t enforce the strong labor standards that were previously negotiated by its own administration. The department’s general counsel concluded that the labor chapter of our aviation agreement “does not provide an independent basis” for denying an “otherwise qualified” carrier a permit — even though the agreement explicitly states that its labor standards “shall guide” implementation of the agreement. If the labor chapter does not provide the basis for denying a carrier a permit, then Article 17 bis has no teeth.
Norwegian Air’s flag of convenience model has no place in our growing trade relationship with Europe. As the labor movement wages a fierce campaign to change the way America negotiates trade agreements, at the heart of that campaign is the principle that expanded trade must not come at the expense of working people. And embedded in that principle is the idea that our government will not only negotiate employee protections into trade agreements but also will actually enforce them.
The Department of Transportation must hit the stop button on this order before it sanctions an airline business model that seeks to avoid the clear requirements of our trade rules with the EU and puts thousands of U.S. aviation jobs at risk. If the administration does not reverse course and deny NAI’s application, it will be yet another reminder that American trade policy is failing working people. It will also show the failure of the administration to enforce its own explicit employee protections.
Unless Norwegian Air’s application is rejected, the administration would be saying it’s OK for an airline from Europe to avoid social laws in its own country, escape its obligations under existing union contracts and shop the globe for the cheapest labor, tax and regulatory compliance costs without having to worry about compliance with explicit labor protections in the U.S.-EU accord. That is a raw deal for working people and puts another great American industry at risk.
The government should not let this airline fly.
Toughen up
Sharpton: Clinton needs to 'toughen up'
By Nick Gass
Hillary Clinton needs to steel herself for asymmetrical, unconventional campaign warfare against Donald Trump, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday, days after telling The New York Times that the Democratic front-runner is going into a "street fight with a guy with a razor and a broken Coca-Cola bottle."
"You can't come in with gloves waiting on the referee to fight Donald Trump. You've got to fight the kind of fight he's fighting. He showed that yesterday," Sharpton said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," in reference to Trump's news conference about donations to veterans groups that degenerated into attacks on the media.
Asked how the need to face Trump should alter Clinton's approach, Sharpton was blunt.
"It means that she's either got to toughen up or have tougher surrogates that can resonate with her base," Sharpton said. "Otherwise she looks like she's out of touch only because you're in a ring and the fight's out in the alley."
The native New Yorker explained that he has "known and dealt with" the city's press "all my life," adding, "Trump is a bully."
"You deal with a bully by calling a bully's shot. You don't try to explain. You're in the schoolyard in New York — Trump and I both grew up in New York — you're in a schoolyard in New York and a bully talks about your family. You don't come back and explain to him, well, let me tell you what parenting class — you come back and call his bluff," Sharpton said. "And you're lecturing to him about parenting rather than dealing with I'm calling your bluff."
By Nick Gass
Hillary Clinton needs to steel herself for asymmetrical, unconventional campaign warfare against Donald Trump, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday, days after telling The New York Times that the Democratic front-runner is going into a "street fight with a guy with a razor and a broken Coca-Cola bottle."
"You can't come in with gloves waiting on the referee to fight Donald Trump. You've got to fight the kind of fight he's fighting. He showed that yesterday," Sharpton said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," in reference to Trump's news conference about donations to veterans groups that degenerated into attacks on the media.
Asked how the need to face Trump should alter Clinton's approach, Sharpton was blunt.
"It means that she's either got to toughen up or have tougher surrogates that can resonate with her base," Sharpton said. "Otherwise she looks like she's out of touch only because you're in a ring and the fight's out in the alley."
The native New Yorker explained that he has "known and dealt with" the city's press "all my life," adding, "Trump is a bully."
"You deal with a bully by calling a bully's shot. You don't try to explain. You're in the schoolyard in New York — Trump and I both grew up in New York — you're in a schoolyard in New York and a bully talks about your family. You don't come back and explain to him, well, let me tell you what parenting class — you come back and call his bluff," Sharpton said. "And you're lecturing to him about parenting rather than dealing with I'm calling your bluff."
3rd candidate?
Trump slams Kristol, who floats National Review writer for president
By Hadas Gold
Donald Trump attacked Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Tuesday, the same day a new report suggested Kristol is floating a third-party candidate who is also a National Review staff writer.
"Bill Kristol is a loser," Trump said during his news conference Tuesday. "His magazine is failing, as you know. It's going to be down — I don't think it even survives. He's getting some free publicity, but Bill Kristol, I've been watching this for two years."
Over the weekend, Kristol tweeted that "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance."
Trump echoed the statements in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, which will air Tuesday night, saying he didn't think Kristol's idea for a third-party candidate would pan out.
"I don't think he has anybody because now he's saying ‘it will come someday, it will come, you know, in the future.’ Well, if you read his tweet, his tweet was almost like it was imminent, like it's going to be announced this morning. And then all of the sudden he announced ‘well, maybe not so fast.’ Who would do it? Look, it's a guaranteed loss. You can't even get on in Texas because they missed their deadline, and now they're missing other deadlines. And all he's doing, I guess, is trying to get publicity for his failing magazine, I imagine."
But Kristol does have someone in mind, according to a new report from Bloomberg Politics: National Review staff writer David French, who is also a veteran, constitutional lawyer and author.
Just last week, though, French wrote a column for National Review urging Mitt Romney to run for president on a third-party bid.
"You're the only man who can save us from future calamity," French wrote.
By Hadas Gold
Donald Trump attacked Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Tuesday, the same day a new report suggested Kristol is floating a third-party candidate who is also a National Review staff writer.
"Bill Kristol is a loser," Trump said during his news conference Tuesday. "His magazine is failing, as you know. It's going to be down — I don't think it even survives. He's getting some free publicity, but Bill Kristol, I've been watching this for two years."
Over the weekend, Kristol tweeted that "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance."
Trump echoed the statements in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, which will air Tuesday night, saying he didn't think Kristol's idea for a third-party candidate would pan out.
