[Introduction: this is a comprehensive essay that I've written over several days. I've written blog posts, numerous tweets and Facebook comments, so this isn't so much new ground as an overview and assessment of Trump and the 2-year soap opera of the Russia investigation. I don't really address Trump's contemptible populism here, which I'll probably address in a different essay here, but I'm clearly alarmed by Trump's power grabs and impulsive, unilateral decisions (e.g., recognition of Jerusalem).]
I considered making this one of my rant format posts. I''m sure the familiar reader is aware from multiple posts and innumerable tweets that I do not support Trump at all politically; in fact, if you go to my current Twitter profile, I explicitly identify myself as a NeverTrumper.
My assessment of Trump is complicated. For example, I've long been supportive of drilling in the Arctic Refuge which had been blocked for decades by Democrats and their environmental allies for potential impact on certain animal species. I was worried in part by undue dependence of the American economy on unstable/unreliable foreign suppliers. Environmentalists have long opposed drilling on public lands or offshore, oil/gas pipelines, etc. So in late 2017, the GOP Congress finally opened up the refuge in tax legislation. The Trump Administration is aggressively working to counter decades of environmentalist stonewalling on energy development and transportation with environmentalists working to stave off these projects in the courts.
I applaud the tax reform, especially in cutting globally high progressive business income rates and implementing territorial vs. worldwide taxing schemes which tended to work against the interests of American business/investment.
However, the GOP under Trump, who notably refuses to touch entitlements, spending cost drivers, has not engaged in politically difficult spending reforms, taking on the vested special interests behind each dollar in the federal budget, which has us on a course for unsustainable perpetual trillion-dollar deficits, with interest expenses, even at decades' low rates, rapidly growing to challenge other spending line items like for the Pentagon. Hard-won sequester constraints were dealt away in Trump's obsession with escalating the Pentagon budget even as, in relatively peaceful times, we already outspend the next several countries' combined expenditures.
But a lot of my distaste with Trump has to do with his self-serving character and what I saw as an unprincipled, manipulative populism. I have ALWAYS been pro-trade and pro-immigration. For decades, I had seen progressives oppose these due to labor protectionism advanced by their labor union constituency and/or trying to impose costly labor and environmental policies on prospective trading partners. Democrats have a more nuanced policy as more accommodating of foreign-born dependents of unauthorized migrants ("Dreamers") as part of their minority group constituency. But you can still see videos of Sanders opposing liberalizing immigration, which he sees as a race-to-the-bottom wage competition.
If you go back 80 years as Trump has repeatedly promoted himself as a prospective Presidential aspirant, you will find him obsessing with the trade deficit and arguing about incompetent American trade negotiators. What the hell is he talking about?
I as a consumer want the most value and choice for my spending dollar. Other country vendors may enjoy comparative advantages providing alternatives for my money. It may be that domestic producers have high cost structures (e.g., greenhouses to produce tropical fruits). I may like tropical fruits, but not at current domestic prices. Imported produce may fit in my budget. That makes me and the supplier better off. I don't the government intervening, taxing the produce out of my budget. I certainly don't want my foreign-made purchases being held hostage by complaints that street vendors in the other country are selling knockoffs of Mickey Mouse t-shirts.
In part, Trump doesn't understand a trade deficit (current account): savings - investment = exports - imports. Properly understood, things like currency devaluation or subsidies have unintended consequences. Devaluations can make assets more affordable, which can drive demand for foreign investment (and demand for currency), while a weak currency can import inflation, exacerbating costs and narrowing margins. Subsidies can increase demands for certain products, but that tends to make for a stronger currency, hurting exports and encouraging imports. Excess savings can drive foreign investment, weakening the currency, increasing the current account. Decreasing the federal deficit lowers the need for foreign investment dollars, weakening the dollar and thus narrowing the trade deficit. And, of course, a recession lowers domestic investment and consumption, which mitigates the current account/trade deficit.
Griswold shows how Trump can't tariff his way into a trade balance. Even if imports shrink, fewer dollars on the global market,makes the dollar stronger, discouraging exports and making imports more affordable. Griswold debunks a number of common myths about the trade deficit, pointing out, for instance, that the US had had both trade surpluses and deficits with EU nations, despite the fact American imports are subject to the same tariffs.
All Trump succeeds is meddling in the economy, picking winners and losers, and that is inherently corrupt. Trump is trying to bribe his way to reelection in targeting the Dem rust belt, including WI, MI, and PA. But even that is conflicted. For instance, while Trump is "helping" domestic steel and aluminum producers, that doesn't domestic consumers of these products, like car companies, which either must eat their higher costs and/or pass them along to price-sensitive end consumers.
