Excerpt: "As he told Vogue last July, 'I’m a fun, wacky guy. I’m a silly goose.' Take one look at his bizarre Instagram page... or his X account... and you’ll agree with that. Schlossberg often spends his time shirtless, talking about people’s looks. He has pondered Jesus Christ’s body type. He has commented on his own resemblance to Audrey Hepburn. He has wondered out loud whether Usha Vance is 'way hotter' than his grandmother Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.And then there’s the video he posted this week. Donning a blonde wig and speaking in a Slavic accent, he pretended to be Melania Trump as he performed a 'dramatic reading' of her recent letter to Vladimir Putin about the welfare of Ukrainian children. On Tuesday he posted again as Melania, saying he would 'be going live, answering all of your questions on my show tonight.'"
And yes, I see what Gavin Newsom is doing. Suddenly, everybody's a comedian.
"... because they could determine what was essential. So their goal of decimating the whole federal government, of cutting agency after agency after agency, would occur under a shutdown. Two days from now in a shutdown, they could say, well, food stamps for kids is not essential. It’s gone. All veterans offices in rural areas are gone. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They’re not essential. We’re cutting them back. So it’d be horrible. The damage they can do under a shutdown is much worse than any other damage that they could do.... It can last forever. There is no off ramp. One of the Republican senators told us: We go to a shutdown, it’s going to be there for six months, nine months, a year. And by then, their goal of destroying the federal government would be gone. And finally, one final point here, and that is that right now under the C.R., you can go to court and contest an executive order to shut something down. Under a shutdown, the executive branch has sole power.... I felt so strongly as a leader that I couldn’t let this happen.... I had to do what I had to do...."
By "their goal of destroying the federal government would be gone," he meant, I think, their goal of destroying the federal government would be achieved. I guess it's technically correct to say a goal is "gone" when a goal has been transformed into a reality. I think Schumer got distracted by the hyperbole of "destroying the federal government" and the opportunity to say "the federal government would be gone." The federal government would be "gone" if it were "destroyed." Colorful language is tricky!
But anyway... I think Schumer analyzed the situation correctly and made the right choice. He's getting viciously attacked by fellow Democrats, but I can't believe they don't understand why his analysis was correct. Those whose votes were not needed to prevent what he correctly envisioned — they can carry on in public and kick him around, but privately they must be grateful to him... unless they are fools.
"The constant drumbeat of encroaching fascism will erode the credibility we will need if — hopefully if and not when — it hits. But the truth is that for now, his most objectionable actions have taken place almost entirely within our designed Democratic system.... Look, I really hope that Democrats figure out a way to contain this guy.... How would you use this power?... Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is wielding and then convince us to give that power to you... Enough with the 'He's Hitler'... What would you fucking do?"
Exactly. I love Stewart's reset for the new Trump era.
Curiously, the media maintains that Feinstein was declining mentally for years but neither reporters nor members noted it before her recent election.https://t.co/Cy0wqXzp4f It was only after she hugged Graham after the Barrett hearing that she was declared effectively incompetent
"... for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and our entire country for generations to come.... Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the Judiciary Committee. Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this awful, awful hearing. We are voting with our feet, we are standing together and we are standing against this unprecedented mad rush to jam through a Supreme Court nomination just days, days before an election."
Such an unpleasant look for him. Either wear the mask or don't. And why are these people using the medical supplies and not the washable cloth mask they tell us to wear? And how inept is it to put your finger on the inside? That's actually quite gross even in times of plentiful supplies.
I've already been thinking that much of this mask business is theater, but they're not even getting the theater right.
I've saved the image — a photo by Patrick Semansky/AP — in case WaPo thinks better of its choice and replaces it.
I'm not going to call Schumer an idiot — the way Trump haters call Trump an idiot — because I happen to know that he scored a perfect 1600 on the SAT and was his high school's valedictorian. He went to Harvard undergrad and for law school. I'm seeing his IQ estimated at 170. He's super-smart. There's no doubt about it. I'm watching what he does, and he's not taking the risk of contagion too seriously. He's in a vulnerable group too — he's 69 years old (the same as me).
"... agreed to early Wednesday by White House and Senate leaders in response to the coronavirus crisis. The provision, which was touted by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) in an early-morning letter to colleagues, would also apply to Vice President Pence, members of Congress and heads of federal departments, as well as their children, spouses and in-laws.
During a television interview Wednesday morning, Schumer stressed that the provision applies not only to Trump but to 'any major figure in government.' 'That makes sense. Those of us who write the law shouldn’t benefit from the law,' Schumer said on CNN."
Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.