"I don't think he has anybody because now he's saying ‘it will come someday, it will come, you know, in the future.’ Well, if you read his tweet, his tweet was almost like it was imminent, like it's going to be announced this morning. And then all of the sudden he announced ‘well, maybe not so fast.’ Who would do it? Look, it's a guaranteed loss. You can't even get on in Texas because they missed their deadline, and now they're missing other deadlines. And all he's doing, I guess, is trying to get publicity for his failing magazine, I imagine."
But Kristol does have someone in mind, according to a new report from Bloomberg Politics: National Review staff writer David French, who is also a veteran, constitutional lawyer and author.
Just last week, though, French wrote a column for National Review urging Mitt Romney to run for president on a third-party bid.
"You're the only man who can save us from future calamity," French wrote.
Romney wants another...
Mitt Romney praises possible independent candidate David French
By Hanna Trudo
Mitt Romney embraced David French, the conservative lawyer and National Review staff writer who some are pushing to mount an independent presidential run — but stopped short of an endorsement.
“I know David French to be an honorable, intelligent and patriotic person. I look forward to following what he has to say,” the former Republican presidential nominee tweeted late Tuesday.
French, who has yet to comment on his potential candidacy, is being urged to run by Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, among others.
“To say that he would be a better and a more responsible president than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is to state a truth that would become self-evident as more Americans got to know him,” Kristol writes in a recent article touting French's virtues as a possible independent candidate.
Bloomberg Politics first reported that Kristol has been recruiting French as he seeks an alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Kristol later confirmed his efforts to The Washington Post.
On Sunday, Kristol indicated that his search was nearly over.
“Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate — an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance,” he tweeted.
By Hanna Trudo
Mitt Romney embraced David French, the conservative lawyer and National Review staff writer who some are pushing to mount an independent presidential run — but stopped short of an endorsement.
“I know David French to be an honorable, intelligent and patriotic person. I look forward to following what he has to say,” the former Republican presidential nominee tweeted late Tuesday.
French, who has yet to comment on his potential candidacy, is being urged to run by Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, among others.
“To say that he would be a better and a more responsible president than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is to state a truth that would become self-evident as more Americans got to know him,” Kristol writes in a recent article touting French's virtues as a possible independent candidate.
Bloomberg Politics first reported that Kristol has been recruiting French as he seeks an alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Kristol later confirmed his efforts to The Washington Post.
On Sunday, Kristol indicated that his search was nearly over.
“Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate — an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance,” he tweeted.
Salt
Obama takes aim at salt
By Helena Bottemiller Evich
The Obama administration issued sweeping salt reduction goals Wednesday for foods ranging from French fries to granola — a controversial move aimed at getting Americans to eat healthier.
The long-delayed targets released by the FDA are voluntary but put significant pressure on food manufacturers and restaurants to dial down sodium in dozens of categories of processed foods. The policy, which is sure to meet fierce opposition from industry groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, is the latest in a series of government efforts to clean up America’s diet.
“The Obama Administration has led many public health initiatives that will improve the way Americans eat for many years to come,” said Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who has been on a crusade against salt for decades. “If industry takes these targets seriously, this initiative could have the biggest impact.”
“It’s a great first step,” said Michael Landa, former director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, who has urged the administration to move forward on salt reduction. Landa believes the draft policy will carry significant weight, even if it isn’t finalized in the next administration, because the industry and its lawyers tend to take FDA guidance seriously. It will also serve as a rubric for advocacy groups keen on pushing food makers to make changes.
The FDA’s sodium reduction goals — which public health experts believe could save thousands of lives even with a nearly decade-long phase-in period — is a particularly thorny issue for many food makers, which rely on salt for taste, texture and even food safety in some products. The idea is also increasingly controversial in the scientific community as recent studies have questioned whether Americans need to cut back on salt intake.
But the public health community continues to see salt reduction as critical to improving Americans’ health and reining in tens of billions in healthcare costs.
CSPI, an advocacy group that sued FDA to prod a response to a decade-old petition seeking a salt crackdown, estimates that hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost prematurely from high blood pressure, heart attacks and other health problems linked to excessive sodium consumption. For some health groups, having FDA draw a line in the sand, even if it’s a voluntary one, is the beginning of a long process of arm-twisting and changing consumer tastes.
“We hope that industry will work cooperatively with the FDA and health experts to achieve the proposed reductions, which would benefit the health of all Americans,” said Jacobson, president of CSPI. Jacobson, who has been on a crusade to reduce salt in the American diet for decades, sees the targets as a tool to move the entire marketplace. “[I]t helps level the playing field for those companies that are already trying to use less salt in their foods,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
The announcement follows first lady Michelle Obama’s recent unveiling of the first update to the Nutrition Facts labels on food packages in more than two decades, including a controversial new requirement to list added sugars — a change many experts believe will lead food companies to reduce sugar. Last year, the FDA finalized a de facto ban on artery-clogging trans fats in a bid to prevent heart disease.
Canada, the United Kingdom and New York City have also led their own voluntary salt reduction initiatives in recent years.
The Obama administration has been working on sodium reduction for several years. In April 2010, the Washington Post wrote that a big salt crackdown would be launched later that year and “would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.”
But politics and competing priorities bogged down the policy.
The average American consumes upwards of 3,400 milligrams of sodium per day, which comes out to about one and a half teaspoons. The government has long urged consumers to limit their sodium consumption to 2,300 milligrams — and go even lower to 1,500 milligrams if they are at risk or have high blood pressure — but large, prominent studies have recently started to question whether there is adequate science to link high sodium consumption and adverse health outcomes.
In 2011, a large study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that going below 3,000 milligrams of sodium per day was actually associated with an increased risk of death. In the years since, prominent journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have continued to publish studies suggesting that lowering salt intake might actually increase health risks.
The Institute of Medicine in 2013 concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to support sodium reduction below 2,300 milligrams.
By Helena Bottemiller Evich
The Obama administration issued sweeping salt reduction goals Wednesday for foods ranging from French fries to granola — a controversial move aimed at getting Americans to eat healthier.
The long-delayed targets released by the FDA are voluntary but put significant pressure on food manufacturers and restaurants to dial down sodium in dozens of categories of processed foods. The policy, which is sure to meet fierce opposition from industry groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, is the latest in a series of government efforts to clean up America’s diet.