So for a long time I heard Trump argue that trade representatives were stupid; what the hell wax this fool talking about? Basically both countries open up their economy to the other's products. Yes, to some extent, companies with higher costs and fewer natural advantages and their employees may not be able to compete. But the consumer is better off. Trump is not really interested in the diffuse benefits to consumers (and he should be...) He's really talking about mercantilistic policies behind trade agreements which is one reason most of us libertarians are skeptical of managed trade pacts. (I want us to declare unilateral free trade,)
It was very clear from the beginning Trump had shockingly superficial knowledge of basic policies, even unable to define the nuclear triad (bombers, bases, and subs). His debate performances were little beyond incoherent soundbites and insults. Even if you look at his party affiliation over the last 20 years he's jumped among GOP, the Reform Party, and the Dems, in some cases vacillating over a number of weeks. There is no doubt in my mind this was pure political opportunism; he knew he had no shot of being nominated as a Dem. With unconventional protectionist views and others inconsistent with the 2010 Tea Party uprising, I was skeptical of Trump's chances, but I underestimated the effect of Trump's celebrity and the anti-establishment backlash, where Trump's lack of public sector experience was a feature, not a bug. I wouldn't say I predicted Hillary Clinton's candidacy was doomed, but on paper Jeb Bush should have been the favorite--a popular two-term purple state governor who had promoted an unknown Rubio to the Senate over his successor during the Tea Party uprising. But Bush never got out of the starting blocks, as Trump quickly put him on the defensive over his brother's policies. This wasn't an obvious tactic, because George W. Bush was still popular with the base. I also think the GOP competition underestimated Trump and refused to attack him, hoping to inherit his followers when his campaign would inevitably collapse.
For me, the whole Trump populist shtick was phony from day 1. I still remember Trump blaming Romney'a 2012 loss on his "heartless" Mexican alien self-deportation policy. Which paled next to Trump's horrific opening day anti-Mexican rant, accusing Mexico of emptying prisons of violent criminals across the southern border. It was clear that Trump knew media conservatives were opposed to immigration reform and he sought to manipulate one-issue conservatives with his over-the-top rhetoric. He also hyped his credentials as a "job creator", despite the fact of his bankruptcies and scams ("Trump University")--no turnaround stories like Romney's leadership over the Utah Winter Olympics or relevant Bain Capital's incubator successes.
But Trump's unconventional "genius" was realizing he didn't need the approval of principled libertarian-conservatives like me to win the nomination. I was for Rand Paul, but he had withdrawn, leaving me to hold my nose and vote for Cruz, a son of immigrants who had made his own peace with the restrictionists. Cruz did kick Trump's ass in Texas, but he didn't poll well beyond the South; Trump merely had to do well enough in the South for his campaign to move to more fertile ground in the Northeast.
As for people like me, Trump would simply dismissed us as "elitists" or voices of "the Establishment". That was rubbish. Even when I was a registered Democrat, I was a pro-life fiscal conservative. I left the Democrats over sabotage of the Bork nomination, but I had previously migrated to being a more consistent conservative Democrat alienated by progressive leadership. I registered Republican mostly as an alliance against progressive Democrats, not for party principles. I did tend to vote Republican, but mostly because their candidates were more conservative and free market oriented. There was nothing "free market" about Trump. As a real estate developer, he was closely tied to politicians for zoning variances, etc. I never worked for the GOP in any capacity, and in only one case (John McCain in 2008) did I even make a very modest contribution to a campaign (which I almost immediately regretted doing). Anyone claiming I'm part of "the Establishment"is beyond delusional.
I had promised in the blog to cover the 2016 Clinton/Trump debates, but as nauseated as I was by both politicians, I have never watched a minute of any of them.
I was sort of aware that Russia was an issue during the campaign. I thought that Trump was playing with fire, all but inviting Russia to hack/release Hillary Clinton mail server emails. We have only one POTUS at a time; anything suggesting a quid pro quo with Russia before the election would be a problem. Mueller would later report something like 140 contacts between Russians and Trump campaign contacts. It's not just whether or not there were any deals; it's the appearance and the sheer volume. I do not know if or when these contacts may have attracted the interest of the Obama Administration. I do understand allegations that the Clinton campaign fed false information to the government and to the courts expanding scrutiny of the Trump campaign. Certainly if we saw violations of the rule of law, of government functions being compromised for partisan reasons, that's intrinsically corrupt. But Trump's own tweets and messages fed into this Russian conspiracy nonsense. He is responsible for his own impulsive behavior; he's no victim. And even if Trump didn't know about or authorize Russian contacts, campaign staffers may have thought they were acting in his interests, certainly had no right to lie to government investigators. He had no constitutional or moral authority to hamper a lawful investigation of campaign staffers or others. Self-serving attempts in that regard involve corrupt intent, and a President is not empowered to act corruptly.
