Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

A little clarification of the legality of using private e-mails in the WH. From NYT: (emphasis added)

 

WASHINGTON — At least six of President Trump’s closest advisers occasionally used private email addresses to discuss White House matters, current and former officials said on Monday.

 

The disclosures came a day after news surfaced that Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and adviser, used a private email account to send or receive about 100 work-related emails during the administration’s first seven months. But Mr. Kushner was not alone. Stephen K. Bannon, the former chief White House strategist, and Reince Priebus, the former chief of staff, also occasionally used private email addresses. Other advisers, including Gary D. Cohn and Stephen Miller, sent or received at least a few emails on personal accounts, officials said.

 

Ivanka Trump, the president’s elder daughter, who is married to Mr. Kushner, used a private account when she acted as an unpaid adviser in the first months of the administration, Newsweek reported Monday. Administration officials acknowledged that she also occasionally did so when she formally became a White House adviser. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with reporters.

 

Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.

[kenberg]

Did this ever get posted here? Perhaps it was considered obvious. Saw it today in a story about Anthony Weiner.

 

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election. So why won't the media admit as much? By Nate Silver

 

Filed under The Real Story Of 2016. Published May 3, 2017

 

I certainly think the Comey letter had a major, probably a decisive, impact. But let me present an analogy, trigger warning it is a little morbid.

 

My mother died of cancer. That's true. It is also true that she had been smoking for 40+ years. You see my point? There are proximate causes and long term causes.

 

By that time in the campaign, there should have been no undisclosed emails on the Weiner computer for Comey to write a letter about. The immediate cause was the Comey letter. But that should not have been possible as an immediate cause.

 

I have argued before that part of what we see in a campaign is the ability of the candidate to deal effectively with troubles. On this, and on similar matters, she did not look good.

 

 

 

It is truly important to understand just how things went so badly wrong.

 

 

Here is another aspect. We were watching the news tonight when they were speaking of the Kurdish vote, a referendum on separate statehood. I asked Becky: "Do you think one in a hundred Americans can say what makes a Kurd a Kurd?". I don't know, Becky didn't know, I doubt that my bridge partner of today would know or my next door neighbors know or my daughters know. Of course I could look it up. I wish the best for the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Turks, the Syrians, and all that are involved in this problem but my understanding of it is weak. I not only acknowledge that I insist it is so.

 

 

So people do not really choose whom to vote for based on a position paper regarding Kurds. They do notice whether the candidate is or is not able to solve a problem. People see the email problem come up again and they say "I thought she took care of this. I guess she didn't." This hurt her far more than any specifics about the emails. There should not have been more emails to discover. Not on Weiner's computer, not anywhere. It does not matter if they were copies of other, already read, emails. There needed to be nothing to be found. That should have been totally clear to Clinton and to her staff.

 

I am not claiming this is the whole story. I do very much believe it is part of it.

[y66]

It is truly important to understand just how things went so badly wrong. I insist it is so.

Indeed. I believe this is the motivation for Ken Burns' documentary on the war in Vietnam which the Vietnamese call the American War. This exchange in an interview with Mother Jones caught my eye:

 

Phil Klay: The Vietnamese American author Viet Thanh Nguyen talks about how every war is fought twice, once in fact and then—

 

Ken Burns: —in memory.

Nguyen talked about this when he visited my neck of the woods a few months ago and the importance of "just" remembering by which he means remembering with respect for all sides of the truth as a prerequisite for moving out from under the shadow of the war.

[kenberg]

Indeed. I believe this is the motivation for Ken Burns' documentary on the war in Vietnam which the Vietnamese call the American War. This exchange in an interview with Mother Jones caught my eye:

 

 

Nguyen talked about this when he visited my neck of the woods a few months ago and the importance of "just" remembering by which he means remembering with respect for all sides of the truth as a prerequisite for moving out from under the shadow of the war.

 

 

What is truth? I'm thinking someone raised this question before regarding some other important event.

 

One truth is this: We hope for a leader who can handle problems that we do not fully understand and of which we have no intention of devoting months or years to develop a careful understanding. Whether we are speaking of Michael Dukakis in a tank or Clinton emails ending up on a Weiner computer, people make judgments. Not always fair, not always accurate. Actually, many of my judgments about Trump were initially based on impressions of a vague sort. I just figured I could recognize an egotistical braggart when I saw one, and I was seeing one. Now of course we have an extensive record.

[RedSpawn]

What is truth? I'm thinking someone raised this question before regarding some other important event.

 

One truth is this: We hope for a leader who can handle problems that we do not fully understand and of which we have no intention of devoting months or years to develop a careful understanding. Whether we are speaking of Michael Dukakis in a tank or Clinton emails ending up on a Weiner computer, people make judgments. Not always fair, not always accurate. Actually, many of my judgments about Trump were initially based on impressions of a vague sort. I just figured I could recognize an egotistical braggart when I saw one, and I was seeing one. Now of course we have an extensive record.

The problem is some folks believe that truth is not absolute but relative. They also believe truth is a function of belief, so if I don't believe God exists then He doesn't.