“The Obama Administration has led many public health initiatives that will improve the way Americans eat for many years to come,” said Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, who has been on a crusade against salt for decades. “If industry takes these targets seriously, this initiative could have the biggest impact.”
“It’s a great first step,” said Michael Landa, former director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, who has urged the administration to move forward on salt reduction. Landa believes the draft policy will carry significant weight, even if it isn’t finalized in the next administration, because the industry and its lawyers tend to take FDA guidance seriously. It will also serve as a rubric for advocacy groups keen on pushing food makers to make changes.
The FDA’s sodium reduction goals — which public health experts believe could save thousands of lives even with a nearly decade-long phase-in period — is a particularly thorny issue for many food makers, which rely on salt for taste, texture and even food safety in some products. The idea is also increasingly controversial in the scientific community as recent studies have questioned whether Americans need to cut back on salt intake.
But the public health community continues to see salt reduction as critical to improving Americans’ health and reining in tens of billions in healthcare costs.
CSPI, an advocacy group that sued FDA to prod a response to a decade-old petition seeking a salt crackdown, estimates that hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost prematurely from high blood pressure, heart attacks and other health problems linked to excessive sodium consumption. For some health groups, having FDA draw a line in the sand, even if it’s a voluntary one, is the beginning of a long process of arm-twisting and changing consumer tastes.
“We hope that industry will work cooperatively with the FDA and health experts to achieve the proposed reductions, which would benefit the health of all Americans,” said Jacobson, president of CSPI. Jacobson, who has been on a crusade to reduce salt in the American diet for decades, sees the targets as a tool to move the entire marketplace. “[I]t helps level the playing field for those companies that are already trying to use less salt in their foods,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
The announcement follows first lady Michelle Obama’s recent unveiling of the first update to the Nutrition Facts labels on food packages in more than two decades, including a controversial new requirement to list added sugars — a change many experts believe will lead food companies to reduce sugar. Last year, the FDA finalized a de facto ban on artery-clogging trans fats in a bid to prevent heart disease.
Canada, the United Kingdom and New York City have also led their own voluntary salt reduction initiatives in recent years.
The Obama administration has been working on sodium reduction for several years. In April 2010, the Washington Post wrote that a big salt crackdown would be launched later that year and “would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.”
But politics and competing priorities bogged down the policy.
The average American consumes upwards of 3,400 milligrams of sodium per day, which comes out to about one and a half teaspoons. The government has long urged consumers to limit their sodium consumption to 2,300 milligrams — and go even lower to 1,500 milligrams if they are at risk or have high blood pressure — but large, prominent studies have recently started to question whether there is adequate science to link high sodium consumption and adverse health outcomes.
In 2011, a large study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that going below 3,000 milligrams of sodium per day was actually associated with an increased risk of death. In the years since, prominent journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have continued to publish studies suggesting that lowering salt intake might actually increase health risks.
The Institute of Medicine in 2013 concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to support sodium reduction below 2,300 milligrams.
Trump sleaze
Trump taunts media to its face
The real estate mogul calls one reporter a 'sleaze' and another a 'real beauty' as he defends his veterans donations at Trump Tower.
By Eli Stokols and Nolan D. McCaskill
Donald Trump, whose entire campaign can seem like an experiment in free media, was simply trying to keep a low profile when he held an impromptu, televised fundraiser for veterans groups in January instead of participating in a GOP primary debate.
At least that’s the story the presumptive Republican nominee was spinning for dozens of reporters gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower Tuesday morning — and to millions more watching the cable networks’ live blanket coverage of the entire 40-minute news conference — as he chastised the media for failing to give him his due, blasting one reporter as a “sleaze” and another as “a real beauty.”
Stepping to the podium with veterans standing behind him, Trump at first failed to mention the controversy of his campaign’s charitable disbursements to dozens of veterans groups — ostensibly, the reason he’d called the news conference in the first place. In his opening remarks, he wished LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers good luck in the NBA finals and touted the latest batch of promising poll numbers. He did not turn to the subject at hand until a reporter asked him about it.
Trump, who’d stated at the January fundraiser that his campaign had raised more than $6 million for veterans groups that night, told reporters that his campaign has now sent $5.6 million to a number of veterans groups, which he rattled off one by one in between broadsides at news media audacious enough to ask for corroboration.
“If we could, I wanted to keep it private because I don’t think it’s anybody’s business if I wanna send money to the vets,” Trump said, after accusing Hillary Clinton’s campaign of sending protesters to picket outside of Trump Tower. “I raised close to $6 million. It’ll probably be over that amount when it’s all said and done, but as of this moment, it’s $5.6 million.”
Trump said a lot of the money was sent “very early” but stressed that the organizations had to be vetted first.
“You have to go through a process. When you send checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars to people and to companies and to groups that you’ve never heard of, charitable organizations, you have to vet it,” Trump said. “You send people out. You do a lot of work. Now, most of the money went out quite a while ago — some of it went out more recently.”
Then the media onslaught began. “The press should be ashamed at themselves, and on behalf of the vets, the press should be ashamed of themselves. They are calling me and they are furious,” Trump said.
“Instead of being like, ‘Thank you very much, Mr. Trump,’ or ‘Trump did a good job,’ everyone said: ‘Who got it? Who got it? Who got it?’” Trump said. “And you make me look very bad. I have never received such bad publicity for doing a good job.”
Moments later, he called out Tom Llamas, a journalist with ABC News.
“I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit. But what I don’t want is, when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, pointing to Llamas. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”
Despite his professions of disgust at the media for forcing him to respond to its lingering questions about his fundraising, Trump held forth with reporters for nearly 45 minutes. He tangled with CNN’s Jim Acosta and Fox News Channel’s Carl Cameron, and blasted Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, who is trying to recruit a mainstream conservative to step forward as an independent candidate to prevent Trump from winning the White House, calling Kristol “a loser” whose magazine “is failing.”
Trump suggested that the reporters’ stories are “probably libelous” and warned that he’s willing to stay on the offensive against the media, all while the television networks continued to broadcast his remarks for free to millions of viewers.
