Tune In Next Week!
I wrote a few weeks ago about the dilemma Mitt Romney would face if Donald Trump offered him the secretary of State position. That dilemma did not actually happen, and it now seems like Trump was just yanking Mitt's chain for the fun of it. How presidential! One of Trump's close advisors just admitted as much, saying Trump really just wanted Romney to publicly apologize for all the mean and nasty things he said about Trump during the election. Romney reportedly refused to do so, which was probably smart because it seems to have been the whole point of the exercise. Trump probably wasn't ever going to appoint Romney anyway, but wanted to see how low Mitt would grovel if he thought he could get the job.
The entire episode would have made for a great installment of The Apprentice -- Cabinet Edition, in fact. Anyone who's ever watched Trump's show knows this is how Trump operates (at least, while on camera). Pit contestants against each other, let the fur fly, and then fire one of them at the end, while everyone hangs on Trump's every word.
Trump's entire cabinet seems to have been picked with a similar theme in mind. There will surely be a whole lot of infighting, between rival ideologies and political viewpoints. Trump sees himself as the guy who listens to the spat, makes a decision, and everybody goes home. Perhaps this will be effective, but it also has the possibility of veering out of control. Either that, or perhaps there will be a steady stream of people leaving the administration, to be replaced by other entertaining picks, all season long.
Maybe all of Trump's cabinet will only be concerned with their own fiefdoms. This doesn't bode well for a number of federal departments, as Trump has been picking leaders who seem bent on destroying the very department they're supposed to lead. Rick Perry as Energy Secretary is merely the most recent example (The Department of Energy was, infamously, the third department Perry wanted to eliminate, even though -- oops! -- he couldn't remember its name during a debate).
This weekend, Rand Paul pointed out an interesting thing, though. It will only take three Republicans to vote against any of Trump's nominees for them to be rejected by the Senate. Paul was taking a strong stand against John Bolton being given any State Department position (that requires Senate confirmation), stating unequivocally that he would not vote to confirm Bolton to any job. Bolton disqualified himself in Paul's eyes due to his continued insistence that the Iraq War was the right thing to do.
Republicans in Congress have a clear choice, moving forward. They can either rubber-stamp everything Trump does or they can choose to point out when the emperor has no clothes on. Just this week, Trump's continued insistence that Russia had nothing to do with all the election hacking was a bridge too far for Mitch McConnell. This is a somewhat positive development, because it could mean that congressional Republicans will call Trump out when he's living in a "post-fact" world of his own. Just saying something is true (or not true) does not actually make it so, even if you are president (to state the obvious). The idea that Donald Trump can overrule the consensus of 17 federal intelligence agencies because he doesn't believe what they are saying has rather frightening implications for American foreign policy, that's for sure. So knowing that congressional Republicans will occasionally ignore Trump's post-fact pronouncements and listen to the experts means we all might avoid some major trouble in the very near future.
The biggest test of this is going to be how Senate Republicans handle Trump's choice (sorry, Mitt) of the head of Exxon to be secretary of State. He has very close ties to Vladimir Putin, which doesn't seem to concern Trump but does indeed concern some Republicans in the Senate. There's a legacy that stretches back through the Cold War of Republicans being extremely hawkish towards Russia, which continued even after communism fell. Trump's love of Putin doesn't exactly square with that political history in the Republican Party.
Assuming Democrats hold firm, only three Republican senators will be necessary to deny Trump cabinet picks. There are already at least that many who openly despise Trump, so this is a real possibility. Having a big public confirmation battle isn't the way any administration wants to start its time in office, but that's where we may be headed. Senate Republicans would increase their bargaining power by doing so, serving notice to Trump that he won't be able to run roughshod over them. When the margin of being in the majority is small (Republicans will hold 52 seats in the incoming Senate), it means only a few of them have to stand up to derail things. Letting Trump have meaningless victories on a bunch of small stuff is one thing, but confirming a secretary of State who cannot be trusted to stand up to Russia is quite another.
We won't have very long to wait to see how this plays out. Confirmation hearings will be at the top of the agenda for the Senate, so if fights are going to happen, they'll happen fairly quickly. Of course, they may not happen at all. Senate Republicans might just roll over for all of Trump's picks (even with Rand Paul voting against John Bolton). But no matter what happens in the Senate, Trump's cabinet might just have some epic battles of its own due to competing views of what Trump's agenda should be.
