Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Lying has worked for Donald Trump — so why stop now? – CNN

In the first days of his presidency, Trump has shown he will continue to wreak havoc on established facts, even as he ticks items off his political to-do list.

The latest false claim, which legislators reported to CNN and other news outlets, has no basis in fact and apparently originated on websites that peddle conspiracy theories.

However, like many of the distortions in which Trump has trafficked, the voter fraud narrative suggests he deserves more credit and acclaim than he has received.

Throughout his life Trump has insisted he is richer than people acknowledge. Now winning the presidency isn't sufficient. He wants the final score to be adjusted in his favor.

Trump's complaints and distortions suggest that even as he carries out his duties as President, he will reflexively promote his alternative view of reality.

The day after his inaugural address, Trump -- in a speech to the CIA -- denied ample photographic evidence, insisting that his swearing in was in fact attended by a crowd that "looked like a million, a million and a half people."

Coming on his first full day in office, Trump's 15-minute talk was delivered as he stood before the Wall of Stars that memorializes CIA agents killed in action.

It's hard to imagine that anyone could occupy this spot and speak with so little regard for accuracy and truth. However, this is Donald Trump, and he didn't get where he is by exercising care, precision and restraint.

Donald Trump became a public figure in New York by promoting himself as a high-achieving real estate mogul -- before he'd built a single project.

Although political craft often includes cherry-picking facts and battles with straw men, Trump far exceeds the norm and has confounded analysts and pundits who try to assess him.

During his campaign, which included many specious claims about his opponents, much was written and said about how he might "pivot" to show he could be presidential. This change never happened and, now that he holds the office, he seems equally disinclined.

Understanding why requires acknowledging both the man's record and the dynamics that are engaged when people lie and get away with it.

Knowing that character is destiny, parents teach their children to tell the truth, but invariably preschoolers discover that honesty isn't always required.

Adolescent adjustment requires that we come to grips with the fact that lying is part of human nature. People tend to rank deceptions according to the harm they cause, or, in some cases, the greater good they may achieve.

Economists and other social scientists have documented the prevalence of lying and shown that people feel more comfortable lying if they think their deceit will help someone worthy.

Of course most of us want to be considered trustworthy and we know that all relationships, from the personal to the political, depend on reliable truth telling. The exceptions are those who discover they can get away with distortions, and even profit from them. Those capable of the most sophisticated deceptions are bold, brazen, and may even enlist others in support of the process.

History is replete with examples of lies, told and agreed to, with scandalous results. The crime and coverup that doomed Richard Nixon's presidency was a florid display of the danger in deception.

The collapse of so-called dot-com companies -- including Enron and Worldcom -- came when systemic lies unraveled.

After the election, prominent Trump supporter Scottie Nell Hughes told public radio talk show host Diane Rhem "there's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

Amid the controversy over Trump's statement at the CIA, his press secretary Sean Spicer used his first appearance before the White House press corps to support the boss's claims with a lecture riddled with inaccuracies about the inauguration. (He even offered inflated numbers for the local transit system's ridership.)

Conway's reference to alternative facts, and Spicer's strange Saturday rant, provoked pointed criticism of the sort that would trouble someone unaccustomed to Trump-style combat against the facts.

When he next met with reporters, whom he must deal with on a regular basis, Spicer tried to make them understand him -- in a way that Trump never would.

He said: "The default narrative [of the press] is always negative, and that's demoralizing. It's a little demoralizing because when you are sitting there and you are looking out and you are in awe of just how awesome that view is and how many people are there and you turn on the television and you see shots comparing this and that."

It is easy to empathize with Spicer's experience, but if he is demoralized it's mainly because he is part of a team led by a man who has never been satisfied with his real achievements.

When you demand that others reject what they know to be true in favor of a gilded vision that favors your side, you are bound to receive a demoralizing response.