“This is going to phenomenal groups, and I have many of these people vetting the people that are getting the money and working hard and then we have to read probably libelous stories — or certainly close — in the newspapers,” Trump said of the donations. “And the people know the stories are false. I’m gonna continue to attack the press. Look, I find the press to be extremely dishonest. I find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest, I will say that.”
The real estate mogul’s most noteworthy contribution was a $1.1 million donation to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
“I gave a million dollars to them,” he said, explaining that he was familiar with the organization because it honored him last year with a banquet at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. “They’re a great group.”
Trump said “100 percent” of the organizations received their funds, with the exception of Project for Patriots, a group he said is still being vetted.
“The check is ready to go, but they don’t have all of their appropriate” documentation, he said.
At one point, Trump called on Al Baldasaro, who is leading his campaign’s outreach to veterans, to step to the podium to continue the blasting of the media. Baldasaro, wearing a camouflage-colored “Make America Great Again” hat, urged reporters to stop questioning Trump’s generosity and to focus on actual issues affecting veterans.
“Donald Trump is doing this from the heart. You’re all focused on the way he is raising money, and you’re not looking at the 22 veterans who are killing each other every day,” Baldasaro said. “You’re not concerned about the thousands of veterans that are on waitlists. Look at his plan — on Trump’s website — he talks about medical cards, he talks about fixing the VA, he talks about competition.
“I think the liberal media — and I’ve been dealing with you for a long time — get your heads out of your butts and focus on the real issues,” he concluded.
In reality though, Trump’s morning news conference was just the latest event staged to ensure that the media spotlight remains squarely trained on him. As he called on reporter after reporter, he fielded questions on a range of subjects: his ongoing search for a running mate, the judge in the Trump University case he continues to malign as “unfair” and “bad” without further explanation, the possibility of Hillary Clinton being charged with a felony and, thanks to one reporter, the gorilla fatally shot recently at the Cincinnati Zoo.
In all of it, Trump made no actual news. Once again, he simply was the news. The familiar tableau played out just hours before two cable TV interviews with Clinton were due to air, an indication that the presumptive Democratic nominee is coming to realize the need to insert herself more fully into the mass media bloodstream Trump has dominated for nearly a year. And it increased the likelihood that a number of the questions she gets will be asking her to respond to him.
That's exactly what happened.
Clinton, who also fended off questions about her private email server at the State Department, spent the majority of her phone interviews responding to Trump's antics.
“Well, I think the problem here is the difference between what Donald Trump says and what Donald Trump does,” Clinton told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “He's bragged for months about raising $6 million for veterans and donating a million dollars himself. But it took a reporter to shame him into actually making his contribution and getting the money to veterans. Look, I'm glad he finally did, but I don't know that he should get much credit for that.”
The real estate mogul calls one reporter a 'sleaze' and another a 'real beauty' as he defends his veterans donations at Trump Tower.
By Eli Stokols and Nolan D. McCaskill
Donald Trump, whose entire campaign can seem like an experiment in free media, was simply trying to keep a low profile when he held an impromptu, televised fundraiser for veterans groups in January instead of participating in a GOP primary debate.
At least that’s the story the presumptive Republican nominee was spinning for dozens of reporters gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower Tuesday morning — and to millions more watching the cable networks’ live blanket coverage of the entire 40-minute news conference — as he chastised the media for failing to give him his due, blasting one reporter as a “sleaze” and another as “a real beauty.”
Stepping to the podium with veterans standing behind him, Trump at first failed to mention the controversy of his campaign’s charitable disbursements to dozens of veterans groups — ostensibly, the reason he’d called the news conference in the first place. In his opening remarks, he wished LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers good luck in the NBA finals and touted the latest batch of promising poll numbers. He did not turn to the subject at hand until a reporter asked him about it.
Trump, who’d stated at the January fundraiser that his campaign had raised more than $6 million for veterans groups that night, told reporters that his campaign has now sent $5.6 million to a number of veterans groups, which he rattled off one by one in between broadsides at news media audacious enough to ask for corroboration.
“If we could, I wanted to keep it private because I don’t think it’s anybody’s business if I wanna send money to the vets,” Trump said, after accusing Hillary Clinton’s campaign of sending protesters to picket outside of Trump Tower. “I raised close to $6 million. It’ll probably be over that amount when it’s all said and done, but as of this moment, it’s $5.6 million.”
Trump said a lot of the money was sent “very early” but stressed that the organizations had to be vetted first.
“You have to go through a process. When you send checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars to people and to companies and to groups that you’ve never heard of, charitable organizations, you have to vet it,” Trump said. “You send people out. You do a lot of work. Now, most of the money went out quite a while ago — some of it went out more recently.”
Then the media onslaught began. “The press should be ashamed at themselves, and on behalf of the vets, the press should be ashamed of themselves. They are calling me and they are furious,” Trump said.
“Instead of being like, ‘Thank you very much, Mr. Trump,’ or ‘Trump did a good job,’ everyone said: ‘Who got it? Who got it? Who got it?’” Trump said. “And you make me look very bad. I have never received such bad publicity for doing a good job.”
Moments later, he called out Tom Llamas, a journalist with ABC News.
“I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit. But what I don’t want is, when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, pointing to Llamas. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”
Despite his professions of disgust at the media for forcing him to respond to its lingering questions about his fundraising, Trump held forth with reporters for nearly 45 minutes. He tangled with CNN’s Jim Acosta and Fox News Channel’s Carl Cameron, and blasted Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, who is trying to recruit a mainstream conservative to step forward as an independent candidate to prevent Trump from winning the White House, calling Kristol “a loser” whose magazine “is failing.”
Trump suggested that the reporters’ stories are “probably libelous” and warned that he’s willing to stay on the offensive against the media, all while the television networks continued to broadcast his remarks for free to millions of viewers.
“This is going to phenomenal groups, and I have many of these people vetting the people that are getting the money and working hard and then we have to read probably libelous stories — or certainly close — in the newspapers,” Trump said of the donations. “And the people know the stories are false. I’m gonna continue to attack the press. Look, I find the press to be extremely dishonest. I find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest, I will say that.”
The real estate mogul’s most noteworthy contribution was a $1.1 million donation to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
“I gave a million dollars to them,” he said, explaining that he was familiar with the organization because it honored him last year with a banquet at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. “They’re a great group.”
