Advertisements

Wow, What a Press Conference

To his immense credit President Donald Trump frequently fields questions from the press, usually when he’s obliged to do so during a visit with a foreign head of state, or when the noise of the Marine One helicopter allows him to pretend not to hear the questions he’d rather not answer, but he rarely endures a solo press conference in front of the assembled television cameras and microphones. He gave one on Wednesday, however, and it was a nearly 90-minute-long doozy.
Despite the fingernails-on-a-chalkboard quality Trump’s rhetoric has to our sensitive ears, and the unpleasant effect his oleaginous appearance has on our sore eyes, we couldn’t stop watching and listening the press conference’s end. Trump was in true Trumpian form throughout, with the expected insult comic shtick about the “the failing New York Times” and the rest of the “fake news,” as well as the “low-lifes” and “big, fat con jobs” among his other critics, and the requisite amount of wildly exaggerated boasting. As usual, much of what he said was not only provably but quite obviously  untrue.
Trump talked up a major expansion of the American steel industry that isn’t happening. He claimed credit for the construction of that “big, beautiful” border wall he promised Mexico would pay for, even though the Mexican’s aren’t paying up, and he’s recently signed a spending resolution that will avert a pre-mid-term-election government shutdown but doesn’t include any money for any kind of wall, and it also  isn’t happening any time soon. He explained that all those international camera’s footage of the United Nations audience he’d addressed the day laughing at him was fake news, because of course they were appreciatively laughing with him when he opened his speech with the usual braggadocio. Once again he bragged about winning 52 percent of women’s votes in the presidential election, even though he only won 52 percent of the white women’s votes, and lost the overall women’s vote by a landslide, not to mention that Trump garnered only 48.2 percent of the overall popular vote and thus would would have lost all the men’s ballots to Democratic nominee “Crooked” Hillary Clinton by a landslide if that oft-repeated bast were actually true.
He also reiterated an earlier unsubstantiated claim that China is interfering in the mid-term elections to get Democrats elected because they’re so fearful of his trade war, and failed to answer a question about why he also claimed once again to be such good friends with China’s dictator.
Maybe it was because he had a rare open 90 minutes on his busy schedule, but our best guess is that Trump granted the rare press conference yesterday because he knew that today’s news will be mostly devoted to the testimony of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate’s judiciary committee, and the testimony before the same committee California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they both students at elite sexually-segregated prep schools in Maryland back in the early ’80s. The nationally-televised-on-several-channels testimony of what he said and she said will surely generate boffo ratings even by the Trump reality show’s standards — to put it in Trumpian terms, that much we can tell you, believe us, OK? — and by now we’ve noticed that Trump likes to get ahead of the next day’s stories.
By now this subplot of the Trump reality show is pretty darned complicated, though, and even for such a wily reality show star as Trump it’s a damned hard story to get in front of. By now another couple of women have come forward by name to accuse Kavanaugh of far-worse-than-boyish sexual behavior during late teens and early 20s, male and female classmates of Kavanaugh’s are telling the press that he wasn’t the choirboy he claimed during an unusual and ill-advised interview on Fox News, the Republicans on the legislative committee are reluctant to call Kavanaugh’s prep school friend Mark Judge, an alleged eyewitness to and participant in the sexual assault, who has since penned a roman a clef titled “Wasted: Tales of a a GenX Drunk,” which featured a drunken friend named “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” and the “fake news” has found some admittedly circumstantial but undeniably evidence in Kavanaugh’s prep school yearbook that the Supreme Court nominee was once upon a time a rather party-hearty kind of dude.
The two latest accusers are both being treated with more skepticism by most of the “fake news,” on the other hand, and the third comes courtesy of the same media-savvy lawyer who represents pornographic video performer and best-selling author Stormy Daniels, and it’s worth noting the “failing New York Times” declined an offer to report the third accuser’s accusations. Kavanaugh has an unchallenged record of sexual propriety since his early college days, and plenty of well-educated and well-respected former classmates who vouch for high moral character, and that’s also well worth taking into account.
Kavanaugh also has the whole-hearted backing of Trump, but it remains to be seen if that proves helpful. Trump has been accused of adult sexual misbehavior by more than a dozen women, and of course Trump was asked about that during the news conference, and he eventually conceded that as a result of his experience he tends to not believe women accusing men of sexual misbehavior. He misstated some key facts about a couple of his accusers, ignored the fact that another one of them has civil suit for slander still pending in the courts, didn’t bother to deny that his voice boasting about grabbing women by the pussy, and generally came across as the sexist pig that all the polls show even most white women regard him. Short of that Mark Judge fellow the Republicans won’t call testify, Trump is probably the least convincing character witness you’d want on your side if accused of sexual misbehavior.
Most people will judge today’s he said and she said testimony according to their political prejudices, but in the end we don’t think it will help the Republican party much with the upcoming mid-term women’s vote. We’ve seen polling that a slight majority of Republicans support Kavanaugh’s nomination even if the appalling allegations are proved true, and the Senate majority leader has pledged to “plow” Kavanaugh’s nomination through no matter what is revealed today, and we can’t blame any woman voter we know for resenting that.