Roberts's words are carefully chosen, perfectly framed. It's exactly the judgely thing to say, and he had the time and motivation to come up with the absolutely best thing and he got it right. Whether judges are ever intimidated and whether they do respond to political pressure — that's another matter, but it's nothing for the Chief Justice to put in his statement.
As for Chuck Schumer, I used the word "raved," but I don't really know if he got out of control emotionally and spat out ill-chosen words. Maybe he too chose his words carefully and they were perfect for his well-understood purpose. He knew they'd be noticed and he'd be criticized, but that doesn't make it accidental.
Look at the video embedded above. Schumer is reading his remarks. He's rallying an abortion-rights crowd and he's gesturing and using vocal intonation to stimulate their emotion and to get a big response. So I don't really think he's raving. He's playing his role just as carefully as Roberts played his. And I'll bet he could converse intelligently and at length — perhaps in a cozy room with law professors — about the propriety and effectiveness of political pressure aimed at the judiciary.
By the way, Schumer's "released the whirlwind" is, almost certainly, a reference to the Old Testament verse, "They sow the wind/And reap the whirlwind." He's predicting a "whirlwind" that will come as a result of something the Court has not even done. The whirlwind is, I take it, the people's intense reaction if and when the Court ever takes away abortion rights.
"McConnell was responding to a letter from Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) seeking testimony from senior administration officials, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who declined to appear in House impeachment proceedings."
"Yet, he added, being on the losing side of the #MeToo movement, which he fervently supports, has led him to spend time thinking about such matters as due process, proportionality of punishment, and the consequences of Internet-fuelled outrage. He told me that his therapist had likened his experience to 'what happens when primates are shunned and humiliated by the rest of the other primates.' Their reaction, Franken said, with a mirthless laugh, 'is I’m going to die alone in the jungle.'... 'I can’t go anywhere without people reminding me of this, usually with some version of You shouldn’t have resigned,' Franken said. He appreciates the support, but such comments torment him about his departure from the Senate. He tends to respond curtly, 'Yup.' When I asked him if he truly regretted his decision to resign, he said, 'Oh, yeah. Absolutely.' He wishes that he had appeared before a Senate Ethics Committee hearing, as he had requested, allowing him to marshal facts that countered the narrative aired in the press.... A remarkable number of Franken’s Senate colleagues have regrets about their own roles in his fall."
Writes Jane Mayer in "The Case of Al Franken/A close look at the accusations against the former senator" (The New Yorker). Seven of Franken’s Senate colleagues went on record with Mayer: Patrick Leahy, Heidi Heitkamp, Tammy Duckworth, Angus King, Jeff Merkley, Bill Nelson (“I realized almost right away I’d made a mistake. I felt terrible. I should have stood up for due process to render what it’s supposed to—the truth”), Tom Udall, Harry Reid (“It’s terrible what happened to him. It was unfair. It took the legs out from under him. He was a very fine senator”).
This is a long article. Let me just also excerpt the part where Franken weeps and Kirsten Gillibrand's new statements:
The headlines on the front page of the Washington Post are: "U.S. and Mexico reach deal, averting tariffs, Trump says," "U.S. hiring slows sharply as trade war starts to bite," and "Perspective: It’s time to start worrying about the economy." Maybe later this morning the "perspective" will change. Or perhaps I should worry that Trump is lying about a deal with Mexico. Is he just manipulating the perspective?
The agreement, which came just two days before Trump had vowed to impose a 5 percent, across-the-board tariff on one of the United States’ top trading partners, called for the Mexican government to widely dispatch its national guard forces to help with immigration enforcement, with priority in the south, on its border with Guatemala, according to a joint statement.
In addition, the two countries would expand a program known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), created this year, that allows the United States to return Central American migrants to Mexico while they await the adjudication of their asylum hearings in U.S. immigration court, a process that can take months....
On Friday, Mexican finance officials said they had frozen the bank accounts of 26 people because of their alleged involvement in human trafficking, another sign of escalating enforcement efforts....
I see that Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has tweeted about the agreement as well, but Chuck Schumer, WaPo tells us, "reacted sarcastically":
“This is an historic night! @realDonaldTrump has announced that he has cut a deal to ‘greatly reduce, or eliminate, Illegal Immigration coming from Mexico, and into the United States,’ ” Schumer wrote on Twitter. “Now that that problem is solved, I’m sure we won’t be hearing any more about it in the future.”
So he's telling us to worry that it's a phony claim of a deal — fake news. Or does he sound like a sarcastic jerk, hearing about progress dealing with a problem and snarking about how it's not actually completely solved? But what's the poor man to do? His party suffers if there is an immigration problem and if Trump has any success solving it. Oh, I don't know, he could be gracious and hopeful.