Trump said “100 percent” of the organizations received their funds, with the exception of Project for Patriots, a group he said is still being vetted.
“The check is ready to go, but they don’t have all of their appropriate” documentation, he said.
At one point, Trump called on Al Baldasaro, who is leading his campaign’s outreach to veterans, to step to the podium to continue the blasting of the media. Baldasaro, wearing a camouflage-colored “Make America Great Again” hat, urged reporters to stop questioning Trump’s generosity and to focus on actual issues affecting veterans.
“Donald Trump is doing this from the heart. You’re all focused on the way he is raising money, and you’re not looking at the 22 veterans who are killing each other every day,” Baldasaro said. “You’re not concerned about the thousands of veterans that are on waitlists. Look at his plan — on Trump’s website — he talks about medical cards, he talks about fixing the VA, he talks about competition.
“I think the liberal media — and I’ve been dealing with you for a long time — get your heads out of your butts and focus on the real issues,” he concluded.
In reality though, Trump’s morning news conference was just the latest event staged to ensure that the media spotlight remains squarely trained on him. As he called on reporter after reporter, he fielded questions on a range of subjects: his ongoing search for a running mate, the judge in the Trump University case he continues to malign as “unfair” and “bad” without further explanation, the possibility of Hillary Clinton being charged with a felony and, thanks to one reporter, the gorilla fatally shot recently at the Cincinnati Zoo.
In all of it, Trump made no actual news. Once again, he simply was the news. The familiar tableau played out just hours before two cable TV interviews with Clinton were due to air, an indication that the presumptive Democratic nominee is coming to realize the need to insert herself more fully into the mass media bloodstream Trump has dominated for nearly a year. And it increased the likelihood that a number of the questions she gets will be asking her to respond to him.
That's exactly what happened.
Clinton, who also fended off questions about her private email server at the State Department, spent the majority of her phone interviews responding to Trump's antics.
“Well, I think the problem here is the difference between what Donald Trump says and what Donald Trump does,” Clinton told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “He's bragged for months about raising $6 million for veterans and donating a million dollars himself. But it took a reporter to shame him into actually making his contribution and getting the money to veterans. Look, I'm glad he finally did, but I don't know that he should get much credit for that.”
It's like 1933....
Springtime for Donald
By Roger Simon
Adolf Hitler is making a big comeback this year. The leader of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945, he was responsible for the murder of millions of civilians, mainly Jews, during World War II. He is considered the very embodiment of evil in our time.
So why Hitler’s big bounce this year? Two words: Donald Trump.
Trump has murdered nobody. He does not advocate genocide against anyone, though he does believe in banning Muslim immigrants from entering the United States, at least temporarily, lest some carry out terrorist attacks here.
The comparison between Hitler and Trump on the Internet and in the mainstream media is not meant to be an exact one. It is meant to be a warning.
It is meant to say: Hey, the good guys didn’t take Hitler seriously in the 1930s and never expected him to rise to power and take over most of Europe, while coming close to taking over most of the world.
But Hitler got as far as he did because of that most-quoted of Edmund Burke quotes: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
And the question that should be asked today in regard to Trump is, therefore, simple: Are good persons doing nothing?
A lengthy, deeply researched piece on the front page of The New York Times recently quoted everyone from Holocaust scholars to Hollywood superstars to Anne Frank’s stepsister.
The question: Should we be worried that Trump is the thin edge of modern fascism with real menace to follow? And should we be reporting on him the way Hitler should have been reported on when he first started amassing power?
The Times piece, by Peter Baker, one of the most respected journalists around, at one point says: “President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico criticized Mr. Trump’s plans to build a wall on the border and to bar Muslims from entering the United States. ‘That’s the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived,’ he said. The actor George Clooney called Mr. Trump ‘a xenophobic fascist.’ Louis C.K., the comic, said, ‘The guy is Hitler.’ Eva Schloss, the 87-year-old stepsister of Anne Frank, said Trump ‘is acting like another Hitler by inciting racism.’ It got to the point that his wife, Melania Trump, was prompted to say, ‘He’s not Hitler.’”
The real shocker, however, came not with the quotes, but with the illustrations that accompanied the article. One was a photograph of Hitler and Benito Mussolini standing side by side in full military uniform and delivering the fascist salute.
Even some months ago, it would have been hard to imagine a mainstream newspaper running such a photograph. Two thoroughly loathsome mass murderers illustrating an article on the presumptive Republican nominee for president?
That would have been considered way over the line. A few months ago.
Today, it is considered a justifiable warning.
As the piece says: “This could be one of those moments that’s quite dangerous and we’ll look back and wonder why we treated it as ho-hum at a time when we could have stopped it,” said Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Brookings Institution known for hawkish internationalism.
The piece was careful, however, to find a Trump defender or two, like Newt Gingrich, who said: “Trump does not have a political structure in the sense that the fascists did. He doesn’t have the sort of ideology that they did. He has nobody who resembles the brownshirts. This is all just garbage.”
But the piece also began by quoting William Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, who a few weeks ago compared Trump’s call for the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States to Hitler’s infamous “night of broken glass” marking a wave of anti-Semitism in 1938 in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.
“I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest,” Weld said of Trump’s deportation plan.
Though Weld declined to call Trump a fascist, Weld did say: “My Kristallnacht analogy does evoke the Nazi period in Germany. And that’s what I’m worried about: a slippery slope.” (Over the weekend, Weld was selected as the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee.)
Trump responded in somewhat typical fashion. Through a spokeswoman he said: “I don’t talk about his alcoholism, so why would he talk about my foolishly perceived fascism? There is nobody less of a fascist than Donald Trump.”
Other mainstream newspapers are also ringing the tocsin, however, some with language rare for their usually stately editorial pages.
On May 26, under the editorial headline “Counting Mr. Trump’s lies,” The Washington Post called Trump’s recent behavior “mendacious” and “disgusting as well as dishonest.”
Yes, political behavior often tends to get rougher at this stage in a campaign, the editorial noted. “But the Republican Party, the media and voters cannot pretend that Mr. Trump is a normal candidate,” said The Post. “Mr. Trump is pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt.”
“Pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt” are not the kind of accusations editorial writers usually attach to leading presidential candidates. But these are not usual times.
How unusual are they? Even comedians are telling us that if we don’t stand for something, we’ll fall for anything.
“Analysts say Hillary Clinton’s plan to defeat Donald Trump involves painting Trump as ‘dangerous and bigoted,’” Conan O’Brien said. “She plans on doing this by quoting Trump accurately.”
Which could really do him in.
By Roger Simon
Adolf Hitler is making a big comeback this year. The leader of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945, he was responsible for the murder of millions of civilians, mainly Jews, during World War II. He is considered the very embodiment of evil in our time.
So why Hitler’s big bounce this year? Two words: Donald Trump.
Trump has murdered nobody. He does not advocate genocide against anyone, though he does believe in banning Muslim immigrants from entering the United States, at least temporarily, lest some carry out terrorist attacks here.
The comparison between Hitler and Trump on the Internet and in the mainstream media is not meant to be an exact one. It is meant to be a warning.
It is meant to say: Hey, the good guys didn’t take Hitler seriously in the 1930s and never expected him to rise to power and take over most of Europe, while coming close to taking over most of the world.
But Hitler got as far as he did because of that most-quoted of Edmund Burke quotes: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
And the question that should be asked today in regard to Trump is, therefore, simple: Are good persons doing nothing?
A lengthy, deeply researched piece on the front page of The New York Times recently quoted everyone from Holocaust scholars to Hollywood superstars to Anne Frank’s stepsister.
The question: Should we be worried that Trump is the thin edge of modern fascism with real menace to follow? And should we be reporting on him the way Hitler should have been reported on when he first started amassing power?
The Times piece, by Peter Baker, one of the most respected journalists around, at one point says: “President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico criticized Mr. Trump’s plans to build a wall on the border and to bar Muslims from entering the United States. ‘That’s the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived,’ he said. The actor George Clooney called Mr. Trump ‘a xenophobic fascist.’ Louis C.K., the comic, said, ‘The guy is Hitler.’ Eva Schloss, the 87-year-old stepsister of Anne Frank, said Trump ‘is acting like another Hitler by inciting racism.’ It got to the point that his wife, Melania Trump, was prompted to say, ‘He’s not Hitler.’”
The real shocker, however, came not with the quotes, but with the illustrations that accompanied the article. One was a photograph of Hitler and Benito Mussolini standing side by side in full military uniform and delivering the fascist salute.
Even some months ago, it would have been hard to imagine a mainstream newspaper running such a photograph. Two thoroughly loathsome mass murderers illustrating an article on the presumptive Republican nominee for president?
That would have been considered way over the line. A few months ago.
Today, it is considered a justifiable warning.
As the piece says: “This could be one of those moments that’s quite dangerous and we’ll look back and wonder why we treated it as ho-hum at a time when we could have stopped it,” said Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Brookings Institution known for hawkish internationalism.
The piece was careful, however, to find a Trump defender or two, like Newt Gingrich, who said: “Trump does not have a political structure in the sense that the fascists did. He doesn’t have the sort of ideology that they did. He has nobody who resembles the brownshirts. This is all just garbage.”
But the piece also began by quoting William Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, who a few weeks ago compared Trump’s call for the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States to Hitler’s infamous “night of broken glass” marking a wave of anti-Semitism in 1938 in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.
“I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest,” Weld said of Trump’s deportation plan.
Though Weld declined to call Trump a fascist, Weld did say: “My Kristallnacht analogy does evoke the Nazi period in Germany. And that’s what I’m worried about: a slippery slope.” (Over the weekend, Weld was selected as the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee.)
Trump responded in somewhat typical fashion. Through a spokeswoman he said: “I don’t talk about his alcoholism, so why would he talk about my foolishly perceived fascism? There is nobody less of a fascist than Donald Trump.”
Other mainstream newspapers are also ringing the tocsin, however, some with language rare for their usually stately editorial pages.
On May 26, under the editorial headline “Counting Mr. Trump’s lies,” The Washington Post called Trump’s recent behavior “mendacious” and “disgusting as well as dishonest.”
Yes, political behavior often tends to get rougher at this stage in a campaign, the editorial noted. “But the Republican Party, the media and voters cannot pretend that Mr. Trump is a normal candidate,” said The Post. “Mr. Trump is pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt.”
“Pathologically dishonest and morally bankrupt” are not the kind of accusations editorial writers usually attach to leading presidential candidates. But these are not usual times.
How unusual are they? Even comedians are telling us that if we don’t stand for something, we’ll fall for anything.
“Analysts say Hillary Clinton’s plan to defeat Donald Trump involves painting Trump as ‘dangerous and bigoted,’” Conan O’Brien said. “She plans on doing this by quoting Trump accurately.”
Which could really do him in.
GOP effort to oust IRS chief
How the GOP effort to oust IRS chief could backfire
A bid to remove Koskinen would be unprecedented — and likely open new floodgates of partisan warfare.
By Rachael Bade and Katy O’Donnell
For over a year, House conservatives have been clamoring to remove IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. But now that the impeachment process is moving forward, they face a delicate decision: Are they willing to toss 200-plus years of precedent to bring him down?
If House conservatives press ahead with an impeachment of the embattled tax chief, they’d be voting to remove a relatively low-level executive-branch leader for one of the most minor offenses in American history, several impeachment experts told Politico. That decision could, effectively, lower the threshold for congressional punishment of an executive-branch authority from here on out — and ensure a wave of new proceedings against government officials who have tangled with Congress in the past.
Impeachment has typically been used to punish treason, bribery and other “high crimes” in the top echelons of government. But Koskinen’s impeachment — based on an argument that he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena — would effectively expand that definition to include gross incompetence.
It’s never been done before.
“Nobody has ever been impeached for what we’ll call ‘gross negligence.’ … It has never, in our entire history, despite all the partisan difference, been the basis for impeachment in the past,” said North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert who has testified before Congress on the matter.
And that, experts say, could touch off a rash of impeachment proceedings, as Hill investigators line up to take on other agency heads who have crossed them.
