Mediaboss Marketing

Maybe, in some alternate universe, on the second day of the House Judiciary Committees hearing about the Democrats articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, Republicans on the committee would have presented a detailed and painstakingly constructed argument to show why the evidence doesnt support the charges against the President. But, in actuality, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee spent much of their time talking aboutyou guessed itHunter Biden.

During the morning session, the committee voted along party lines to reject a G.O.P. effort to strike the first article of impeachment, which accuses Trump of abusing his Presidential power by pressuring the President of Ukraine to dig up dirt on his domestic political rivals. After that, Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican whose district is in the Florida Panhandle, introduced a separate amendment. This one would have struck the reference to Joe Biden in the first article of impeachment and replaced it with a reference to his son and to Burisma, the Ukrainian company that added Hunter to its board for a time.

Gaetz, a Trump berloyalist and an N.R.A. favorite who once introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, began by rambling on about what Hunter Biden did or didnt do for Burisma. Then he brought up the younger Bidens history of drug problems, reading a passage from a lengthy Profile of him, by The New Yorkers Adam Entous, which describes how on one occasion a white powdery substance was found in a rental car he had driven. I dont want to make light of anybodys substance-abuse issues, Gaetz said. But its a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz rental cars over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car.

Even by the base standards of todays House G.O.P., which often resembles a ragtag protest group more than a government party, this was a slimy effort at diversion. This is about distraction, distraction, distraction, the veteran Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, of Texas, accurately pointed out. But it was left to Hank Johnson, a seven-term Democratic congressman from Georgia, to deliver the most effective put-down of Gaetz. The pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do, Johnson said. I dont know what members, if any, have had any problems with substance abuse, been busted in a D.U.I.I dont know. But, if I did, I wouldnt raise it against anyone on this committee. The titters that went around the hearing room as Johnson was speaking indicated that at least some of those present knew what he was referring to.

Late one night in 2008, a police deputy stopped Gaetzs car, for speeding, not far from the congressmans home. In his incident report, the deputy said that Gaetz smelled of beer and that his eyes were watery and bloodshot, and he swayed and staggered when he got out of the car. The deputy arrested Gaetz and took him to a police station, where he was booked and photographed. For reasons that have never been entirely clear, the charges against Gaetz were later dropped. But, in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times, in 2014, Gaetz acknowledged that he had made bad decisions that resulted in an arrest and added, That is sort of something that we all live with.

If you think, for a moment, that Johnsons rebuke was sufficient to shame Gaetz into silence, you havent been paying attention for the past few months. In their fealty to Trump, many members of the House G.O.P. are entirely shameless and more than a bit bonkers. Given a second opportunity to speak, Gaetz brought up Hillary Clintonwhy not?and said he was just glad that the country now had a President who is concerned about corruption.

He wasnt the only Republican to speak in favor of his amendment, of course. Another was Louie Gohmert, the Texan who once issued a dire warning about terror babies and who, on Wednesday night, as the hearing started, read out the name of an official who has been identified, in some reports, as the intelligence whistle-blower. In weighing in on Gaetzs amendment, Gohmert followed his example and brought up Clinton. He also offered a novel theory that she was somehow responsible for the Democrats impeachment of Trump. What we continue to see is projection, Gohmert said. Someone on their side engages in illicit conduct and that is what they accuse President Trump of doing.

Within the confines of a supposedly serious congressional hearing, there is no wholly effective way to counter the sort of slime and gibberish that Gaetz and Gohmert were promoting. In any case, it wasnt directed at Americans who are undecided about the merits of impeaching Trump, if any such people exist. Its only purpose was to fire up the Trump faithful, go viral on right-wing Web sites, and, perhaps, even get picked up on Fox News. In other words, it was part of politics as a tribal ritual rather than politics as rational discourse, and, therefore, it was largely immune to rational counter-argument.

Some of the Democrats on the committee tried their best, anyway, to remind people why Joe Bidens name was the one included in the first article of impeachment. In doing so, these Democrats focussed on the actual acts at the center of the impeachment investigationacts that most of the Republicans on the panel had assiduously avoided or deliberately downplayed.

Jackson Lee pointed out that Trump had put aid to Ukraine on hold despite the fact that the State Department and other U.S. agencies had stated that the country was already in compliance with anti-corruption directives. Hakeem Jeffries, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, read out a list of the names of witnesses, Trump appointees all, who confirmed that the President had pressured a foreign government to target a U.S. citizen: Biden. Zoe Lofgren, who represents a district in Silicon Valley, said that, although the behavior of Hunter Biden and of Trumps sons and daughters were things that voters could consider in a general election, here we are talking about the abuse of Presidential authority.

That final statement was a bit incomplete. In referring to we, Lofgren should have made clear that she wasnt including the Republicans on the committee. If there was one thing they were determined not to talk about, it was Trump abusing his power or doing anything wrong.