— Bud Norman

Advertisements

The Lynch Mob and the Rule of Law

Nearly every calamity that has ever occurred in the history of western civilization was foretold in the confirmation hearings for the officials involved, where some prescient interrogator or another almost always futilely exposed the candidate’s utter lack of qualifications. The Senate’s recent confirmation hearings regarding potential Attorney General Loretta Lynch, alas, seem especially foreboding.
Those sharp-eyed fellows over at the Powerline web site noticed one especially revealing exchange between Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions and the nominee regarding immigration law. Sessions is one of our very favorite public figures, and we believe he’d even be a front-runner for the next presidential election if he didn’t sound so much like a Saturday Night Live caricature of a Senator from Alabama, and as always he posed some very pointed questions. He went right to the very important issue of the federal government’s enforcement of its duly passed-and-signed immigration laws, asking if Lynch agreed with Holder’s statement that “creating a pathway to earn citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country” is “a matter of civil and human rights,” and she stammeringly declined to answer because she was “not familiar with the context of those comments” and had not “studied the issue enough to come to a legal conclusion on that.” Pressing the matter further with admirable fortitude, that Alabama twang adding to the acidity, Sessions asked if a person who has entered the country illegally has a right under the executive order of the president to employment, prompting the memorable reply from Lynch that “So I don’t think — I think that citizenship is a privilege. I think it’s a privilege that has to be earned. And within the panoply of rights that are recognized by our jurisprudence now, I don’t see one that you — as such that you are describing.”
Such un-parsable balderdash is pretty much par for the conformation hearing course, and even Sessions had to agree with the inferred meaning of her ultimate conclusion even as he drawled in that Alabama accent that “I’m a little surprised it took you that long,” but the testimony then took an even more ominous tone. With his usual flair for the obvious Sessions noted the high number of Americans currently out of the labor force and its depressing effect on household wages, and asked Lynch’s views regarding the comparative employment rights of citizens and illegal immigrants. She replied that “I believe the right and obligation to work is one that’s shared by everybody regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they be participating in the workforce than not participating in the workforce.” Having established that Lynch believes an illegal immigrant has a legal right to a job despite the fact that federal law prohibits any employer from hiring from him, Sessions asked what sort of legal jeopardy this might cause every employer in the country. Specifically, he asked “Would you take action against any employer who says, ‘No, I prefer to hire someone who came to the country lawfully rather than someone given amnesty by the president?'” Her answer is worth consideration:
“With respect to the — the provision about temporary amnesty deferral, I did not read as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral. With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue. I certainly think you raised an interesting point and would look forward to discussing it with you and using — relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point.”
This is precisely the sort of expertly jargon-laden hemming and hawing and insincere flattery that has won confirmation for countless unqualified candidates for high office over the many years of representative democracy and throughout its many calamities, but this is even more glaringly ominous than usual. A nominee for the office of Attorney General of the United States will not scoff at the notion that the Justice Department wouldn’t sue an employer for discrimination because he declines to violate federal law by not hiring an illegal immigrant, the equivocation raises further questions about the wisdom our immigration policies, as well as the legality of executive orders that not only override by conflict with existing law, and it all seems unlikely to end well. At least you can’t say you weren’t warned, even if it was in an easily mocked Alabama accent.

— Bud Norman