Donald Trump once again showed he was a liar, more than 13,000 times in less than three years, when he asserted yesterday, that he was the first President since George Washington to donate his salary to charity.
First point to make is if he did donate his salary, which one can highly doubt, who gained the benefit is the question. Trump has claimed he has given to the National Park Service (hard to believe); the Department of Education; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Small Business Administration; the Surgeon General’s Office; and the Department of Agriculture. I would think there should be some proof beyond his statement, with his consistent habit of lying about everything imaginable.
Secondly, the record shows two Presidents, both super wealthy for their times, regularly donated their salaries. These were the 31st President, Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), and the 35th President, John F. Kennedy (1961-1963).
Finally, even if Donald Trump is donating his salary, by playing golf, he has spent at least 83 years of his salary on his hobby, at taxpayer expense. And he has spent more on golf in less than three years in office than Barack Obama spent on vacations over eight years.
Last week, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton delivered a McCarthyite attack against Iraq War veteran, U.S. congresswoman, and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. Discussing this are Aaron Maté and Max Blumenthal.
https://youtu.be/IRp7iEVZD6c
I very highly doubt Dumb Dumb Trump has given to any charity in his life.
Dumb Dumb Trump declares that investigating his crimes is a ‘lynching’. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/22/1894238/-Donald-Trump-declares-that-investigating-his-crimes-is-a-lynching
The Overwhelming Evidence in Support of Clinton’s Claims About Gabbard
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/22/the-overwhelming-evidence-in-support-of-clintons-claims-about-gabbard/
Hillary Clinton stirred up quite the hornet’s nest when she said this during a podcast interview with David Plouffe.
[“I’m not making any predictions but I think they [the Kremlin] have got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,†Clinton said. “She’s the favorite of the Russians… They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.â€]
Even though Clinton didn’t say the name of the person she was referring to, Tulsi Gabbard immediately knew who she was talking about and responded with an unhinged rant about Clinton on Twitter—then proceeded to go on Tucker Carlson’s show to repeat her attack.
A lot of reporters in the mainstream media claimed that Clinton had accused Gabbard of being a Russian asset without any evidence, while Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia, took to the New York Times to suggest that Clinton’s remarks were a conspiracy theory based simply on innuendo.
I suspect that Clinton chose her words carefully and, rather than accuse Gabbard of anything, was connecting the dots about Russia’s interference based on evidence that has been widely reported. For example, back in February, Robert Windrem and Ben Popken reported that “Russia’s propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard.â€
[An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.
Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.]
Having been on the front line of Putin’s last attempt to interfere in a presidential election, Clinton is very aware of the tactics that were used against her. It wasn’t simply that Moscow supported Donald Trump. In his indictment against those who participated in Russia’s social media campaign, Robert Mueller documented that they were also involved in supporting candidates during the Democratic primary.
[A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton…
The document, which spells out in detail how the Russians worked to support Trump’s campaign, alleges that on or about Feb. 10, 2016, the Russians internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted on social media accounts.
“Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them),’†the indictment said.
On or about Nov. 3, 2016, just five days before the election, the Russians tried to boost Stein’s campaign by buying an ad to post on the Instagram account “Blacktivisit,†according to the indictment. The ad read in part: “Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it’s not a wasted vote.â€]
The evidence is clear: Russia established a pattern of attempting to disrupt the Democratic primary in 2016 and is obviously doing the same thing this year. The only remaining question is why they chose Tulsi Gabbard.
The most obvious answer to that question is that Gabbard has centered her campaign on a message of ending regime change wars, like the one in Syria. That is based on a lie, and just so happens to reflect the talking points embraced by Assad and Putin. The United States condemned Assad’s use of violence to put down civilian protests against his regime, which is how the civil war in that country began. But U.S. military involvement in Syria has always been about defeating ISIS, particularly by working with the Kurds.
Gabbard also tries to sell herself as the anti-war candidate who stands for peace. But in addition to calling herself a “hawk†when it comes to the war on terror, her past positions hardly qualify as peaceful. When Putin and Assad began bombing northwestern Syria—a campaign that has been labeled a war crime—Gabbard endorsed their efforts.
[Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 1, 2015
Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 1, 2015]
When it comes to Gabbard’s voting record in Congress, she is one of only a handful of representatives who voted against the Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned Russians involved in the murder of tax accountant Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009. In addition, she was one of only three representatives listed as “not voting†on two other bills related to Russia.