Read the rest here:
The House Republicans Slimy Defense of Donald Trump - The New Yorker

Bill and Hillary Clinton arrive for the inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., January 20, 2017. (Rick Wilking/Reuters )

Making the click-through worthwhile: How the Clinton Foundation casts a shadow over impeachment and helps explain why Republicans feel so little pressure to turn against Trump; House Republicans gain a new member with a really unexpected voting record, speculating on the final vote in the House and an examination of the grand reversal of the parties from twenty years ago.

Republicans Look to Clinton When Evaluating Trump

Why do so many grassroots Republicans shrug at President Trumps efforts to strongarm Ukraine into investigating the Bidens? Because they believe, with some compelling evidence, that this is how the game is played that powerful figures in government blur their personal interest and the national interest all the time, with no consequence. The stories about the Clinton Foundation percolated and bubbled up for years but only at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign did most of official Washington notice, or even begin to object. The Clintons never believed the rules applied to them, and they shamelessly defied of previously agreed transparency and disclosure rules.

January 4, 2012, an emailfrom Doug Band to John Podesta: The investigation into [Chelsea Clinton] getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents . . . I hope that you will speak to her and end this.

December 2012: Huma Abedin is simultaneously employed in four different jobs official State Department employee, adviser to Teneo consulting, contractor to the Clinton Foundation, and privately-paid personal secretary to Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for subsequent investigations and reviews to determine and verify what purpose and in what role Abedin was in when she met with associates relating to Clinton.

February 18, 2015: Many of the [Clinton Foundations] biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million.

February 25, 2015: TheClinton Foundationaccepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clintons tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration. Foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

April 23, 2015: As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium Ones chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

April 30, 2015: The foundation also acknowledged this week it did not disclose 1,100 mostly foreign donors to the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership.

August 17, 2016: Hillary and Bill Clintons ties to two influential Lebanese-Nigerian businessmen are raising fresh questions about whether the State Department showed favoritism to Clinton Foundation donors.

August 20, 2016: The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department before, during and after Mrs. Clintons time as secretary criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria. Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

September 6, 2016: State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gave the Clinton Foundation a pass on identifying foreign donors in its charitable filings making it impossible to know if it got any special favors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, according to a report Tuesday.

October 26, 2016: Bill Clinton is enjoying the private residence above his presidential library in Arkansas at the expense of taxpayers and his charity foundation a potential violation of nonprofit regulations. The 5,000-square-foot penthouse which sits atop the William J. Clinton Library in Little Rock is largely funded by the National Archives in Washington, which pours nearly $6 million into program and maintenance costs for the entire institution every year . . . Costs are also offset by a $7 million endowment from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

November 4, 2016: The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.

The Clintons insisted that the large donations from foreign governments and donors had nothing to do with influencing U.S. policy. However, once Hillary Clinton was defeated, donations dropped like a stone: The Clinton Foundations $30.7 million revenue last year is less than half the $62.9 million it raised in 2016 as Clinton was at the height of her presidential campaign. Each of the two years since Clintons loss in the 2016 election has seen the organizations revenue drop to record lows, raising less than any fiscal year in more than a decade a sharp contrast to the $249 million raised during Clintons first year as secretary of state.

Perhaps you think that losing the presidency is sufficient punishment for Hillary Clinton.

But many Americans believe the evidence indicates that the Clinton Foundation offered the worlds wealthy a secret way to buy access to the Secretary of State and potential future president, in hopes of influencing current or future U.S. foreign policy, and that sleazy deep-pocketed power brokers from all across the globe homed in on it like moths to a flame. Whats more, just about all Democratic legislators, the rest of the Obama administration, the foreign policy professionals and think-tank types and a big chunk of the media pretty much just accepted it. Maybe they didnt like it; maybe they occasionally offered on or off-the-record quotes about how the optics looked bad or some other wet-noodle tsk-tsk. But almost no one in official Washington looked at the Clinton Foundation and saw it as an unacceptable form of corruption.

All of it was legal, or legal enough, or in a gray area, and not something any prosecutor wanted to waste time on. (How many juries would convict Hillary Clinton?) No one got arrested, no one got charged with crimes, and Bill and Hillary Clinton got away with it, other than the admittedly significant consequence of losing the presidency that she wanted so badly.

In this light, Trump fans find it easy to shrug off all kinds of allegations from trying to bring the G7 to his own resort, to foreign governments staying in Trump hotels and then gushing on Twitter to suck up to the president, to big checks to Stormy Daniels, to having a bunch of shady felons working on the campaign, campaigns and party committees spending millions at Trump businesses, to allegations of using his personal foundation to promote his own interests . . . all the way to everything with Ukraine. Every Trump fan can easily fall back on, hey, its no worse than what the Clintons were doing, and nobody even bothered to investigate them. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden, while the Clintons just wanted cash.

Do two wrongs make a right? No, not at all, and I would prefer a world with institutions that rebuked conflicts of interest wherever they found them in the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party, in Chappaqua and Mar-a-Lago, in the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Organization. But as long as grassroots activists feel like one side has gotten off scot-free for unethical behavior, they will convince themselves what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Theres just that lingering problem of whats actually good for the country.

