- Trump has seemingly flipped on DACA, arguing SCOTUS gave him new immigration powers and he would include a path to citizenship in an executive order
- He commuted the sentence of his associate Roger Stone
- It looks as though former attorney Michael Cohen is heading back to prison (after a COVID-19 prison related release to house arrest) after balking at a gag order on a Trump tell-all
Dilbert creator Scott Adams once infamously termed Trump a "clown genius", suggesting he employed linguistic killshots to put his political rivals at a disadvantage, playing on his home court. I'm not sure I subscribe to Trump's purported political genius, but certainly if you look at the 2016 primary he put his opponents on the defensive, suggesting unlike him, they were indebted to powerful contributors--including himself. I have watched with some interest on how Trump has tried to turn the tables on his progressive opposition using the construct of the "Deep State", which really resonates with Ron Paul and other fellow libertarians. I tend to be wary, worrying some baffling crap he's doing is some genius 3-dimensional chess master stroke I'm somehow oblivious to.
To be honest, I never got his point. Take, for instance, his primary debate innuendo that Rand Paul's solicitation for a donation was political. In fact, Rand has been doing charity work in Central America as a volunteer eye surgeon, doing things like cataract surgeries, and the donation was for charity work, not his political campaign. But I never understood how middle-income folks would fall for the line because he seems to be alleging he was buying political influence, somehow he was morally superior to the politicians he claims to have been paying off. It's like the john is arguing, at least he's not the whore he was paying. I don't see anything moral about someone who claims to be paying for political favors to accomplish ends he can't reach under market competition.
This is one of the reasons I've repeatedly tweeted over the past few years how Trump tried to steal widow Vera Coking's property through eminent domain for limousine parking for his nearby casino. Trump's response was similar to his extortion of the Ukraine government for military aid passed into law for the purpose of opening a Biden investigation: it didn't work out; no harm, no foul. Coking had to fight billionaire Trump's lawyers every step of the way. To give an idea how evil Trump was on the deal, Coking had been offered $1M for the property 10 years earlier; Trump got the city to condemn the property and then offered a quarter of that fair market value years earlier.
I never bought into the myth that Trump was incorruptible because he could self-fund his campaign. (In fact, he didn't: he raised nearly $270M from other donors, while contributing about $66M, with about $8M left in the bank. Not to mention he got the equivalent of maybe $2B in free publicity from Fox News and other parties.) The idea of "pay to play" didn't just involve the notorious Clinton Foundation. And it was just last year where a Trump Miami hotel property was initially slated to host the G-7, a blatant conflict of interest, which was eventually dropped after unfavorable news reporting. And we aren't even discussing government funds at Trump properties which partial estimates show about $500K, nor to mention at least initial $650/room charges for Secret Service. We don't have full public disclosure of the nature and extent of government spending at Trump facilities. From an ethical standpoint, Trump should avoid the appearance of government spending at his own company facilities. I'm not saying he's using the Oval Office to line his own pocket, but I know if I were an accountant in an audit capacity I couldn't get away with some of the stuff Trump has been doing.
So two of the items I've listed above, the commuting of Roger Stone's sentence and what appears to be a return to prison to Cohen for balking at a gag order on a prospective Trump tell-all, clearly involves Trump's own interest, not those of our justice system or national interest. Not even Nixon pardoned his subordinates. Even Senators Romney and Toomey have condemned the Stone commutation. This is exactly the same type of corruption that was displayed during the Ukraine extortion scandal.
The immigration flip on DACA is more difficult to read because of Trump's typically garbled, incompetent messaging. At some points, he's clearly talking about an executive order and otherwise he's talking about a bill--which can only come from Congress. At other points, he's outright lying, arguing SCOTUS gave the Presidency new immigration powers. No, only the Congress can decide things like citizenship paths for DACA recipients (foreign-born children of undocumented immigrants). He was initially correct: DACA under Obama was never constitutionally authorized. My understanding was that the way Trump was trying to roll back DACA violated some due process requirements by statute.
Now to be fair, some time back, Trump seemed to suggest he was willing to negotiate a DACA deal, my guess, tied to some quid pro quo, say, for his Southern border wall funding. Let's be clear where I stand from my open immigration perspective: evicting kids/young adults who have spent most of their lives as a de facto American resident, attending the same public schools, etc. and who themselves as minors were not responsible for their parents' decisions, is morally repulsive and unthinkable. There is no justice in forcing them from the only home they know, for a country and/or culture they've barely known, if ever.