See more here:
Lying has worked for Donald Trump -- so why stop now? - CNN

Donald Trump Is Facing an Ethics Lawsuit After Just Three Days in Office – Fortune

U.S. President Donald Trump listens during a swearing in ceremony of White House senior staff in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Jan. 22, 2017.Photograph by Andrew HarrerBloomberg/Getty Images

On his third full day in office, President Donald Trump faces a lawsuit accusing him of violating the U.S. Constitution.

A group comprised of former White House ethics lawyers and constitutional law scholars are alleging that Trump has contravened the Emoluments Clause by accepting payments to his many businesses from foreign governments, reports the New York Times .

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group behind the legal effort, seeks to block Trump from receiving such payments to his businesses without Congressional approval.

The group fears that Trump's sprawling global empire of hotels and other businesses and his functioning as U.S. President could become entangled otherwise. According to CNN, Trump is linked to over 500 entities with businesses in at least 25 countries outside the U.S.

"We did not want to get to this point," executive director Noah Bookbinder said in a press release. "It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office."

Earlier this month, Trump announced plans to avoid any conflicts of interest while he is in office, in part by refraining the Trump Organization from making overseas business deals. According to one of his lawyers, the President will transfer his assets into a trust run by his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric.

Eric Trump, an executive vice president at the Trump Organization, told the Times that the lawsuit is "purely harassment for political gain" and "sad."

For more on Donald Trump's potential conflicts of interest, watch Fortune's video:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is far from the only group scrutinizing the potential intertwining links between Trump's businesses and his behavior in office. Calling this a "good government issue," Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill earlier this month which, while largely symbolic, would have required the President and Vice President to sell their business interests.

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump Is Facing an Ethics Lawsuit After Just Three Days in Office - Fortune

Donald Trump, Benot Hamon, Gambia: Your Monday Briefing – New York Times


New York Times
Donald Trump, Benot Hamon, Gambia: Your Monday Briefing
New York Times
Mr. Trump attacked the news media, claiming enormous turnout numbers for the inauguration in the face of photographs showing the contrary. Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president, drew derision by portraying Mr. Trump's assertions as ...

Read more:
Donald Trump, Benot Hamon, Gambia: Your Monday Briefing - New York Times

Donald Trump’s team in fresh war of words with US media – BBC News


Huffington Post
Donald Trump's team in fresh war of words with US media
BBC News
Key figures in Donald Trump's administration have become embroiled in a fresh war of words with the media. On Saturday the president had condemned media reporting of the number of people attending his inauguration. White House Chief of Staff Reince ...
Reince Priebus Complains About The Press Trying To Delegitimize Donald TrumpHuffington Post

all 109 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump's team in fresh war of words with US media - BBC News

Is Donald Trump the Next Jimmy Carter? – New Republic

Trump is remarkably unpopular for a president-elect, and unless he can turn that around hes in danger of being a one-and-done president.

Is Trump a disjunctive president? The comparison with Carter is a powerful one. Carter was able to eke out a victory in 1976 in the aftermath of Nixons resignation and Fords decision to pardon him, but he couldnt survive the decline of the Great Society coalition and was beaten easily by Reagan. Trumps win was an even bigger fluke. Going up against another candidate with negative approval ratings, he was beaten decisively in the popular vote but had a run of luck in three marginal states that allowed him to be selected by an undemocratic electoral system. And even the Electoral College wouldnt have helped him had the director of the FBI not decided to baselessly imply that Hillary Clinton was a crook less than two weeks before the election, generating a wave of anti-Clinton coverage that almost certainly changed its outcome. This isnt exactly a robust formula going forward.

Trump is remarkably unpopular for a president-elect, and unless he can turn that around hes in danger of being a one-and-done president. And with an unpopular president and an unpopular Republican Congress in power, Democrats are very likely to start winning back some of the ground theyve lost at the federal, state, and local levels. Trump could certainly be a Carter-like figure in this respect.

But there are two major limitations to the analogy. First, the Republican Congress is likely to accomplish a lot more under Trump than the Democrats did under Carter. Second, it obscures the fact that the Democratic Party emerged from Reagans shadow long ago.