Let me be clear. Nixon had nothing to gain from a Watergate burglary. MxGovern was to the left of the electorate, and Nixon had the advantage of incumbency. Nixon, however, was worried that the scandal might politically embarrass the administration and wanted to contain the damage and so tried to obstruct the investigation, ultimately futile. If anything, he exacerbated the situation, i.e., where there's smoke, there's fire. Whereas one might quibble over the nature and extent of Nixon's vs. Trump's actions (e.g., Trump did not fire Mueller, and his top lieutenants have not been implicated), Trump's attacks on the investigation has been almost obsessive from the get-go, and Trump's own lack of self-discipline and unforced errors--that he fired Comey not for Rosenstein's documented reasons but over the "Russia thing". He was furious that Sessions recused himself, had opposed the appointment of the special counsel (Mueller) and attacked Mueller so many times and personally, that Congress considered shielding Mueller. There have been rumors of Trump's pardoning of those implicated by the investigations (Flynn, Cohen et al.)
Trump's lies have disgusted me. They have always been self-serving, bullying, and impulsive. Trumpkins tend to be supportive; they will assert that Trump is exercising his own free speech rights; "let Trump be Trump". No, Trump, unlike the rest of us, took an oath to faithfully execute the laws under the Constitution. This guy often attacks judges, said that certain suspects, with constitutional presumptions of innocence, should be executed, etc. He's got a thin skin and attacks others, even entertainers, who contradict or criticize him; it's not a fair fight because as President, he is guaranteed massive coverage. He's attacked Judge Napolitano and Mueller, arguing that adverse opinions (on his purported obstruction of justice) were sour grapes on not getting job appointments. As I've posted on social media, these were disingenuous. The two have met with Trump, but in each case, it was advisory and not a job interview. In fact, by a 1976 law, Mueller was ineligible to be reappointed to head the FBI. and Napolitano had not been previously listed as a potential judicial nominee by Trump.
There are a number of disingenuous talking points that I'm tiring of seeing Trumpkins repeat, like Trump's constitutional unlimited discretion on firing employees, like special counsel Mueller. Yes, he does have wide discretion, but he subject to the rule of law and cannot act with corrupt intent, e.g., shielding his staff from criminal investigation. The people don't know if Trump and/or his campaign or regular staff were guilty of wrongdoing; at minimum, Trump didn't know what his staffers did behind his back. It was not his place to determine whether his campaign acted improperly. Victory does not come with immunity. He may have in theory unrestricted pardon power but using it to absolve himself or his staff would effectively put himself above the law, which is intrinsically unconstitutional.
The best and only ethical way for Trump to have dealt with the Mueller investigation was to pledge full cooperation and to avoid any appearance or reality of interrupting the investigation. Just like an auditor may open the scope of an audit based on (say) limited documentation of internal controls, stonewalling an investigation can expand its scope. The more Trump protested and even instructed Don McGahn to fire Mueller, the worse it was. Engaging in word games like "Did I say "fire him"?" was transparent. There is other evidence that Trump suborned perjury (e.g., attempting to influence Cohen's testimony) And keep in mind where Trump argued his Administration was fully transparent, he himself didn't testify.
So Mueller releases his report, and Trump has repeatedly claimed "no collusion [conspiracy], no obstruction". No. There was insufficient evidence of conspiracy, of a quid pro quo. That doesn't mean conspiracy didn't happen; they just couldn't prove it in a court of law. Now personally I think there wasn't conspiracy but things like inviting Russia to hack/release Hillary's government emails was very troubling; the natural question was, why would Russia do so? What did Russia expect to get in return? Trump's impulsive behavior exacerbated the situation.
Now for Mueller to outline 10 points of obstruction and for Barr/Trump to argue "no obstruction of justice" is a state of denial. I myself have seen innumerable attempts by Trump to end and/or discredit the Mueller investigation. Mueller basically says that Justice Department policies ruled out indicting a sitting President. In the interim, the Constitution provides one alternative--impeachment.
I came to the conclusion Trump must be impeached earlier than Amash. I realize that it's highly unlikely that a GOP majority Senate will convict based on the fact that Mueller was able to complete his investigation. But just because McGahn refused to carry out Trump's illegal order does not excuse Trump's criminal attempt.
I think Trump's attacks on Amash's conclusion Trump must be impeached on grounds of obstruction of justice are unconscionable. Predictable because Trump engages in Whac-a-Mole with any critic. Trump thinks he is owed Amash's loyalty, but Amash is the most principled member of Congress. He has routinely explained his votes on Facebook. He actually read the Mueller report. He went with the evidence, knowing Trump would have a Trumper tantrum and threaten his seat.
Amash stands alone, with two long-time allies, Rand Paul and Tom Massie, distancing themselves. The Freedom Caucus has rebuked him.
In the meanwhile, I'm getting increasingly alienated by Trump's unconstitutional and illegal abuses of tariff authority and using "national emergencies" to redirect funds for his border wall boondoggle.