Here's the top-rated comment at WaPo, which went up 20 hours ago on a version of the article that did not include Trump's announcement of the deal: "My opinion: There are not going to be any tariffs on Mexico. There never were going to be any tariffs on Mexico. Mexico will change something, Trump will proclaim victory and the charade will be over."
That's prescient, except to the extent that the charade will never be over.
"Her decision is the latest in a string of high-profile Democrats who have rejected Schumer’s pitch out of fear of facing formidable Republican Senators next fall."
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Maddow asks Schumer to respond to a Trump tweet that says, "The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"
Schumer leans in, and in a muttering, tough-guy voice says: "Look... yep... lemme tell ya, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at ya. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this... From what I'm told, they are very upset with how he has treated them."
"He is planning daily floor speeches attacking Republicans for inaction and a proposal for a special Senate committee focused on the issue, which he intends to announce this week. And while there is virtually no chance of passing climate change legislation in a Republican-controlled Senate with President Trump in office, Mr. Schumer said he wanted legislation to run on next year — and bring to a vote in early 2021, should his party win the White House and the Senate. 'This is the first time Democrats have decided to go on offense on climate change,' Mr. Schumer said in an interview.... But the rise of climate change as a rallying cry has come with huge downsides for Democrats. The ambitions of its youthful advocates have clashed with the caution of Democratic veterans... 'Climate change, to our frustration, was never an issue that rung a bell with voters, particularly in the throes of coming out of an economic crisis,' said David Axelrod, the former chief political strategist to Mr. Obama. 'But now we’re a decade down the road, and the road is surrounded by floods and fires in a way that is becoming more and more visible.'... The Green New Deal immediately won the embrace of multiple Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont... 'Do our Democratic colleagues really support this fantasy novel masquerading as public policy?' Mr. McConnell asked last week on the Senate floor... 'Do they really want to completely upend Americans’ lives to enact some grand socialist vision?'"
The Times article quotes Trump's CPAC speech sarcastically encouraging Democrats to run on the Green New Deal: "I think it’s really something that they should promote."
If it's really so bad to run on the Green New Deal, why are Trump and McConnell taunting them about it now? I think it is a bad signature issue, but this early taunting makes me wonder whether perhaps it's good. The reason I think it's bad is that it's all about how awful everything is and how much sacrifice is going to be extracted from everyone.
I think people are drawn to the sunnier vision, and Democrats have worked so hard at painting Trump as dark, ugly, and cruel. The panic and horror about climate change and the demand for immediate and dramatic sacrifice seems to undo all that work and to take on pessimism as the Democratic brand.
I realize the Democrats who are pushing the Green New Deal must think they can put it in a sunny light. It's "Green" and it's "New" and it's a "Deal." But in the old New Deal, good things were offered to people — hope and economic benefits. The Green New Deal asks you to give up hope and to give up economic benefits. What is the psychological draw? Fear? I know there's a way to get to optimism if you can really believe in wonderful technological advances, but where are they?
"But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans."
Here's the text of Trump's speech, if you want to look for where Trump used the word "compromise." He uses it twice, but both times it's about not compromising. First, there's a criticism of those who oppose the wall and won't compromise:
How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job? To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?
Second, there's a refusal to compromise "safety and security":
My fellow Americans, there is no challenge so great that our nation cannot rise to meet it. We can re-open the government and continue to work through disagreements about policy. We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall. And we can welcome legal immigrants and refugees without compromising safety and security.
But perhaps he does, overall, sound conciliatory.
I watched the speech in real time last night, and it was much more moderate than I expected (because I was expecting him to announce that he was going to use "emergency powers" to build the wall). I haven't watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. But I will.
ADDED: I've now watched the Pelosi/Schumer response. I observed my emotional reaction, and I can tell you for sure that the line that reached me was "The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that President Trump's own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened" (spoken by Pelosi).
The word with emotional resonance for me was "humanitarian." So I went back to the text of Trump's speech, and I see that he used the word in his first sentence:
My fellow Americans: Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.
And, to skip ahead to the 6th paragraph:
This is a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul....
In May, he went in for a colonoscopy, the results of which caused concern among his doctors. This led to an M.R.I. that turned up a lesion on Reid’s pancreas: cancer. Reid’s subdued and slightly cold manner, and aggressive anticharisma, have always made him an admirably blunt assessor of situations, including, now, his own: “As soon as you discover you have something on your pancreas, you’re dead.”...