[Last week, the House voted on a bill honoring slain Russian opposition figure Boris Nemtsov, who was assassinated in Moscow in 2015. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), came with a number of provisions, including calling for an investigation into Nemtsov’s death and sanctions against those responsible. The bill also condemned Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin for persecuting political opponents…
Soon after, the House voted on a bill sponsored by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) that reiterated America’s position of not recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea.]
Vladimir Putin has focused his efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy on three areas: (1) Ukraine, (2) Syria, and (3) overturning the Magnitsky Act. On all three, Gabbard has either provided direct support or failed to oppose his aims. Of course, it also helps that Gabbard has positioned herself to malign not only Hillary Clinton, but the entire Democratic Party as well—specifically by claiming that the 2020 election has already been rigged.
None of that is evidence to suggest that Gabbard is an active agent of the Kremlin. It might be that Putin is supporting her because her views align with his. As John Sipher notes, Russians calls someone like that a “useful idiot.â€
[The Russians – like the Soviets before them – generally have a much larger stable of assets. They utilize fellow travelers, terrorists, and members of fringe groups as well as maintaining friendships with people who either knowingly or unknowingly accept their propaganda. They call these people “useful idiots.â€â€¦
One reason the intelligence services in Russia are more comfortable with sources that have not signed on the dotted line is that the Kremlin uses its intelligence services for more purposes than western counterparts. …Russian intelligence services play a more central role in carrying out their foreign policy objectives. It plays an active and offensive role. They use their services to engage in information warfare, disseminate disinformation, support propaganda, engage in perception management and sow chaos abroad.]
That was the focus of Clinton’s claims about Gabbard and the evidence is overwhelming that she is right to sound the alarm. To ignore it is to invite the same kind of interference that infected the 2016 presidential election.
Any “Democrat” who runs to Tucker Carlson’s White Supremacist show for consolation is a no-no for me.
In addition to promoting Tulsi Gabbard, the far right is also promoting Andrew Yang on social media.
https://www.axios.com/tulsi-gabbard-right-wing-conservative-social-media-boost-7fc331ea-842f-4dca-9c3f-047d00ba24b9.html
The far right boosting candidates with no shot is a clear attempt to try to splinter the Democratic Party and make it easier for Twitler to win re-election.
Thanks, Pragmatic Progressive for your posting of the article on Tulsi Gabbard, and Princess Leia, for the indication that the far Right is promoting Andrew Yang.
Both are distractions from the job of defeating Donald Trump and the Far Right agenda, too often in the same direction as Vladimir Putin!
Speaking of Putin –
We Used to Oppose the Rise of Authoritarianism in Europe
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/22/we-used-to-oppose-the-rise-of-authoritarianism-in-europe/
In our June/July/August 2015 issue, we published an article by Eleni Kounalakis, our United States ambassador to Hungary during much of the Obama administration. The piece explored Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response to the 2010 election of Viktor Orbán. It was a story about how Clinton and her diplomats rallied to keep authoritarianism at bay in eastern Europe. Their successes in Hungary were partial and quite fragile. As the Washington Post explains, they couldn’t survive the election of Donald Trump. The United States now sides with the authoritarians.
[Trump’s conversations with Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and others reinforced his perception of Ukraine as a hopelessly corrupt country — one that Trump now also appears to believe sought to undermine him in the 2016 U.S. election, the officials said…
…their disparaging depictions of Ukraine reinforced Trump’s perceptions of the country and fed a dysfunctional dynamic in which White House officials struggled to persuade Trump to support the fledgling government in Kyiv instead of exploiting it for political purposes, officials said.]
The government, very much including Trump’s own national security staff, has been powerless to stop this reversal.