Huge Supporter of Socialist Policies Switches Sides

Rep. Jeff Van Drew endorsed Cory Booker to be president, and he votes with the Trump administrations position a whopping seven percent of the time. He voted to overturn Trumps emergency declaration for border wall funding, to condemn Trumps statements about the Squad as racist, to create a path to citizenship for those who came to the U.S. illegally as children, to block the Trump administration from granting waivers to states regarding the Affordable Care Act, to restore Net Neutrality regulations, against a ban on transgenders serving in the military, to require the president to disclose his tax returns and for government funding bills that did not include wall funding. A month ago, the National Republican Congressional Committee called Van Drew a huge supporter of socialist policies.

And now hes a Republican, apparently almost entirely because he doesnt want to vote for impeachment. No doubt the president loves the symbolism of a Democrat switching sides and the NRCC loves the fact that they dont have to spend money to win back a top-tier swing district in 2020, but . . . how much did the GOP get with this flip?

How Many House Democrats Will Defect on the Impeachment Votes?

The impeachment vote is Wednesday; obviously Van Drew remains opposed and the other House Democrat who voted against starting the inquiry, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, told reporters Saturday he will vote against impeaching President Donald Trump. Peterson said he expects four or five other Democrats will do the same.

As of this writing, 60 House Democrats and one House Republican Tom Rooney have not stated publicly whether they will vote for the articles of impeachment.

If that comes to pass, it will be a small victory for President Trump and opponents of impeachment, but youll hear a lot about it. From the Democrats perspective, the impeachment hearings went about as well as they could have hoped but it will leave them with probably 228 or 227 votes to impeach, after 232 Democrats voted to start the inquiry. (Note that Elijah Cummings death and Katie Hills resignation leave two previously-Democratic seats open.) That handful of Democrats who voted for the inquiry but against impeachment think theyre saving their careers, but its easy to imagine that on Election Day 2020, the Republicans in their district are still mad as heck about the vote to start impeachment and at least a handful of Democrats will be still irked about letting the president off the hook.

As noted last week, if one of the aims of the impeachment hearings was to strengthen public support of impeachment, they failed. This morning, the FiveThirtyEight aggregation of public polling finds 47.6 percent support removal of the president, 46.2 percent do not about where its been, or perhaps a little tighter, for the past several weeks.

ADDENDUM: Over in the Article, I note that the parties have really switched sides on impeachment from 1998.

See original here:
Echoes of the Clinton Legacy in Trumps Impeachment - National Review

PARISThe Washington Posts vast investigative report about the delusions and lies of successive American administrations in Afghanistan reads almost like a celebration of superpower humiliation. Drawing on hundreds of internal U.S. government interviews about lessons learned, it would reinforce anyones belief the best lesson would be to get the fuck out. Like, yesterday already.

Certainly the documents dovetail with U.S. President Donald J. Trumps promise that hell be the one to end this endless war. Amb. Ryan Crocker, one of the diplomats quoted extensively in the articles, told me after the series came out, the Post has just helped [Trump] immensely. And sure enough, NBC and other media reported Saturday night that Trump is preparing a drawdown of 4,000 more troops, to a level of 8,000 to 9,000 boots on the ground, with the aim of "ending" the war (for Americans) before the 2020 election.

But is complete withdrawalwhat the Taliban call a full American evacuation really the best option? In fact, the president has vacillated on that score. His preferred option is negotiation, he says. He even invited Taliban leaders to Maryland for his own historic "Camp David accords" just before the anniversary of 9/11, then rescinded the invite and canceled talks amid an uproar.

On Trump's surprise Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops at Afghanistan's Bagram Airfield, he announced talks with the Taliban would resume. Were going to stay until such time as we have a deal [with the Taliban], or we have total victory.

To achieve that second option, he's hinted at nukes: "If I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over literally in 10 days, he proclaimed in July, then said, I dont want to go that route. In September, he returned to the same theme: If we wanted to do a certain method of war, we would win that very quickly, but many, many, really, tens of millions of people would be killed, and we think its unnecessary.

So, what is the madman's plan?

Trump being Trump, he has left the Pentagon, the commanders in the field, and the Afghan government wondering when he will pick up his cell phone, punch in a declaration like the one that betrayed U.S. Kurdish allies in Syria, and let the blade fall that cuts all U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. As counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen puts it, they all sit under the tweet of Damocles. Even if he then tries to reverse course, as he did with the Kurds, Trump will just amplify confusion, and that is the last thing Afghan policy needs.

Kilcullen, an Australian "soldier-scholar" recognized internationally as an authority on asymmetric conflicts and small wars, worked as an often contentious consultant with the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. He is the author most recently of The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West, due for publication in March.

Ironically, since few people have a more granular sense of the problems faced in Afghanistan and their causes, Kilcullen was not among those interviewed for the U.S. governments lessons learned project that is the basis for the Post series.