“Google everything with ‘gate’ at the end of it,” said Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, another impeachment expert, of the potential new threshold. “Would Hillary Clinton have been subject to impeachment in the aftermath of the attack? Why not? Add Benghazi to the pile.”
On the one hand, lowering the threshold would send a strong signal of discontent to the administration. Geyh noted that Congress would essentially “have a new weapon in the arsenal, which is not that you just have an Oversight hearing or insist the president have heads roll” but actually bring up impeachment.
But the move could backfire on Republicans if Democrats reclaim the House in some future election.
“This is where the politics of impeachment can come back and bite you in the butt,” Geyh continued. “I don’t want to suggest that the Democrats aren’t above these semantics. To the contrary: The next step in the process will be in the next Republican administration, the Democrats are going to say, ‘Hey, you remember what you did to this administration?’”
Some Democrats are already recognizing that two can play this game.
“You’re inviting the other party to reciprocate when it’s their turn; then it’s just tit-for-tat,” said Oversight panel Democrat Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “It debases the process. This has been sparingly used since the founding of the republic … and for good reason. The bar is a very high bar, and it ought to be so we don’t resort to partisan office removal.”
Of course, an actual impeachment and conviction of Koskinen is highly unlikely. There’s a reason, experts say, the founders gave the Senate — where there are strong powers afforded to the minority — the power to convict on the House’s impeachment rulings. While the House needs only a majority, the Senate requires two-thirds to approve a conviction, and, consequently, bipartisan backing, to remove an official.
And while the Senate has typically followed the House’s lead, carrying out full impeachment trials 16 of the 19 times the House impeached an official, Senate Republicans have already expressed reservations about the merits of the conservatives’ case again Koskinen.
Still, an impeachment of Koskinen, even just in the House, would be rare. Almost all the officials the House has acted against were judges. And two — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — were presidents. Only once, 140 years ago, in 1876, did the House move to impeach an agency chief, Secretary of War William Belknap, on charges of corruption.
Even then, Belknap was an official Cabinet member, unlike Koskinen, and Congress’ historical-research arm suggests that there’s still an open question about whether Congress can impeach someone below the Cabinet level.
“A question which precedent has not thus far addressed is whether Congress may impeach and remove subordinate, non-Cabinet level executive branch officials,” reads a Congressional Research Service study on impeachment from last October. “Historical precedent provides no examples of the impeachment power being used against lower-level executive officials.”
Experts think the House can easily get around that argument to make the case that Koskinen may be impeached, even though impeaching an executive below the presidential level is unusual.
But outside experts say the actual case against Koskinen is relatively weak — and troubling as a precedent. The House Judiciary Committee is slated to debate the case in the coming days.
Republicans have two key arguments against Koskinen: that he failed to comply with a subpoena and misled Congress. On Koskinen’s watch, lower-level IRS employees deleted backup tapes that were central to a congressional investigation about the way conservative groups were treated at the IRS — well after Congress asked for them.
While some conservatives suspect a coverup, the best case they can argue against him is that Koskinen did not do the responsible thing in ensuring all his people understood top-level instructions that they were supposed to preserve those files.
He also failed to notify Congress about the issue for more than four months, something Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has argued amounts to lying.
“Under subpoena, there is a responsibility to respond, and to suggest that you’ve looked everywhere to find documents when you haven’t …,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said, before trailing off and shaking his head.
Republicans say these are grounds for impeachment because they constitute “gross negligence, dereliction of duty and breach of public trust.” They argue that the impeachment standard has never required them to show criminal behavior.
They’re partially right: The founders described impeachable offenses as “abuse or violation of some public trust.” Some offenses, they said, may even be “political,” crimes that do not constitute criminal violations.
Precedent also supports that notion. Only one-third of impeachments in the House have specifically invoked a criminal statute. In 1803, for example, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for being drunk on the bench. A judge in 1912 met the same fate for “inciting parties before him to enter financial transactions with him,” and a third was waved off for bringing the judiciary into “ill repute” because he was taking kickbacks.
But experts still aren’t sure that gross mismanagement constitutes a “high crime.” Gerhardt said it could, but only if the House can prove some sort of ill will or bad intent on Koskinen’s part.
“If someone were acting in good faith and made a mistake … we don’t use impeachment for that. But if someone was deliberately trying to obstruct justice like, say [President] Richard Nixon, then we say, OK, that’s bad intent and bad misconduct, providing the right level for impeachment,” he said.
The problem, he continued, is that Congress has to prove ill will, and he’s not sure it can do that in Koskinen’s case.
Geyh agrees, while also differentiating Koskinen from Nixon, who resigned when the House started his impeachment hearings: “The difference, of course, is you had some evidence that the president was responsible for destroying incriminating evidence and trying to conceal the truth.”
“In the case of the IRS commissioner, certainly, concealing evidence, destroying evidence, all of those things manifest kind of corruption that could be an impeachable offense, but if the evidence all shows … your underling did it and there is no evidence to suggestion that you ordered it, then the most that can be said is you’re slow and stupid,” he continued. “We don’t have much of a history for making incompetence rising to the level of the crime.”
Conservatives are making the case that intent doesn’t matter when it comes to impeachment. They say, regardless of intent or knowledge, Koskinen had a legal obligation to prevent files being deleted when there was a preservation order in place — and saying “I didn’t know” is no excuse.
“Whether you believe that was an accident or intentional … I don’t believe you have to prove intent in order to get there,” Chaffetz said when asked about the standard for impeachment. “Lying to Congress is a crime, but the standard [for impeachment] is a different one.”
A bid to remove Koskinen would be unprecedented — and likely open new floodgates of partisan warfare.
By Rachael Bade and Katy O’Donnell
For over a year, House conservatives have been clamoring to remove IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. But now that the impeachment process is moving forward, they face a delicate decision: Are they willing to toss 200-plus years of precedent to bring him down?
If House conservatives press ahead with an impeachment of the embattled tax chief, they’d be voting to remove a relatively low-level executive-branch leader for one of the most minor offenses in American history, several impeachment experts told Politico. That decision could, effectively, lower the threshold for congressional punishment of an executive-branch authority from here on out — and ensure a wave of new proceedings against government officials who have tangled with Congress in the past.