 

However, this is faulty thinking. If I don't believe in gravity, I am not given the powers of levitating on this Earth. Just because I don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that I am not ready to recognize a universal law that we have tested time and time again with physics and mathematics.

 

Just because I don't believe that objects on Earth fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared doesn't mean that the law is invalid. It just means I am blocking out a scientific truth that I refuse to recognize.

 

Beliefs do not create truth. They help to explain our stories, but our stories are told from a narrator's perspective not from a universal or omniversal one. Narratives matter but narratives don't create absolute truths ....they create beliefs that don't pass academic, mathematical, or scientific scrutiny.

 

Some things we don't know in this world. And some things we do and belief systems matter, but belief systems don't create reality, they help us to explain what we observe or perceive.

 

While you can always create your own narrative, your narrative may not be based on facts or laws or reconcile with verifiable evidence which makes it conjecture, suspect, and unpersuasive.

[PassedOut]

The problem is some folks believe that truth is not absolute but relative. They also believe truth is a function of belief, so if I don't believe God exists then He doesn't.

 

However, this is faulty thinking. If I don't believe in gravity, I am not given the powers of levitating on this Earth. Just because I don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that I am not ready to recognize a universal law that we have tested time and time again with physics and mathematics.

 

Just because I don't believe that objects on Earth fall at a rate of 9.86 meters per second squared doesn't mean that the law is invalid. It just means I am blocking out a scientific truth that I refuse to recognize.

 

Beliefs do not create truth. They help to explain our stories, but our stories are told from a narrator's perspective not from a universal or omniversal one. Narratives matter but narratives don't create absolute truths ....they create beliefs that don't pass academic, mathematical, or scientific scrutiny.

 

Some things we don't know in this world. And some things we do and belief systems matter, but belief systems don't create reality, they help us to explain what we observe or perceive.

 

While you can always create your own narrative, your narrative may not be based on facts or laws or reconcile with verifiable evidence which makes it conjecture, suspect, and unpersuasive.

I agree with much of what you say, but I see that you have an example turned around:

 

They also believe truth is a function of belief, so if I don't believe God exists then He doesn't.

The reality is that people believe truth is a function of belief, so if they believe that God exists, then he does, even though there's no supporting evidence for it. And that sort of thinking makes folks susceptible to exactly the kinds of problems you identified.

[Winstonm]

The problem is some folks believe that truth is not absolute but relative. They also believe truth is a function of belief, so if I don't believe God exists then He doesn't.

 

However, this is faulty thinking. If I don't believe in gravity, I am not given the powers of levitating on this Earth. Just because I don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that I am not ready to recognize a universal law that we have tested time and time again with physics and mathematics.

 

Just because I don't believe that objects on Earth fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared doesn't mean that the law is invalid. It just means I am blocking out a scientific truth that I refuse to recognize.

 

Beliefs do not create truth. They help to explain our stories, but our stories are told from a narrator's perspective not from a universal or omniversal one. Narratives matter but narratives don't create absolute truths ....they create beliefs that don't pass academic, mathematical, or scientific scrutiny.

 

Some things we don't know in this world. And some things we do and belief systems matter, but belief systems don't create reality, they help us to explain what we observe or perceive.

 

While you can always create your own narrative, your narrative may not be based on facts or laws or reconcile with verifiable evidence which makes it conjecture, suspect, and unpersuasive.

 

PassedOut read my mind with his post. Exploring this belief theme a little further, it seems to me that reality is a better term than truth. The only way for humans to make reasonable assumptions about reality is through our intellect, by using reason. Our reasoning has to be based on something, though, so we look for objective evidence. Lacking that, we have only pure reasoning skills to make an educated guess based on our observations and understanding of the natural world.

 

With all apologies to Einstein, an observer is the last person to ask about reality because reality to him is skewed. Reality is the state of being when there is no observer. The only way to try to determine what that state may be is through reason.

[Winstonm]

Btw, if there are those who still hold the opinion that an urgent need remains to teach critical thinking and reasoning skills, I submit the following as exhibit A:

 

Judge Roy Moore, the frontrunner in Tuesday’s Alabama Senate Republican primary, told Vox reporter Jeff Stein that “there are communities under Sharia law right now in our country,” pointing specifically to Illinois and Indiana. When asked to clarify which communities he was talking about, Moore said he didn’t know and that “that doesn’t matter.”

 

“I was informed that there were [communities under Sharia law],” he said. “But if they’re not, it doesn’t matter. Sharia law incorporates Muslim law into the law. That’s not what we do. We do not punish people according to the Christian precepts of our faith—so there’s a difference. I’ll just say: I don’t know if there are. I understand that there are some.”

 

Understand this is the frontrunner in the Alabama Republican nomination process to fill a seat in the U.S. Senate who is spewing this nonsense without a shred of evidence and then claiming the lack of evidence "doesn't matter".

 

And this guy was an Alabama Supreme Court judge! And this kind of nutcase being elected somehow makes the U.S. exceptional?