For my part, I have been of the GTFO school regarding Afghanistan for about 17 of the 18 years since the U.S. invaded. But in phone conversations over the last few days, Kilcullen and Crocker offered several potentially useful insights to the current situation that I think deserve consideration.

They talked about not only what went wrong, but what could still go rightor at least right enoughto support a peace settlement without leaving Afghanistan entirely to the wolves, whether the Taliban or terrorists with global ambitions.

For us to do a complete withdrawal would be idiotic.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker

Separately, Kilcullen and Crocker said the current level of commitment by the U.S., with 12,000 to 13,000 troops on the ground, possibly being drawn down to 8,000 to 9,000, is about right. So is the greatly reduced American spending. (There is less to steal, says Crocker.)

Kilcullen notes that while each American soldiers death is a tragedy, the numbers are nothing close to the levels of 2011 when there were some 100,000 troops in the country, and hundreds of them were killed. Since 2016, American combat deaths in Afghanistan have numbered fewer than 20 a year. The troops in place are there mainly in advisory and support roles.

The U.S. presence is an insurance policy that is sustainable, said Crocker, speaking before reports of the latest drawdown. Trump, he said, "is a minimalist in terms of overseas involvements. ... That is not a bad thing,[but] minimal is good. Zero is bad."

"For us to do a complete withdrawal would be idiotic given the low costs we have now," said Crocker. "Do we think the Taliban and al Qaeda have become kinder and gentler during their years in the wilderness?

From a Washington policy point of view, defeating defeatism was always going to be tough to do.

Maybe going into Afghanistan we read too much of what Rudyard Kipling wrote about the disastrous British experience there in the early 19th century. The poet laureate of British militarism and imperialismthe author of If and The White Mans Burdenhad a feel for the place and for the cost paid by the British troops who tried to subdue it:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Blander histories of more recent events are full of lessons learned too late about the intractability of Afghanistans terrain and tribes. In the 1980s the Soviets broke their empire trying to hammer the country into a modern socialist mold. Americans gloated that it became Moscows Vietnam.

The United States, having supported the jihad against Moscow, walked away and watched as the Taliban, the students of radically retrograde Islam, rose to power in the 1990s. Then the U.S. government professed shock and horror when the Taliban sheltered Osama bin Laden, one of many Arabs who had volunteered in the U.S.-backed Afghan jihad.

In fact, we just suck.

Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, if the Taliban had surrendered Bin Laden and his minions their Afghan regime might have been allowed to survive, no matter the cost to the Afghan people. When the Taliban refused, it took only a few weeks of war at the end of 2001 and beginning of 2002 to end their rule and smash al Qaedas infrastructure. That done, there was little semblance of government left in Afghanistan, and the U.S. and its allies, faute de mieux, started trying to cobble things together.

Again, Kiplings poetry about frustration and failure among those who try to build occupied nations seemed as prescient as it was arrogant. In 1899 he had warned that the savage wars of peace may come to nothing because of sloth and heathen folly. And there certainly are echoes of that judgment 120 years later in the narrative developed from documents obtained by The Washington Post.

But Kilcullen, for one, takes issue with the notion that the war in Afghanistan was, from the beginning, unwinnable.

Over the phone from Norfolk, Virginia, where he had been talking at a NATO conference, Kilcullen spoke about Afghanistan with the kind of direct, unvarnished language Americans tend to appreciate from Australians.

From Kilcullens point of view, watching developments on the ground since the early days of the U.S. presence, there were plenty of mistakes, but there could have been much better solutions. The problems lay with the U.S. and its allies and their confused, often self-defeating approach to the conflict.

The Post' Afghanistan Papers series, starting with the headline "At War With The Truth," makes the case that U.S. officials deceived the American public with false tales of success on the battlefield.

"I don't think they were lying to the public, I think it's actually worse than that," said Kilcullen. "We are like a gigantic dinosaur with 60 million brain cells that don't talk to each other and every six months when a unit rotates out or every two years when a policymaker changes we forget everything that we learned and we go back to square one."

Taking issue with those who've written that the war in Afghanistan was "unwinnable from the outset," Kilcullen said. "Frankly, that's a cop-out. The war was not 'unwinnable,' it's still not 'unwinnable,' we're just not winning it. ... In fact, we just suck."

Kilcullen proceeded to cite several granular examples.

It was generally understood by counter-insurgency mavens, for instance, that the war would have to end with some kind of negotiations, but the "kinetic" action didn't support the diplomatic and political objective.

"We have focused on the military defeat of the Taliban and on disrupting Taliban networks, essentially. And then we say, okay now we want to negotiate with the Taliban. Well, we just spent 10 years disrupting their ability to control their own people," said Kilcullen.

He worked closely with Gen. David Petraeus in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011. "At one point when Petraeus was commander, and it wasnt him doing this, we reduced the average age of Taliban commanders in the south of Afghanistan by a full decade," Kilcullen said. "We took them from an average age of 29 in 2010 to an average age of 20 in 2011. So that means we killed an entire generation of junior and middle level Taliban guys. And then the year after that we were, like, lets start a negotiation process. And the senior Taliban said, 'We cant deliver a peace deal because you killed the middle ranking guys. We dont have a unified structure anymore.' So, our kinetic targeting approaches didnt support our negotiating or political objectives for much of the war."