Impeachment has typically been used to punish treason, bribery and other “high crimes” in the top echelons of government. But Koskinen’s impeachment — based on an argument that he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena — would effectively expand that definition to include gross incompetence.
It’s never been done before.
“Nobody has ever been impeached for what we’ll call ‘gross negligence.’ … It has never, in our entire history, despite all the partisan difference, been the basis for impeachment in the past,” said North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert who has testified before Congress on the matter.
And that, experts say, could touch off a rash of impeachment proceedings, as Hill investigators line up to take on other agency heads who have crossed them.
“Google everything with ‘gate’ at the end of it,” said Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, another impeachment expert, of the potential new threshold. “Would Hillary Clinton have been subject to impeachment in the aftermath of the attack? Why not? Add Benghazi to the pile.”
On the one hand, lowering the threshold would send a strong signal of discontent to the administration. Geyh noted that Congress would essentially “have a new weapon in the arsenal, which is not that you just have an Oversight hearing or insist the president have heads roll” but actually bring up impeachment.
But the move could backfire on Republicans if Democrats reclaim the House in some future election.
“This is where the politics of impeachment can come back and bite you in the butt,” Geyh continued. “I don’t want to suggest that the Democrats aren’t above these semantics. To the contrary: The next step in the process will be in the next Republican administration, the Democrats are going to say, ‘Hey, you remember what you did to this administration?’”
Some Democrats are already recognizing that two can play this game.
“You’re inviting the other party to reciprocate when it’s their turn; then it’s just tit-for-tat,” said Oversight panel Democrat Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “It debases the process. This has been sparingly used since the founding of the republic … and for good reason. The bar is a very high bar, and it ought to be so we don’t resort to partisan office removal.”
Of course, an actual impeachment and conviction of Koskinen is highly unlikely. There’s a reason, experts say, the founders gave the Senate — where there are strong powers afforded to the minority — the power to convict on the House’s impeachment rulings. While the House needs only a majority, the Senate requires two-thirds to approve a conviction, and, consequently, bipartisan backing, to remove an official.
And while the Senate has typically followed the House’s lead, carrying out full impeachment trials 16 of the 19 times the House impeached an official, Senate Republicans have already expressed reservations about the merits of the conservatives’ case again Koskinen.
Still, an impeachment of Koskinen, even just in the House, would be rare. Almost all the officials the House has acted against were judges. And two — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — were presidents. Only once, 140 years ago, in 1876, did the House move to impeach an agency chief, Secretary of War William Belknap, on charges of corruption.
Even then, Belknap was an official Cabinet member, unlike Koskinen, and Congress’ historical-research arm suggests that there’s still an open question about whether Congress can impeach someone below the Cabinet level.
“A question which precedent has not thus far addressed is whether Congress may impeach and remove subordinate, non-Cabinet level executive branch officials,” reads a Congressional Research Service study on impeachment from last October. “Historical precedent provides no examples of the impeachment power being used against lower-level executive officials.”
Experts think the House can easily get around that argument to make the case that Koskinen may be impeached, even though impeaching an executive below the presidential level is unusual.
But outside experts say the actual case against Koskinen is relatively weak — and troubling as a precedent. The House Judiciary Committee is slated to debate the case in the coming days.
Republicans have two key arguments against Koskinen: that he failed to comply with a subpoena and misled Congress. On Koskinen’s watch, lower-level IRS employees deleted backup tapes that were central to a congressional investigation about the way conservative groups were treated at the IRS — well after Congress asked for them.
While some conservatives suspect a coverup, the best case they can argue against him is that Koskinen did not do the responsible thing in ensuring all his people understood top-level instructions that they were supposed to preserve those files.
He also failed to notify Congress about the issue for more than four months, something Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has argued amounts to lying.
“Under subpoena, there is a responsibility to respond, and to suggest that you’ve looked everywhere to find documents when you haven’t …,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said, before trailing off and shaking his head.
Republicans say these are grounds for impeachment because they constitute “gross negligence, dereliction of duty and breach of public trust.” They argue that the impeachment standard has never required them to show criminal behavior.
They’re partially right: The founders described impeachable offenses as “abuse or violation of some public trust.” Some offenses, they said, may even be “political,” crimes that do not constitute criminal violations.
Precedent also supports that notion. Only one-third of impeachments in the House have specifically invoked a criminal statute. In 1803, for example, Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted for being drunk on the bench. A judge in 1912 met the same fate for “inciting parties before him to enter financial transactions with him,” and a third was waved off for bringing the judiciary into “ill repute” because he was taking kickbacks.
But experts still aren’t sure that gross mismanagement constitutes a “high crime.” Gerhardt said it could, but only if the House can prove some sort of ill will or bad intent on Koskinen’s part.
“If someone were acting in good faith and made a mistake … we don’t use impeachment for that. But if someone was deliberately trying to obstruct justice like, say [President] Richard Nixon, then we say, OK, that’s bad intent and bad misconduct, providing the right level for impeachment,” he said.
The problem, he continued, is that Congress has to prove ill will, and he’s not sure it can do that in Koskinen’s case.
Geyh agrees, while also differentiating Koskinen from Nixon, who resigned when the House started his impeachment hearings: “The difference, of course, is you had some evidence that the president was responsible for destroying incriminating evidence and trying to conceal the truth.”
“In the case of the IRS commissioner, certainly, concealing evidence, destroying evidence, all of those things manifest kind of corruption that could be an impeachable offense, but if the evidence all shows … your underling did it and there is no evidence to suggestion that you ordered it, then the most that can be said is you’re slow and stupid,” he continued. “We don’t have much of a history for making incompetence rising to the level of the crime.”
Conservatives are making the case that intent doesn’t matter when it comes to impeachment. They say, regardless of intent or knowledge, Koskinen had a legal obligation to prevent files being deleted when there was a preservation order in place — and saying “I didn’t know” is no excuse.
“Whether you believe that was an accident or intentional … I don’t believe you have to prove intent in order to get there,” Chaffetz said when asked about the standard for impeachment. “Lying to Congress is a crime, but the standard [for impeachment] is a different one.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)