Tune in for next week's installment of The Apprentice -- Cabinet Edition to see the fur fly once again! Next week, Trump tells his cabinet to come up with a bunch of plans to defeat the Islamic State, after which he will pick the winner and fire the loser! It might sound farfetched, but then again "President Donald Trump" sounded pretty farfetched as well. We may be in for not only a post-fact presidency, but the first reality-television presidency as well.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Republicans in Congress have a clear choice, moving forward. They can either rubber-stamp everything Trump does or they can choose to point out when the emperor has no clothes on. Just this week, Trump's continued insistence that Russia had nothing to do with all the election hacking was a bridge too far for Mitch McConnell.
I'm not 100% sure I trust McConnell on this yet. He could well be using Senate hearings as a way to punt this 5 months into the future to defang the whole thing.
The Republicans need Trump to sign legislation and Trump needs Congress to give them everything they have wanted for eight years.
The venality of politicians is not to be underestimated.
The Republicans need Trump to sign legislation and Trump needs Congress to give them everything they have wanted for eight years.
OK, that came out wrong. Blame a nice evening at the 1/2 price Tuesday night Vietnamese restaurant with friends. Let me try again.
Trump needs Congress to rubber stamp what he wants and Congress need Trump to rubber stamp what they want.
Then the venality bit ;)
Russia could be the lever that Democrats use again and again for the next few years to pound Republicans and Trump as unAmerican.
The irony of this possibility absolutely astounds me. Particularly after Obama laughed at Romney in 2012 for using Russia as a boogeyman.
Maybe we aren't in a post-factual World. Maybe we are in a peak-irony era.
"The idea that Donald Trump can overrule the consensus of 17 federal intelligence agencies because he doesn't believe what they are saying . . ."
It's unlikely that he doesn't believe that. He says he doesn't believe it, but that could easily be interpreted as self-serving.
"Romney reportedly refused to do so, which was probably smart because it seems to have been the whole point of the exercise."
I don't think there was anything smart about Rmoney participating in any way with a charade that was designed to humiliate him. It's just another example of how shallow and shameless he is and how lucky we are without him.
. The idea that Donald Trump can overrule the consensus of 17 federal intelligence agencies because he doesn't believe what they are saying has rather frightening implications for American foreign policy, that's for sure.
Let's be clear here.. There is no consensus of 17 intelligence agencies.. Even if there were, the ONLY consensus that matters is the Department Of National Intelligence, as it oversees all the other agencies..
And the DNI has stated for the record, that evidence that condemns Russia is far from conclusive..
The idea that Russia would hack our elections to put Trump is utterly ludicrous when one looks objectively at the issue..
1. It's inarguable to say that Putin has enjoyed nearly free reign under Obama... Putin has time and again pushed his agenda with little or no repercussions from the United States.. So, it stands to reason that Russia would want Obama 3.0 in the White House. Which means Hillary Clinton...
2. Russian Intelligence knows the American psyche better than most Americans.. If Russia actually DID want Trump in the White House, they would have supported Hillary thru their "covert hack" of the US Election which would have turned Americans even MORE against Hillary and ensure a Trump win...
3. Russian Intelligence is smarter than this.. The fingerprints left on this "hack" is amateur hour.. Or a deliberate plant..
4. The CIA has been the Left's scapegoat on everything bad and evil in this world for the last 5 decades.. NOW all of the sudden, the CIA is the golden child?? The CIA didn't know the Berlin Wall was coming down until mortar started hitting them on the head... The CIA didn't know that Russia was going to take The Crimea until the Russian Flag flew over The Crimean town hall.. NOW the CIA is all knowing???
5. Within a few days of the election, the White House certified that the Election was free from outside interference and influence...
6. It's funny how the Russian menace became so menacing after other attempts to derail Trump's presidency failed. We didn't hear much about the so called Russian "support" of Trump during the recount phase... We didn't hear much about the so called Russian "support" of Trump during the Attack The Electors phase.. Only after those had failed, all of the sudden, it's RUSSIA STOLE THE ELECTION FOR TRUMP!!!