We basically fixed the Talibans internal cohesion problem overnight with a Hellfire missile.

David Kilcullen

Later, it turned out that Taliban leader Mullah Mansour had been telling his rank and file that he was just following orders from Taliban founder Mullah Omar for more than two years after Omars actual death in 2013. Not surprisingly, this revelation caused considerable dissension, even rebellion, in Taliban ranks and according to Kilcullen they were coming apart at the seamsuntil the U.S. tracked Mullah Mansour into Pakistan and droned him. We whacked the guy, said Kilcullen. We basically fixed the Talibans internal cohesion problem overnight with a Hellfire missile.

Another problem: at the beginning of the war, the American strategy for aid was to go into the hottest red areas to try to build infrastructure, education and prosperity. But that wound up being a thankless task, less effective than going into green areas that could be held up as positive examples.

Kilcullen noted that many of the most-cited interviews in the Post series are from 2015, relating to the surge and its aftermath: historical problems that are no longer relevant.

Okay, I said, asking him the same questions I asked Crocker: What about corruption? What about opium production? What about the huge losses in the Afghan National Army? And is it really possible to negotiate with the Taliban at all?

Tomorrow: Trump, Afghanistan, and the Tweet of Damocles: Part II

See the original post here:
Donald Trump's Afghanistan Pullout Plans Threatened by 'The Tweet of Damocles' - The Daily Beast

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

PHILADELPHIA President Donald Trump participated in the coin toss at the 120th Army-Navy football game at Lincoln Financial Field to a round of applause from the crowd Saturday.

The president stood on the field with representatives from both service academies during the national anthem and then walked to midfield, waving at supporters on his way. Trump stood on the Navy sideline, wearing his red cap, as the team ran onto the field before kickoff.

Trump walked out to midfield for the coin toss, with security personnel roping off the area. Trump was introduced to a round of applause from the crowd and tossed the coin.

Navy called tails and won the toss.

The president watched the first half from the Army side with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other military leaders, according to the official pool report.

Trump crossed over to the Navy side at halftime.Some audience members chanted, "Commander in chief" and "Trump we love you" was also heard.A couple dozen people in uniform chanted, "Four more years!"

The president watched along with the crowd as five Black Hawk helicopters did a flyover, twice passing over the stadium during intermission.

Trump began to leave the stadium shortly after 5 p.m. He stopped to receive a football from a group of paratroopers who had been scheduled to land on the field before the game, but were unable to do so due to the weather.

Air Force One took off in the middle of the fourth quarter.

This was Trump's third appearance at an Army-Navy game, the first coming when he was president-elect. He is one of 10 sitting presidents to attend the game. The crowd gave him a rousing welcome when he first was introduced and walked onto the field after flying up from Washington.

Before the game, according to the official pool report, Trump went to the Army locker room, shaking hands with players and slapping them on the shoulder pads as they lined up and walked past him. Boom microphones picked him up telling players to have a good game and have a good one.

President Donald Trump speaks with members of the Army team in Philadelphia Saturday before the Army-Navy college football game.(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)

Next step: Where seniors on Army, Navy football teams are headed after graduation (Hint: It's not the NFL)

Fun and games: Army crushes Navy helmet with tank, presents it to Roger Staubach on College GameDay set

Trump addressed the Army team after being introduced byEsper. The president talked about hisnew policy that allows athletes at the service academies to play professionally before fulfilling their service commitments..

"The last time I saw your coach, he said, 'What about a waiver?'" Trump said to the team. "I said, 'What are you talking about a waiver.' He said some of these guys could play in the NFL, you could play for the Yankees, you could play for the Mets, you could play basketball, you could play whatever. But you have to serve a long time.

"And what we are doing now is you'll go out and make a fortune and after you are all finished with your professional career you will go and you will serve. And everybody is thrilled. That means you can go out and do whatever you want. ... So I want to congratulate you. ... So good luck to you."

Trump then went to the Navy locker room, where he also talked about the new policy. He also saluted the Midshipmen for their season and said they need to cap it with a victory over Army: It has to happen today, he told the team.

Air Force One landed just before 2 p.m. at Philadelphia International Airport, according to the pool report. Trump disembarked at 2:17 and gave a fist pump to cheering supporters.The motorcade arrived under a misting, light rainfall atLincoln Financial Field at 2:32.

About 22 minutes before kickoff, Trump appeared on the stadiums video screens signing a commemorative football in the Oval Office and passing it off camera.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Visit link:
President Donald Trump receives rousing welcome from crowd at 120th Army-Navy game - USA TODAY

Gavin Newsom became governor of California a year ago. Now he weighs in on the 2020 presidential election and juggling his family and being governor. USA TODAY

SACRAMENTO Gavin Newsom, the 40th governor of the state of California, emerges from the door to his private office with a sigh.