Reid once called the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan a “political hack,” Justice Clarence Thomas “an embarrassment” and President George W. Bush a “loser” (for which he later apologized) and a “liar” (for which he did not). In 2016, he dismissed Trump as “a big fat guy” who “didn’t win many fights.” Reid himself was more than ready to fight, and fight dirty: “I was always willing to do things that others were not willing to do,” he told me.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, he claimed, with no proof, that Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes over the past decade....
Leibovich asks Reid if he agreed with James Comey's likening of Trump to a mafia boss:
“Organized crime is a business,” he told me, “and they are really good with what they do. But they are better off when things are predictable. In my opinion, they do not do well with chaos. And that’s what we have going with Trump.”
Still, Reid added: “Trump is an interesting person. He is not immoral but is amoral. Amoral is when you shoot someone in the head, it doesn’t make a difference. No conscience.” There was a hint of grudging respect in Reid’s tone, which he seemed to catch and correct. “I think he is without question the worst president we’ve ever had,” he said. “We’ve had some bad ones, and there’s not even a close second to him.” He added: “He’ll lie. He’ll cheat. You can’t reason with him.” Once more, a hint of wonder crept into his voice, as if he was describing a rogue beast on the loose in a jungle that Reid knows well....
Reid takes an anthropological interest in the changes that Trump has wrought on his old institution. “You can’t legislate when you have a chief executive who’s weird, for lack of a better description,” he told me...
I asked him if he could identify at all with Trump’s dark worldview. “I disagree that Trump is a pessimist,” Reid said, as if to allow him that mantle would be paying him an undeserved compliment. “I think he’s a person who is oblivious to the real world.”...
“As has been written since I left,” he told me, “I was kind of a strange guy.”
Also interesting — his relationship with Chuck Schumer:
In our conversation, Reid seemed incapable of not constantly reminding me that he did not wish to talk about Schumer, as if this itself was something he wanted me to emphasize. “I do not call Schumer,” he told me. Then: “I call him once in a while — not weekly. Let’s say monthly I may call him.” This sounded straightforward enough until he added: “I talk to Nancy often. I love Nancy Pelosi. We did so many good things, and we still talk about that.” ...
"... that it inspired a short-lived bipartisan campaign, called 'Demand Question Time,' to bring the British tradition to the U.S. '[T]here was something riveting and moving about political opponents squaring off for an unfettered and unmoderated discussion of the challenges that face the nation,' *Mother Jones’*s David Corn wrote. 'Though nothing was resolved in terms of policy and legislation, this was a moment of optimism.' Tuesday’s lively Oval Office photo op—a sit-down between the Democratic leaders, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and President Trump and a sullen and silent Mike Pence—was perhaps the closest American politics has come to a repeat of that unusual day.... Repeatedly, in the course of the photo op, Pelosi tried to rein in the discussion... 'We came in here in good faith,' she told reporters, 'and we’re entering into this kind of a discussion in the public view.' Trump, naturally, was less perturbed. 'It’s not bad, Nancy,' he responded. 'It’s called transparency.' Trump’s surliness and Pelosi’s unease aside, the participation of public servants in public discussions about public affairs does seem healthy. It’s a wonder we’ve gone so long with so few of them."
A politically diverse group of bloggers, commentators, techies and politicos on Wednesday will launch an online campaign, Demand Question Time, urging President Barack Obama and GOP congressional leaders to hold regular, televised conversations like the extraordinary exchange in Baltimore on Friday. Original endorsers include Grover Norquist and Eli Pariser, Joe Trippi and Mark McKinnon, Markos Moulitsas and Ed Morrissey, and many more, including Ari Melber, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ana Marie Cox and Nate Silver. The steering committee is made up of Micah Sifry, David Corn, Mike Moffo, Mindy Finn, Jon Henke and Glenn Reynolds.
The trick in Washington has always been to make sure a government shutdown is pinned on the other guy. President Trump is the first to ever pin one on himself.
In a new twist on the old game of shutdown politics dating to the 1990s, Mr. Trump was essentially goaded on Tuesday by Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York into embracing ownership of a shutdown yet to come if Democrats do not accede to his request for $5 billion to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico.
Pelosi and Schumer "goaded" him into that position? I read it as: Trump surprised Pelosi and Schumer with a move that they had no planned response for. Trump took the lead. In Hulse's telling, Trump was pushed.
“I will take the mantle,” Mr. Trump told the two Democratic leaders in the Oval Office, saying he would proudly close parts of the executive branch if he did not get his way. “I’m not going to blame you for it,” he continued. “The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down, and I’m going to shut it down for border security.”
A smiling Mr. Schumer seemed more than satisfied with Mr. Trump’s retort. “O.K., fair enough,” he said.