What I don't quite get is how Trump is going to explain this to his anti-immigrant supporters who have been supporting his anti-DACA stand all along. I suspect that he'll sell on 2 points: (1) DACA won't include unauthorized parent immigrants; (2) he'll get border wall funding as part of the deal.
To be honest, I never got his point. Take, for instance, his primary debate innuendo that Rand Paul's solicitation for a donation was political. In fact, Rand has been doing charity work in Central America as a volunteer eye surgeon, doing things like cataract surgeries, and the donation was for charity work, not his political campaign. But I never understood how middle-income folks would fall for the line because he seems to be alleging he was buying political influence, somehow he was morally superior to the politicians he claims to have been paying off. It's like the john is arguing, at least he's not the whore he was paying. I don't see anything moral about someone who claims to be paying for political favors to accomplish ends he can't reach under market competition.
This is one of the reasons I've repeatedly tweeted over the past few years how Trump tried to steal widow Vera Coking's property through eminent domain for limousine parking for his nearby casino. Trump's response was similar to his extortion of the Ukraine government for military aid passed into law for the purpose of opening a Biden investigation: it didn't work out; no harm, no foul. Coking had to fight billionaire Trump's lawyers every step of the way. To give an idea how evil Trump was on the deal, Coking had been offered $1M for the property 10 years earlier; Trump got the city to condemn the property and then offered a quarter of that fair market value years earlier.
I never bought into the myth that Trump was incorruptible because he could self-fund his campaign. (In fact, he didn't: he raised nearly $270M from other donors, while contributing about $66M, with about $8M left in the bank. Not to mention he got the equivalent of maybe $2B in free publicity from Fox News and other parties.) The idea of "pay to play" didn't just involve the notorious Clinton Foundation. And it was just last year where a Trump Miami hotel property was initially slated to host the G-7, a blatant conflict of interest, which was eventually dropped after unfavorable news reporting. And we aren't even discussing government funds at Trump properties which partial estimates show about $500K, nor to mention at least initial $650/room charges for Secret Service. We don't have full public disclosure of the nature and extent of government spending at Trump facilities. From an ethical standpoint, Trump should avoid the appearance of government spending at his own company facilities. I'm not saying he's using the Oval Office to line his own pocket, but I know if I were an accountant in an audit capacity I couldn't get away with some of the stuff Trump has been doing.
So two of the items I've listed above, the commuting of Roger Stone's sentence and what appears to be a return to prison to Cohen for balking at a gag order on a prospective Trump tell-all, clearly involves Trump's own interest, not those of our justice system or national interest. Not even Nixon pardoned his subordinates. Even Senators Romney and Toomey have condemned the Stone commutation. This is exactly the same type of corruption that was displayed during the Ukraine extortion scandal.
The immigration flip on DACA is more difficult to read because of Trump's typically garbled, incompetent messaging. At some points, he's clearly talking about an executive order and otherwise he's talking about a bill--which can only come from Congress. At other points, he's outright lying, arguing SCOTUS gave the Presidency new immigration powers. No, only the Congress can decide things like citizenship paths for DACA recipients (foreign-born children of undocumented immigrants). He was initially correct: DACA under Obama was never constitutionally authorized. My understanding was that the way Trump was trying to roll back DACA violated some due process requirements by statute.
Now to be fair, some time back, Trump seemed to suggest he was willing to negotiate a DACA deal, my guess, tied to some quid pro quo, say, for his Southern border wall funding. Let's be clear where I stand from my open immigration perspective: evicting kids/young adults who have spent most of their lives as a de facto American resident, attending the same public schools, etc. and who themselves as minors were not responsible for their parents' decisions, is morally repulsive and unthinkable. There is no justice in forcing them from the only home they know, for a country and/or culture they've barely known, if ever.
What I don't quite get is how Trump is going to explain this to his anti-immigrant supporters who have been supporting his anti-DACA stand all along. I suspect that he'll sell on 2 points: (1) DACA won't include unauthorized parent immigrants; (2) he'll get border wall funding as part of the deal.