Sorry Im late," says Newsom, 52. "I was watching the impeachment hearings."

For Newsom,President Donald Trump is often unavoidable these days. He and the president, who isthe focus of the hearings, continue to be at loggerheads. In fact,Newsom's position as leader of the so-dubbed California Resistance helped him get elected on Nov. 7, 2018.

But some critics contend the governor's first year in officehas been diluted by this feud, resulting ina lack of progress on huge issues a mushrooming homeless population, astronomical housing prices, a dangerous electrical grid that have led pundits to write eulogies forthe age-old California dream.

Newsom is resolute. The dream will live on in spite of Trump.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, 52, met recently with USA TODAY to discuss his first year in office, and how he has plans to tackle some of the state's most pressing problems, from homelessness to a broken electricity grid.(Photo: Martin E. Klimek, USA TODAY)

One of the biggest stories that hasnt gotten full media attention is the assault by the president on the American people who happen to be residents of the largest state of our union, Newsom says in an exclusive year-end interview with USA TODAY. But California is thriving despite him.

So far, polls say most Californians like the job Newsom has donesince being sworn in Jan. 7, with 44% approving and 32% disapproving, according to a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

But while Newsom campaigned last fall on the enduring attraction of the mythic and potent California dream egalitarianism, upward mobility, natural beauty that postcard image has taken a hit.

Homelessness is soaring; 25% of the nations 600,000 homeless live in California. In San Francisco alone, apps have sprouted up to track human waste on sidewalks, people with mental illnesses have attacked other residents, and some companies, most recently Oracle, have canceled downtown convention plans.

Housing costs are driving away the middle class; the median home pricein California is $550,000, twice the national average, according to Zillow. More than28,190 people departedCalifornia in the second quarter of 2019, almost double 2017's rate, according to a regular Migration Report from real estate brokerage Redfin.

And Californias already prevalent wildfires now have an added menace; this years days-long Pacific Gas & Electric power grid shutdowns wreaked havoc particularly on seniors and the poor. Along with fires, they cost the states economy $11.5 billion, according to Bank of the West chief economist Scott Anderson.

To Newsom's constituents, taking on Trump is one task. Governing the state is another altogether.

He ran as a leader of the Trump resistance, and hes been all-in there and gets full marks, says Thad Kousser, chair of the University of California, San Diego, political science department and author of The Power of American Governors." So the next step will be to really get a coherent policy agenda set and implemented.

Leading that resistance has been time consuming. And Trump is fighting back, in ways that affect the state's policies.

Over the past year, Trump has threatenedto withhold federal aid for wildfire recovery on grounds that the state isnt managing its forests, has suggested federal oversight is needed to fix the state's homelessness epidemic, and has vowed to revoke the state's authority to set strict auto emissions standards.

Most recently, Trump has ordered that federal lands in California be open to fracking-style oil drilling, just as Newsom halted all fracking permits so that their ecological impact could be studied first.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Newsoms overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature passed a bill requiring Trump to turn over his tax records if he wanted to be on the ballot in 2020. That chess move was overturned by the California Supreme Court, but the jab landed.

California is a disgrace to our country, Trump told a Cincinnati crowd days after the bill was passed in July.

President Donald Trump talks with California's then-Gov. Elect Gavin Newsom during a visit to a neighborhood destroyed by the wildfires in Paradise, California on Nov. 17, 2018. The two have had an ongoing feud over issues such as forest management, homelessness and immigration, a duel that at times seems personal.(Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)

Some state lawmakers are concerned about Newsom's slow pace of progress on the traditional parts of his job.

Newsom has a Democratic majority in the Legislature, and what has he done with it? says Assemblyman Devon Mathis, a Republican from the Central Valley agricultural town of Visalia.

Conditions have gotten worse, and gorgeous cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are cesspools, he says. And many of us are trying to take care of our families, praying to God we dont have a mishap and end up in the poverty line. Youre the governor; you have the ability to do something, not just talk.

Newsom says he is well aware of the criticism. And he asks for time.

We expect to be held accountable. We expect people to demand more. They want to see evidence of change, he says. All I can say is, we got here 11 damn months ago, and in the next few years if they dont see change, they can make a change at the ballot box. And they should if we dont produce real results.

Although Newsom doesnt offer a specific timeline, he says this coming year should bring progress as a result ofsteps taken over the past year.

These include releasing $650 million to municipalities to address homelessness, fining cities that push back against affordable housing initiatives, and signing 22 wildfire-related bills while increasing oversight over bankrupt utility PG&E, whose aging and faulty lines have sparked some of the deadly fires.

Newsom also points out that in his first yearhe has signed numerous laws that are in keeping with Californias progressive political track record. These include a ban on facial-recognition software in police body cameras, granting sexual assault victims more time to sue and expanding gun seizure rules.

Housing, Newsomadmits, is perhaps his greatest challenge, since it affectsboth the poorand the middle class, the engine of the state's massive economy, which totaled $3 trillion in 2018.