So Schumer subtly enjoyed a little victory. In a good negotiation, perhaps, you get the other guy to feel buoyed by a sense of winning. But who's who? They can't all win, can they?
The moment was a little reminiscent of the climactic scene in “A Few Good Men,” when Tom Cruise’s character elicits an incriminating answer from Jack Nicholson’s Marine colonel. In this case, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer were more than happy to handle the president’s truth. Ms. Pelosi couldn’t say the term “Trump shutdown” enough times.
If I had just written "Mr. Schumer seemed more than satisfied," I would not proceed to say "Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer were more than happy." ("More than happy" is especially bad. It's a cliché, and for some of us, it's a cue to go looking for that old George Carlin clip.)
Anyway, casting Nancy and Chuck as Tom Cruise is a funny image. Remember, though, "A Few Good Men" is a movie, with a script that determined the ending. In the Nancy/Chuck versus Donald showdown, the American people will get whatever ideas they want — massaged by the media they select.
What I notice is that Trump played the media yesterday. He kept a negotiation going on in front of the cameras, even as Pelosi requested that the press go away. The media might like to take direction from Pelosi, but they're not going to turn away from the fantastic theater that Trump was putting on for them. Now, the video is out there, and the only thing the media can do is interpret and frame. The NYT idea is that Pelosi and Schumer were running the show. If they were, why were they the ones who wanted the cameras turned off?
In the 7th paragraph, Hulse says the things that suit the Trump-positive headline ("Playing by His Own Rules, Trump Flips the Shutdown Script"):
Mr. Trump has consistently played by his own rules in Washington, and perhaps this is just one more example of how he can upend the conventions of the capital and win a shutdown showdown on his own terms. Many of his most enthusiastic supporters are both anti-Washington and pro-border wall, so his decision to potentially close down a section of the federal government to secure funding for the wall could play well with them. It could also generate some welcome backing from his base at a time when he seems under siege on the legal end and is struggling to staff his administration as the two-year mark nears. In addition, the 2020 campaign is already on the president’s mind, and his efforts to limit immigration have worked for him in the past....
Politicians with more experience in government shutdowns aren’t so sure that is a good idea....
I know! We've been hearing from Politicians With More Experience ever since Trump brought his unique instincts into their domain. As Trump likes to say, we'll see what happens.
... letting the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh know about the latest deadline extension accorded to Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
The newest deadline is 2:30 PM today (Saturday). I'm told — reading the NYT — that they're working on negotiating the terms, but it's hard to believe this "tango" — NYT's word — is really over terms:
Throughout the day on Friday, Dr. Blasey’s lawyers and Senate Judiciary Committee aides tried to work out details like how many photographers and television cameras would be in the room (Dr. Blasey, fearful of being mobbed by the news media, wanted one of each); who would ask the questions (Republicans wanted an outside lawyer, Dr. Blasey favored senators); and what day the session would take place (Dr. Blasey asked for Thursday, Republicans wanted Wednesday).
If Blasey really wanted to testify, I think these terms would easily have been worked out. I suspect this last moving of the deadline is simply because they already know there will be no additional hearing, and the vote can't be until Monday anyway, so why not make even more of a show of being caring, considerate, and accommodating to Blasey? In this view, Grassley isn't really "b-ing" indecisive, nor is he really addressing Kavanaugh. It's a show for us, the sensitive people, and Grassley already knows the outcome of this story — that there will be no hearing and Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
In a follow-up tweet sent after the one directed to Judge Kavanaugh, Mr. Grassley wrote: “With all the extensions we give Dr Ford to decide if she still wants to testify to the Senate I feel like I’m playing 2nd trombone in the judiciary orchestra and Schumer is the conductor.” He was referring to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader.
Schumer is making him do it. I understand teenagers getting pushed around but the man is 85 years old. Grow up, already, or retire. Is he suffering from learned helplessness? I suspect he's simply posing as a man who gets pushed around by a stronger man. Maybe he thinks the American public is so sympathetic to victims these days that he'll get some.
Notice the use of phallic symbol metaphor: Schumer wields his powerful conductor's baton and he's stuck with a stupid old trombone.
"A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: What could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States? Millions of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump."
Said Chuck Schumer.
"This is a disgraceful moment... The president’s party knows better. I know they do. I served with many of them. America needs them to speak out with clarity and conviction not just in this news cycle, but until there’s common sense governing America’s foreign policy."
Said John Kerry.
"It is tempting to describe the news conference as a pathetic rout — as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world."
Said John McCain.
All quoted in The New York Times, here. Full video and transcript, here, in case you want to search there for the reason for these strong condemnations.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
संदेश
