Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump is as scared of running against Joe Biden as he is of running. The question is, why? One reason he fears Biden is because Biden is like him. He's old, gets confused, mispronounces words, forgets things, and makes gaffes. But attacking him for these things invites the obvious response: "He sounds a lot like you!"

Indeed, Trump can't attack Biden without attacking himself. Biden's weaknesses magnify Trump's, which are far worse. There's nothing that Biden does that Trump doesn't do worse. Biden has been touchy with women; Trump has been criminal with women. Biden has hair plugs; Trump has something worse. Biden said Barack Obama was "articulate." Trump said Obama was Kenyan.

Trump hasn't addressed any of these yet. Instead, he is focusing on Biden's mental acuity. "Sleepy Joe," Trump said last week, "he doesn't even know where he is or what he's doing or what office he's running for. Honestly, I don't think he knows what office he's running for."

In typical narcissistic fashion, Trump is projecting his flaws onto his opponent. He did this in 2016 when he attacked Hillary Clinton for running a fraudulent charity and risking state secrets. When Clinton said Trump was Vladimir Putin's "puppet" in a debate, Trump shot back, "You're the puppet!" Which was unconvincing. By parroting Clinton's accusation, he effectively confirmed it. Trump's team learned a valuable lesson from that: Always accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty and do it before he or she accuses you. With Biden, Trump is shouting "You're the puppet!" preemptively.

Trump began the week by tweeting, "The Obama/Biden Administration is the most corrupt Administration in the history of our Country!" To paraphrase Dragnet, the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

This is the downside to the preemptive strike: Every projection is a confession of guilt.

The Republican Party is smearing Biden by likening him to Trump. Steve Guest, the RNC's rapid response director, tweeted: "Joe Biden confuses who his wife is and who his sister is during Super Tuesday speech." Unlike Trump, who confuses his daughter for his mistress.

Donald Trump Jr. said that Biden's "family fortunes" were "totally tied to him being in elected office." The next day, he tweeted, "It's almost like the whole Biden family is entity [sic] dependent on Joe holding public office?" It's almost as if Donald Trump Jr. became a best-selling author because the RNC bought copies of his book in bulk during his father's presidency.

On Tuesday, Eric Trump said, "If my father was making the same gaffes as he was, they would literally invoke Article 25 of the uh," by which he meant the U.S. Constitution.

This is the document Trump swore to uphold and hasn't read. Among the parts he hasn't read, he hasn't read the impeachment clauses the most. At a rally in North Carolina this month, Trump said that Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Pete Buttigieg "should be impeached." Trump is the third president to be impeached and the first president who, after being impeached, doesn't know how impeachment works.

Trump reveals his ignorance every time he speaks, which is too often. Last year, he said, "When I say something that you might think is a gaffe, it's on purpose. It's not a gaffe." Two days later, Trump said that one of America's "greatest strides" was the "abolition of civil rights." It's somehow just as unsettling for the president to declare his opposition to civil rights by accident as it is on purpose, and it's equally plausible.

In an interview on Fox Business in 2017, Trump managed to recount the details of a cake he was eating while launching missiles, but not which country he was attacking. Trump, who claimed to have "one of the best memories in the world" and then forgot he said that, says Biden has a deficient memory.

He does. On Tuesday, Biden, discussing guns, mistakenly said "AR-14" instead of "AR-15." This was the same day that Trump, asked about the coronavirus, said, "I've been briefed on every contingency you could possibly imagine. Many contingencies. A lot of positive. Different numbers. All different numbers. Very large numbers, and some small numbers too, by the way."

This is how Trump speaks: He uses a lot of words to say nothing at all. His mouth is always open and his mind is always closed.

"Have you ever seen a national candidate or nominee stumble over so many words and putting sentences together?" Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked. "I think he's really struggling. I think Trump will make mincemeat of him in a debate."

Paul has a point. It's hard to rebut Trump's statements. That's because it's hard to understand them.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

Read the rest here:
Why Trump fears Biden - The Week

A whistleblower expert on Friday penned a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics requesting the panel open an investigation into Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for illegally and dangerously naming a government whistleblower during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

The letter, penned by author and journalist Tom Mueller,whose latest book Crisis of Conscience details the cultural history of whistleblowing, argues that Paulspolitical stunt defied the express ruling of Chief Justice John Roberts, applicable Senate rules and practices, and federal criminal law.

Senator Pauls actions constituted a retaliatory outing of a government witnesswhich is criminal conduct, Mueller wrote, citing to 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), which criminalizes any retaliatory actions taken against any persons who come forward to provide truthful information regarding the possible commission of a federal offense.