During his inauguration speech, Newsom promised a Marshall Plan for affordable housing, referencing U.S. aid to post-World War II Europe.He vowed to build 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. But in the first half of 2019, California cities approved 11% fewer residential building permits than the same period in 2018, according to a July report from the California Department of Finance.

This recent Santa Barbara fire was determined to be caused by Pacific Gas & Electric power lines coming into contact and sparking during high winds. California's fire season is beginning to extend year round as a result of climate change as well as housing developments that are in area indefensible by firefighters. Gov. Gavin Newsom is appropriating millions from the current budget to reassess the state's approach to mitigating such disasters.(Photo: Mike Eliason, AP)

He now calls the 3.5 million unit figure a stretch goal. Still, Newsom says the coming years should see growth in new affordable housing.

The housing issue, which is so key to that California dream, we have to hit that one head-on, Newsom says.

So we have $4.5 billion from the private sector, including $2.5 billion from Tim Cook at Apple,"in the form of land for affordable housing, first-time homebuyer assistance and more, he says."We put in $1.75 billion in state money. Were suing cities. We also putting up money to help cities plan for housing. Were looking at land-use policies. I hope in the next year or so well see movement, but theres no silver bullet. Nothing happens overnight.

As mayor of the Southern California surf-hub of Huntington Beach, Erik Peterson isnt so sure about Newsoms housing strategy.

Im not a fan, says Peterson, whose city Newsom sued early in his tenure as governor for failing to permit enough new housing.

Under him, were getting a more authoritarian Sacramento, says Peterson. The state says, 'Everyone will do what we say; you need to rezone your suburban neighborhoods to be urban centers.' Well, we get pushback on that from our residents.

Instead, Peterson says, Newsom should worry more about infrastructure and education, which are falling apart, and lets make California business-friendly again. If you have jobs, people can afford the houses.

In the northern California town of Chico, Mayor Randall Stone, an affordable housing developer, applauds Newsom for being the first governor in recent memory to put money and emphasis on housing.

Stone said he pulled Newsom aside when the governor visited earlier in the year to check on the recovery of nearby Paradise, which was decimated by fire in 2018. Stone told him: The reason theres no building of affordable housing is were disincentivized.

To blame, Stone says, are property and sales tax rates "that only go up 2% a year" and do not keep pace with employee salaries and other municipal costs. That often results in city halls being more likely to approve commercial building projects, like shopping malls and auto dealerships, because they bring in more tax revenue.

A homeless man sleeps in front of recycling bins and garbage on a street corner in San Francisco. California Gov. Gavin Newsom served as mayor of San Francisco, and tried to implement measures to help the homeless, even though their population has only grown since he left that office. Currently about 25% of the nation's 600,000 homeless call California home, a represent a pressing problem for the new governor.(Photo: Jeff Chiu/AP)

"But I'm not sure he can snap his fingers and fix that," Stone says. "Theyre longstanding systemic issues.

Newsom cautions that if a Not In My Backyard attitude persists at a municipal level,state-initiated housing assistance is moot.

All this NIMBY-ism, society becomes how we behave, he says. This cant be, 'I got mine; why dont you focus that over there? Weve got to own it. We have to transfer that energy of angst toward a real follow-through. And Im just getting started.

Some wonder where Newsom wants to end up. An entrepreneurial stint running his PlumpJack Winery company aside, Newsom has been in politics since becoming a San Francisco city supervisor at 29. He became mayor at age 36, and lieutenant governor at 42.

Many California political observers consider Newsoms presidential ambition to be one of the states worst kept secrets.

Both the bust of John F. Kennedy that sits on his desk as well asthe photo of his smiling late father William Newsom, a state appeals court judge,with former U.S. Attorney GeneralRobert F. Kennedy, seem to draw an invisible line between the photogenic governor and Camelot. But Newsom consistently shoots down the speculation that he is preparing for a White House run later this decade.

Honestly, no interest, he says.

Indeed, with its 40 million residents one in eight U.S. citizens calls California home Newsom presides over nothing short of a nation-state.

Laguna Beach, California, in the southern part of the state has beaches and weather that have come to epitomize California's mythic charm. But the state is facing epic problems in the form of growing homelessness, soaring housing costs and raging fires, all of which Gov. Gavin Newsom has been tasked to fix.(Photo: TraceRouda / Getty Images)

Despite Trump administration efforts, California still sets its own climate change goals, brokers its own deals with some of the worlds leading automakers on tailpipe emissions, and puts stakes in the ground when it comes to immigration policies such as its recent ban on privately run immigration detention centers.

Our role is potent and powerful, substantively so at this moment, says Newsom.

But while insisting that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is not on his radar, Newsom said he feels confident about Democratic chances to take the White House in 2020.

Weve offered a lot of different flavors from progressive to conservative, and well be well-positioned to unite around somebody at a time when we need to do so to take out one of the worst presidents in American history, he says.

Newsom was supportive of longtime friend and sometime political rival, Sen. Kamala Harris, including planning an Iowa trip to tout her candidacy before it was scratched when Harris endedher campaign on Dec. 3.