[The efforts to poison Trump’s views toward [Ukrainian President] Zelensky were anticipated by national security officials at the White House, officials said. But the voices of Putin and Orban took on added significance this year because of the departure or declining influence of those who had sought to blunt the influence of Putin and other authoritarian leaders over Trump…
…“Over time you just see a wearing down of the defenses,†a former White House official said, describing the struggle to contest the influence of Giuliani, Putin and Orban…
…American policy has for years been “built around containing malign Russian influence†in Eastern Europe, a U.S. official said. Trump’s apparent susceptibility to the arguments he hears from Putin and Orban is “an example of the president himself under malign influence — being steered by it.â€]
Most significantly, there was much resistance to granting a visit to Orbán, but that resistance eventually crumbled:
[The May conversation with Putin coincided with a White House visit by Orban that many in the administration had opposed because of the Hungarian leader’s moves to undercut democratic institutions in that country and his combative relations with U.S. allies in Europe…
…White House and State Department officials had sought to block an Orban visit since the start of Trump’s presidency, concerned that it would legitimize a leader often ostracized in Europe. They also worried about Orban’s influence on the U.S. president.
“Basically, everyone agreed — no Orban meeting,†said a former White House official involved in internal discussions. “We were against it because [we] knew there was a good chance that Trump and Orban would bond and get along.â€]
Apparently, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney overruled the consensus of national security figures and green lighted the Orbán visit.
[The effort to keep distance between Trump and Orban began to fray earlier this year with the departures of senior officials and the emergence of new voices around the president. Among the most important was Mulvaney, who became acting chief of staff in January and was seen as sympathetic to Orban’s hard-right views and skepticism of European institutions. In Congress, Mulvaney’s former Freedom Caucus colleagues last year backed Orban’s efforts to kill a small U.S. grant designed to nurture independent media outlets in Hungary.
Mulvaney’s involvement in approving the Orban visit was one of several instances in which he overruled national security officials, officials said.]
It’s odd that the “Freedom†Caucus in Congress is opposed to a free press in Hungary, but I’m not sure they were the driving force here. Mulvaney is ultimately in charge of translating the president’s wishes into policy. If Trump wants dirt on Joe Biden, he’s going to facilitate that. If he wants a meeting with Orbán, then it doesn’t matter how many people at the State Department or the National Security Council object.
The key point is that Trump takes direction from Vladimir Putin and his quislings. Putin bad-mouths Ukraine and so Trump withholds military aid and translates a legal obligation to provide it into something that can benefit his political prospects.
As Nancy Pelosi said to his face in a recent White House meeting, with Trump, all roads lead to Putin. Every controversial decision he makes seems to benefit Russia. The decision to host Orbán is just one more piece of evidence in support of this observation.
Former Republican, the situation involving Hungary only complicates the future of Europe, caused by Putin loving Donald Trump! 🙁
Pragmatic Progressive posted an October 22, 2019 piece, titled “The Overwhelming Evidence in Support of Clinton’s Claims About Gabbard,†written by “Washington Monthly’s†Nancy LeTourneau.
LeTourneau writes, “I suspect that [Hillary] Clinton chose her words carefully and, rather than accuse Gabbard of anything, was connecting the dots about Russia’s interference based on evidence that has been widely reported.â€
“I suspect†Nancy LeTourneau also chose some of “her words carefully.†I’m more interested in the words and message by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton: “‘They’re also going to do third-party again. And I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far…’†[Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-russians-grooming-2020-candidate-party-run/story?id=66371944%5D.
The “ABC News†report also says, “Clinton does not mention Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard by name and there are five Democratic women running for president this cycle: Gabbard, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, California Sen. Kamala Harria and author Marianne Williamson. However, the comment appeared to be aimed at Gabbard.â€
Hillary Clinton is not clever. She did not direct her attack against any of the other female 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Clinton did use the word “her.†No one following the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries—and U.S. politics—thinks Clinton was referring to Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren or Marianne Williamson. Hillary Clinton was directing her McCarthyite attack against Tulsi Gabbard. (She also delivered a McCarthyite attack against 2012 and 2016 Green Party presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein.)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Nancy LeTourneau continues her support of Hillary Clinton’s McCarthyite attack against Tulsi Gabbard with the following: “For example, back in February [2019], Robert Windrem and Ben Popken reported that ‘Russia’s propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard.’â€
The February 2019 piece to which Nancy LeTourneau relies on for part of her “overwhelming evidence†was exposed as a fraud.