7. Washington Post is at the forefront of this Anti-Russian campaign.. 'Nuff said about THAT...
8. "Russia could be the lever that Democrats use again and again for the next few years to pound Republicans and Trump as unAmerican.
The irony of this possibility absolutely astounds me. Particularly after Obama laughed at Romney in 2012 for using Russia as a boogeyman.
Maybe we aren't in a post-factual World. Maybe we are in a peak-irony era."
-Neil
:D 'nuff said about that...
To sum up...
Was there Russian hacks?? It's possible. Some circumstantial evidence supports that conclusion.. But the goal was likely to sow general distrust in our democratic process as opposed to supporting a specific candidate. Russian Intelligence knows Americans and knows that any overt "covert" support of a candidate would turn the American people AGAINST that candidate... So, it stands to reason that if Russia wanted Trump, it's overt "covert" support would be in favor of Hillary..
Did Russia want Trump as POTUS over Hillary?? Highly doubtful.. Putin isn't going to base the covert actions of his intelligence agencies on who Putin does and does not like. Putin will base the covert actions of his intelligence agencies on what will best serve his agenda. And it's clear from the last 8 years that having Obama 3.0 in the White House would serve his agenda a LOT more than having Trump in the White House..
300
I sensing a psycho-disconnect here.. :D
If it's Trump against the GOP...
Who ya'all gonna root for??
"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.."
-Austin Powers
:D
301
Hey CW
"The idea that Donald Trump can overrule the consensus of 17 federal intelligence agencies because he doesn't believe what they are saying has rather frightening implications for American foreign policy, that's for sure. So knowing that congressional Republicans will occasionally ignore Trump's post-fact pronouncements and listen to the experts"
When I have to agree with the troll (parts of comment 6), and you are agreeing with Mitch McConnell, you should double check your sources.
I strongly recommend-
"Here's the public information that Russia hacked the DNC- It's not enough"
by Sam Biddle
Currently the lead story at The Intercept
It's a non-partisan, far from pro-Putin, fact based analysis of what is publicly known about the hacking... and he even trashes Assange a bit so you and all the others who think Americans shouldn't know certain things will like it... but it also happens to come to the same conclusion as Trump.
It also makes it rather plain that there are "frightening implications for American foreign policy" due to all the people (like you) assuming facts not in evidence.
What you are saying might be true, but it might not.
Your blaming of Russia for the hacking is not currently factual.
And you may be inadvertently serving an agenda that violates your own beliefs.
A
neil
3
I wish it was only political irony (though hypocrisy may be the better word) at play here.
The truth is that truth and fact are being discarded by too many on both sides in a manner that is quite dangerous.
See my comment to CW... and check out that article at TI too.
A
Hey CW
part 2
Glad to see Rand Paul doing the right thing.
Romney got what he deserved... though he actually deserves even more.
A
neilm [1] -
Good point.
[2] -
Even better point. It's a symbiotic relationship, that's for sure...
[3] -
OK, "peak irony" -- I'm going to have to remember who coined that, because I do see myself using it on a regular basis, next year.
:-)
John From Censornati [5] -
Amen to that. I mean, I have a soft spot in my heart for Mitt's dad George (for being the "father of the Rambler" and the head of AMC), I have no such positive feelings towards Mitt. Especially after seeing him grovel in hopes of getting SofS.
michale [6] -
OK, on another comment to another article (I'm kind of answering column dates randomly, I fully admit) you stated this in shorthand form. So now I have to admit you have laid out your full case for "Putin helped Hillary"... that's not to say I believe it (I don't) but I do now totally understand where you're coming from. So I retract my former comment asking you for details, as you seem to have laid them all out here.
altohone [8] -
Got a link? I apologize if the spam filter ate your link, but I'd like to read that story, I admit...
OK, that's it for this thread, for now...
-CW
OK, on another comment to another article (I'm kind of answering column dates randomly, I fully admit) you stated this in shorthand form. So now I have to admit you have laid out your full case for "Putin helped Hillary"... that's not to say I believe it (I don't) but I do now totally understand where you're coming from. So I retract my former comment asking you for details, as you seem to have laid them all out here.
Hokay... :D
398