Of her withdrawal, he says simply: She had the burden of high expectations that she set herself, after outperforming many people who have had far more years on the national stage.

Whether it was watching Harris soar then nosedive, or simply tacitly acknowledging success in his first term as governor is key to any presidential run, he says California has all his attention.

This is the office of the governor of California, the fifth-largest economy in the world, he says, looking around the room. Its Earl Warrens office. Ronald Reagans office. Pat Brown, not just Jerry Brown.Its the best job in the world.

Over the past 11 months, Newsom has kept up a busy travel schedule within the state, often away from Sacramento at least one or two days a week. He has visited those displaced by fires up north, comforted shooting victims down south, and talked about water scarcity with farmers in the Central Valley.

What little free time he has back in the capital he dedicates to his wife, filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and their four kids, all under age 10. To unwind, the governor says he likes to take his kids to the local fish hatchery and, his favorite, the recycling plant.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom takes the oath of office from state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye as his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom and children look on during his inauguration Monday, Jan. 7, 2019, in Sacramento, California. Newsom has been out of Sacramento touring the state an average of a day or two a week since taking office, which often leaves him little time for his family.(Photo: Eric Risberg, AP Images)

Im not sure what it is about seeing tens of thousands of things bouncing around, but you get into that space and relax and zone out, Newsom says, laughing.

But those who know him best suggest the governor relishes negotiating Californias many vexing issues.

Gavins the happiest in the eye of the storm, and thats where hes been all year long, says Nathan Ballard, founder of The Press Shop media relations firm and Newsoms former mayoral press secretary. He recalls the heat Newsom happily took for allowing same-sex couples to marry in 2004, a stand that anticipated a national movement.

The longtime friend and informal advisor says that while its not in Gavin'snature to relax, Ballardand a small group did manage to take Newsom away from Sacramento in October, hauling him off to a rustic Marin County restaurant to celebrate the governors birthday.

That was fun, but he knows that now its time for him not just to survive a crisis, but to make this state a better place to live, says Ballard. And the proof will be on the streets. Simple as that.

Newsom, a self-confessed policy wonk, says he plans to get results over the coming years by learning everything he can about as many thorny California issues as possible.

"Governing is all about nuance, the details," he says. "Simple program passing isn't problem solving. When everyone else is running off to the next thing, I have to dig into it all to be sure we can implement changes effectively. I'm accountable."

That approach has critics like Mathis, theVisalia Assemblymember, shaking his head.

Newsom seems like hes trying to solve every problem in the state by himself, says Mathis, whose fellow state Republican party officials recently endorsed long-shotefforts to get Newsom recalled as governor. He needs to step up and start to delegate authority out and do so by stepping across the aisle.

For Anthony Rendon, who has been Californias State Assembly speaker since 2016, Newsom stands apart from his predecessor Brown, who was uniquely not interested in many issues, precisely because he cares about more.

Newsom matter-of-factly sayshe is not capable of not trying to solve a problem. So if todays critique is were swinging at a lot of pitches, absolutely that is fair criticism.

But, he adds, do I tell a senior citizen, 'Sorry, I cant help with your prescription because my team says I just need to focus on a couple of things'? Do you tell kids, 'Preschool cant be a priority because my communications staff think I should stay on wildfires'? Do you tell wildfire folks, 'Listen, we did some polling, and it looks like this year its got to be housing and homelessness'?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, pictured here in his office in Sacramento, has been at the helm of state for 11 months. He says he understands critics who say he is trying to tackle too many issues and hasn't gotten enough done to date. But he counters that as governor he is obliged to listen to the issues of all constituents, and vows that change on key issues will come during the rest of his first four-year term.(Photo: Martin E. Klimek, USA TODAY)

Newsoms eyebrows arch. My point is, he says, when you look at those trade-offs as governor, you just know it all has to somehow be on the agenda.

One thing is certain. With a 2020 to-do list as high-profile as Newsoms start building new affordablehousing, shelter the homeless across the state, fix a broken gas and electricity utility, engage the Republican president in battle it will be easy for voters here to keep score.

But what would he say to someone who has given up on California's golden dream and isnt willing to wait for Newsom to polish it?

I would tell those folks I have a sensitivity to that. Theyre not wrong: The median price of a home is comically high in California, he says, veering off into details on his team's deep dives on housing solutions with city officials in Vancouver and Singapore.

But then Newsom resets.

Im empathetic and sympathetic, and its disturbing to me, he says. But that said, I feel for them. Youre missing the opportunities this state can provide. We had a historic decade in venture capital investment, a historic decade of job creation. There is no Trump economy without Californias success. This is Florence in its golden age.

"Sure, there are costs associated with that success, yes. But if we can balance those out, boy, the skys the limit."

Follow USA TODAY national correspondent Marco della Cava: @marcodellacava

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/15/gavin-newsom-recall-donald-trump-california-governor/4412013002/

Read more:
A year in, Gavin Newsom is still fighting Trump. Is he doing enough to govern California? - USA TODAY