‘[“NBC Newsâ€] and “New Knowledge†Launch Smear Campaign Against Tulsi Gabbard 2020’
By 21WIRE (02.04.2019)
https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/02/04/nbc-news-and-new-knowledge-launch-smear-campaign-against-tulsi-gabbard-2020/
“Who is providing the ‘scientific’ backing for [‘NBC News’] journalists Robert Windrem and Ben Popken? It turns out that New Knowledge, a firm spawned by social media billionaire LinkedIn founder and Democratic Party backer Reid Hoffman, and implicated just weeks ago in fraud and election meddling related to the recent [December 2017] Alabama Senate race – has resurfaced again as the ‘source’ for a smear campaign being led by [‘NBC News’] against Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard.â€
(Also recommended: “Firm That Warned Americans Of Russian Bots…Was Running An Army Of Fake Russian Bots,†By Tyler Durden, 12.30.2018, @ https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-30/firm-warned-americans-russian-bots-was-running-army-fake-russian-bots.)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
This “Washington Monthly†piece is one more example why I do not respect—and why I do not trust—Nancy LeTourneau.
Thank you for that, Pragmatic. D dismisses the concerns, but the fact is, the concerns are real. D needs to get used to that fact and quit falsely labeling anyone expressing concern as having some kind of nefarious agenda.
Russians are at it again on Facebook, attacking Biden, Warren, Harris.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/tech/russia-instagram-accounts-2020-election/index.html
Gabbard is getting primaried next year. Her challenger is Hawaii state senator Kai Kahele.
https://www.kaikahele.com/
Ron Paul digs Tulsi: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-backs-tusli-gabbards-2020-bid-in-appearance-on-russian-tv-she-is-good-on-foreign-policy/
That’s reason enough for me not to like her.
Leia – I abhor Rand Paul and the rest of the Teabaggers.
Rational Lefty writes, “D dismisses the concerns, but the fact is, the concerns are real. D needs to get used to that fact and quit falsely labeling anyone expressing concern as having some kind of nefarious agenda.â€
I do not dismiss—and I do not lack (to put it mildly) a concern for—2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton using McCarthyism to attack Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein.
No one else here (up to this point) has expressed that concern. Instead, what I see is support—from so-called progressives—for the McCarthyite attacks by Hillary Clinton targeting most especially the Iraq War veteran, U.S. congresswoman, and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. (By the way: Gabbard still serves as a Hawaii Army National Guard major.)
Nancy LeTourneau also knows about New Knowledge. She included that “NBC News†report, anyway, for what she figures makes her argument supporting Hillary Clinton’s McCarthyite attack against Tulsi Gabbard credible. So, that is a more revealing example showing us LeTourneau is dishonest. Her piece, posted by Pragmatic Progressive, is more reason why Nancy LeTourneau is not trustworthy.
The Professor doesn’t trust Tulsi either, for the very same reasons we have expressed. So are you going to falsely label him as being McCarthyite as well?
I would hope that all of us on this blog could be cordial, and stop labeling people with names.
I can say clearly I am NOT a McCarthyite, far from it, but I also am NOT thrilled by Tulsi Gabbard, who is not a serious candidate and has no chance to be the Democratic Party nominee for President.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton gives her more attention than she deserves, but at the end, neither Hillary nor Tulsi will be the nominee!
Tulsi frequely going on Tucker Carlson’s White Power Hour show, whining about the Democrats while parroting Trump’s talking points, makes her sound like a wannabe Republican.
I must say that anyone going on Tucker Carlson’s show is suspect, as he is a total disgrace of a talk show host, and spews lies and right wing propaganda all of the time!
I have no respect for Tucker Carlson, or the evening crowd at Fox News Channel, and particularly, even more than Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, both absolutely disgraceful! 🙁
Elizabeth Warren didn’t want to do a town hall on Fox for the very same reason. She calls Fox News a “hate-for-profit racket†that gives a “megaphone to racists and conspiracists†and represents everything her presidential campaign is fighting against. I highly support her decision.
Biden and Gabbard suffered hits to favorability after the October debate.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/466838-biden-gabbard-suffer-hits-to-favorability-after-debate
I agree with this from the Guardian. November debate is looking to be way too many again. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/20/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-democratic-debate-donald-trump
I agree with Vox. Neither one of them came out of this looking good.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained
Another opinion writer we read at Washington Monthly is Martin Longman. You can check out his opinion articles at his blog, Progress Pond. http://www.progresspond.com
I hear that Tulsi has decided not to run for re-election for Congress. After her failed run for POTUS, I’m betting she’ll wind up as a Fox News commentator.