The relationship between Carter and Congress was famously dysfunctional. Four years of unified Democratic control of the federal government yielded very little legislative accomplishment, certainly nothing comparable to the pillars of the Obama administration. Showing that presidents make politics but that politics also make presidents, arguably the most notable domestic legacy of the Carter administration was the beginning of the deregulation and defense build-up that would fully bloom under Reagan.

Unfortunately, the current Republican Congress is far more cohesive than the Democratic caucus of the late 1970s. Far from checking the corrupt president-elect, the Republican Congress has signaled that it will be happy to let Trump and his family loot the Treasury and staff the executive branch with almost comically unqualified plutocrats. The reason for this is simple: House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell see the opportunity to enact a radical policy agenda. There will definitely be huge upper-class tax cuts, fire sales of federal land, draconian cuts to discretionary spending, and other upward distributions of wealth.

This is not to say that it will be all smooth sailing. Having a buffoon in the Oval Office without any expertise or long-standing policy commitments will make it harder to prevail in the most important battle of the next year, over the future of the Affordable Care Act. There will be times when Republicans overreach and fail. But unlike the Democratic Congress under Carter, they know what they want to do and will do a lot of it. A lot more of an ideological agenda will be accomplished by this Congress than under a typical disjunctive presidency, which tends to entail broadly popular compromises or stasis.

Another flaw in slotting Trump as a disjunctive president is that it implies that were still in the Reagan regime and that Barack Obama was a preemptive president. Azari doesnt directly address the issue at much length. But the political scientist Corey Robin, in his intriguing piece in n+1 making the Carter-Trump connection, argues that we are now reaching the end of the fourth decade of the Reagan regime, asserting that Obama is a preemptive president, like Bill Clinton.

The problem here is that the preemptive label just doesnt fit the facts. Obamas signature domestic achievementsincreasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for benefits for the poor and middle class, substantially expanding both regulation and public expenditure through the Affordable Care Act, enacting wide-ranging stimulus through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and tightening regulation of the financial industry through the Dodd-Frank Actare all ambitious statutes, squarely within the New Deal/Great Society tradition.

There are strong arguments that all of these laws were compromised by the need to win support of unsavory vested interests and/or Republican senators, and didnt go far enough. But, of course, the same was true of the New Deal. Particularly when you also consider Obamas aggressive use of the regulatory state on issues such as the environment, labor rights, and immigration, his governing posture was very different from Clintons embrace of the dictum that the era of big government is over.

Typically, the minority party facing a dominant regime moves towards this regime. But if this is still Reagans regime, the opposite has been happening with the Democratic Party. Obama campaigned to the left of Hillary Clinton in 2008. Clinton campaigned to the left of Obama in 2016 (and far to the left of her husbands actually preemptive 1992 and 1996 campaigns). While 20 years ago Democrats would have reacted to electoral defeat by moving to the right, most signs indicate that the party will continue to move left.

Obama was neither a preemptive president nor a reconstructive one. Instead, we are in a political space in which there is no dominant regime. Two ideologically coherent partiesone increasingly committed to expanding the New Deal and the Great Society, one to inflict the crushing blows to it Reagan and Bush couldntare becoming increasingly polarized. The same factors that are almost certain to cause the Supreme Court to lurch dramatically to the left or right when the median vote changes hands will also mean that narrowly decided elections will carry increasingly large consequences if there is unified government and hopeless gridlock when there isnt.

And its likely that this post-regime politics will persist for a while. The Democrats, having won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections, have a viable electoral coalition. Despite nominating an unpopular candidate facing unique headwinds, the party won three million more votes for its most progressive program in decades. Meanwhile, while its a minority coalition nationally, Republicans will remain competitive because of the federal system and skewed apportionment in both houses of Congress. The Democratic Party may well be able to defeat Trump after one term and even stop important parts of the Ryan-McConnell agendabut even if they do, their opponents arent going anywhere. The 21st century figures to be characterized by intense polarization, not by the rise and fall of dominant regimes.

Read more here:
Is Donald Trump the Next Jimmy Carter? - New Republic