Whether or not the named individual was in fact the whistleblower, as Senator Paul claimed, is irrelevant to this concern. A senator charged with the safety and security of the nation should not be purposefully placing a citizen in harms way for no public purpose, the letter said.

Mueller also refuted the notion that Pauls comments were protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, specifically noting that Paul also said the alleged whistleblowers name during an impromptu press conference and on Twitter.

Court decisions have clarified that such protections extend only to legislative activity, as the purpose of the clause is to protect the free and full expression of congresspeople during such activity, he wrote.There is no way to construe Senator Pauls public outing of the whistleblower as conducive to legislative debate. The naming of a private citizen, in public and not on the Senate floor, is not legislative activity.

Imploring the committee to open an investigation, Mueller said that Pauls actions not only flouted the design of the impeachment proceedings and demonstrated contempt for Roberts in his role as presiding officer, but also very likely chilled future whistleblowers from coming forward and reporting misdeeds in the executive branch.

In the past, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has admonished members who fail to meet the higher standards expected of a U.S. Senator, Mueller wrote. Senator Pauls conduct reflects poorly on the Senate. His behavior violates the bipartisan consensus that whistleblowers deserve protection, which is explicated in numerous laws and regulations including those that specifically prohibit outing a whistleblower as illegal retaliation.

Read the full letter below:

Lankford Letter Re Ethics Complaint by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via C-SPAN screengrab]

Continue reading here:
Whistleblower Expert: Rand Pauls Retaliatory Outing of Alleged Ukraine Whistleblower Was Criminal - Law & Crime

FRANKFORT, Ky. Senator Rand Paul, who often publicly defends President Donald Trump, is speaking out about the impeachment trial. In an interview with WHAS11s Political Editor Chris Williams, Sen. Paul said the trial never made sense.

The great irony of all of this is they accuse the president of abusing government to go after a political opponent. What have they done? They've simply abused government to go after their political opponent. One of them in their argument said, 'Well, we had to get this done because it's an election year. We were in a big hurry, Sen. Paul said.

According to the senator, people from Rep. Adam Schiffs team and the National Security Council reportedly discussed impeachment two years ago, suggesting conspiracy and abuse of the whistleblower role.

Last week, Sen. Paul was accused of naming the whistleblower to reporters, though he told WHAS11 does not know the whistleblowers name.

Following the Senate's acquittal of President Trump on both articles of impeachment, Sen. Paul posted a series of tweets. He said, in part, "I hope we wont go down such a partisan-driven path again."

Make it easy to keep up-to-date with more stories like this. Download the WHAS11 News app now. For Apple or Android users.

Have a news tip? Email assign@whas11.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter feed.

Read the rest here:
Sen. Rand Paul on impeachment trial: 'None of it ever made sense' - WHAS11.com

Last week, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said a lot without speaking a word. At the close of President Trumps State of the Union address, she calmly, deliberately and now famously tore her copy in two and tossed it down with a shrug, declaring her disdain for its contents with aplomb.

This simple gesture sent a strong message. Most speakers are expressionless during State of the Union addresses or they come close; Speaker John Boehner couldnt quite mask his micro-expressions of frustration during President Barack Obamas address in 2015.

Speaker Pelosi offered a cri de coeur in comparison, as she intended. The speech was a manifesto of mistruths, she said during a news conference two days later. It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say, This is not true. And she succeeded, perhaps beyond her expectations. Violating congressional traditions to make a point is itself a longstanding tradition for good reason.

Republicans heard that message loud and clear, denouncing her incivility, accusing her of shredding decades of tradition and demanding her resignation. It was the most classless act ever conducted in Congress, Ian Miles Cheong, the managing editor of the conservative website Human Events, charged.

But was it? Not by a long shot; when it comes to misconduct, Congress has a long history. Congressmen have pulled guns on each other. Theyve shoved and punched each other, and smacked at foes with fireplace tongs. Theyve engaged in mass brawls, toppling desks, tossing spittoons and, in one case, yanking off a toupee. The most famous violence in congressional history is the caning of the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina on the Senate floor in 1856, but it was not an anomaly.

Nor is Ms. Pelosi alone in violating traditions for all to see; it was far from the first time that members of Congress met alleged lies with bold displays of open contempt. In 1790, Representative Aedanus Burke of South Carolina showed his feelings with a flourish after Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury secretary, slurred the Southern militia during an Independence Day speech. Hamilton had said that Southern troops were dispirited and in disarray before the arrival of Gen. Nathanael Greene. Burke outraged and hoping to impress folks back home used the theater of Congress to have his say. Turning toward the visitor gallery, he declared, In the face of this assembly and in the presence of this gallery I give the lie to Colonel Hamilton. Onlookers were stunned.

Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas did much the same when President Obama discussed his health care plan before the House in 2009, waving a handwritten sign that read, What Plan? The things he was saying were certainly not true of the only bill we had at the time, Mr. Gohmert later said. On that same night, Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted You lie! at the president for a similar reason.

By far, the most skilled practitioners of this showy statecraft were Southern slaveholders in the decades leading up to the Civil War. Threatened by even the hint of opposition to slavery, they used bold public threats during debate to frighten their foes into compliance or silence, tossing off insults or dangling duel challenges to set an example. Faced with the choice of a fistfight or a duel or the humiliation of avoiding one most men backed down or held back. For Southerners, transgressing rules was part of the point; it was a show of power.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky used the same form of showmanship when he exposed the alleged whistle-blowers name during impeachment proceedings last Tuesday. Days after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question from Mr. Paul that revealed the name, Mr. Paul did the deed himself. During a period reserved for impeachment speeches, he read his question aloud while standing next to a large blue poster with the name in bold yellow, endangering the whistle-blower and violating the spirit of whistle-blower protection laws in the process; although those laws are meant to protect informants from retaliation, they dont explicitly stop members of Congress or the president from revealing names. Tradition and ethics alone keep them silent.

Although not strictly speaking illegal, Mr. Pauls actions were wrong, and some Republican colleagues said as much, privately admitting that they probably wouldnt have done it. But for Mr. Paul, violating norms was the point. By exposing the name and getting away with it he was warning off potential whistle-blowers-to-be.

Did he succeed? We dont yet know, though the bar of success is low; prevent one potential informant from stepping forward, or even give one pause, and Mr. Paul has scored a victory. President Trumps public name-calling and bullying have done much the same, frightening people into compliance for fear of vengeance in Washington or back home.

Mr. Pauls stunt shows us the real power of such transgressions. Incivility is one thing; bullying people into silence is quite another. The former scores points. The latter potentially warps the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, and smothers the protections that make government go. These are the sins that should merit our outrage, get us out campaigning and march us to polling places. The defense of our system of government demands no less.

The rest is here:
Whos Really Shredding Standards on Capitol Hill? - The New York Times

Its hard not to get discouraged. Our government is so broken and the left is so behind the eight ball that it seems like any progress at all is permanently out of reach. Even the rare glimmer of hope mainly serves to reinforce this sense of powerlessness.

For example, Congress came together last year to use the War Powers Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1973. The goal was to prevent the president from continuing to support Saudi Arabia in the civil war in Yemen. While the resolution passed with bipartisan support, Trump simply vetoed the bill.

This week, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia will bring a privileged resolution to the floor of the Senate. The goal is to limit President Donald Trumps authority to launch military operations against Iran by requiring the president to cease all hostilities targeting Iran within 30 days unless explicitly approved by Congress. The resolution appears to have the support of all 47 members of the Democratic caucus plus Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jerry Moran of Kansas. Thats more than enough to pass the resolution but far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Trumps inevitable veto.

Its a rare example of congressional Republicans dealing Trump a defeat, as well as a rare instance of Congress trying to exert its powers against the Executive Branch. But its not going to have any legal effect.

That doesnt mean the effort is pointless, of course, but its hard to find it as a source of hope.

Its not surprising that good legislation doesnt become law in the Trump administration, but not much would be different with a Democratic president. If a bill could actually overcome a Republican filibuster, it would probably not be all that worthwhile. If the bill somehow circumvented the filibuster and it was in any way transformative, its likely that the conservative courts would rule it unconstitutional. This problem is so obvious that progressives are already demanding that the next Democratic president increase the size of the Supreme Court and demand that the Senate do away with the legislative filibuster. If either of those things are not done, then theres little chance that a President Sanders or a President Klobuchar or any Democratic president will be able to fulfill a single major campaign promise.

But its hard to see the Democratic Party as unified enough to accomplish this. At least initially, there will be no majority in the Senate for gutting the filibuster, and everyone remembers how badly FDR was hurt when he tried to stack the court. Maybe if the congressional Democrats see enough of their work product help up and stymied, they will come around. But, by that time, the critical first year of a new presidents term will have passed and everyone will be worried about the midterms.

And, note that I am here assuming that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2020 and take full control of Congress. If they dont accomplish both of those things, then no legislative progress is even conceivable at all.

Theres really nothing to do but keep fighting, but its sometimes hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

View original post here:
Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel? - Washington Monthly