[jjbrr]

Judge Moore is a pedophile who beats his wife, so take his word for what it's worth. I don't know if that's true. I was informed it's factual.

[Winstonm]

Judge Moore is a pedophile who beats his wife, so take his word for what it's worth. I don't know if that's true. I was informed it's factual.

 

It doesn't matter that he still beats his wife. What matters is he is a good Christian.

[y66]

From the NYT's morning briefing:

 

Roy Moore, a firebrand former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, defeated Luther Strange in the runoff to be the Republican candidate for one of Alabama’s Senate seats on Tuesday.

 

President Trump and other party leaders had backed Mr. Strange. Mr. Trump deleted several tweets supporting Mr. Strange after the result was announced

.

[Winstonm]

The Trump effect downballot.

....it’s the seventh seat that Democrats have flipped nationally this year—compared to zero for Republicans. And down ballot, Republicans typically do well in the Miami-area district.

[Winstonm]

Anyone else reminded of Russian oligarchs when reading about Trump appointees Pruitt and Mnuchin flying around the country on charter flights?

[RedSpawn]

Anyone else reminded of Russian oligarchs when reading about Trump appointees Pruitt and Mnuchin flying around the country on charter flights?

No, I don't even think of Russian oligarchs. This is your garden variety of graft, corruption, and malfeasance. A simple monthly review of expenditure reports can help management control spiraling costs. However, management can not control what it does not review or measure--especially when management has expensive tastes and believes coach class seats should be reserved for the masses not for government officials.

[Winstonm]

No, I don't even think of Russian oligarchs. This is your garden variety of graft, corruption, and malfeasance. A simple monthly review of expenditure reports can help management control spiraling costs. However, management can not control what it does not review or measure--especially when management has expensive tastes and believes coach class seats should be reserved for the masses not for government officials.

 

You do realize that the president can authorize these expenditures, don't you? Just like Putin allows the oligarchs to have their piece of the Russian pie.

[RedSpawn]

Okay. If a successful US foreign policy means nothing bad happening around the world, you are right. But I don't see it that way.

 

Obama has resisted the droolers who are constantly calling for more US "boots on the ground." He has stopped the US from engaging in torture. He has insisted that the rules of engagement for the conflicts he inherited be structured to try to reduce civilian casualties.

 

I recognize that there's lots of support for the notion that we should bomb the hell out of people until they start to like us: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

 

Certainly Obama is not perfect, and we're never going to get a perfect leader. But I like that Obama does not subscribe to the idea that, "Real men don't think things through." Conservative David Brooks put it this way:

 

 

The goal of the US cannot be to fix everything wrong in the world, and especially not by blowing stuff up. Yes, we do need to defend ourselves, particularly since we've already gone out of our way to enrage so many folks by blowing stuff up.

 

But our policy goal must be to avoid making things worse, and to join with other countries to fix what we can. And, beyond that, to work on becoming the best country that we can be.

AMEN!

 

We have our noses all up in the Asia-Pacific Rim and are wagging our finger in a sanctimonious manner to China to tell them to handle this situation or we will.

 

We can't be the global police in every foreign policy matter. We have to allow China to make its own call in this region without considering our nuclear arsenal as a viable solution to a rogue state.

 

As a country, we need to put the cowboy diplomacy away (ka-pow, ka-pow, ka-boom, ka-boom) and follow China's lead instead of dictating the endgame in the region. The nuclear option is not even an option. It is a highway exit with no return access or a dead end street with no "U" turns allowed.

 

China has responded to this melodrama in a coolheaded and patient way. They have even snickered at our immature Rocket Man characterization of King Jong Un. Cool heads will prevail. Someone needs to remind our snake oil salesman of this adage.

[RedSpawn]

You do realize that the president can authorize these expenditures, don't you? Just like Putin allows the oligarchs to have their piece of the Russian pie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/09/29/daily-202-putting-tom-price-s-charter-flights-in-perspective/59cd5e8f30fb0468cea81c73/?utm_term=.a9a79c76fcd1

 

So we are saying that Pruitt had to call President Trump before he took the charter flights that costs thousands more than a traditional train fare? I am not sure about the review and approval process as it relates to travel for federal employees. Who is blessing the expenditure before Pruitt steps foot on the charter plane?

 

My initial thought is there is a certain "delegation of authority" financial amount Pruitt has to approve expenditures in his department before he has to expressly seek "secondary approval" from another federal executive above him. If the amount of the expenditure is within his delegation of authority assigned to him by the P.O.T.U.S., then he doesn't have to seek additional approval.

 

This is why I think we need to cut jobs at the federal government AND INCREASE THE staff and budget ASSIGNED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL who found this messy situation.

 

Inspector Generals are the ones who pull the curtain back and show us the ugly underbelly of our government system. They create a level of accountability the federal government sorely needs--especially as it crumbles under its own weight of bureaucracy.

[barmar]

So we are saying that Pruitt had to call President Trump before he took the charter flights that costs thousands more than a traditional train fare? I am not sure about the review and approval process as it relates to travel for federal employees. Who is blessing the expenditure before Pruitt steps foot on the charter plane?

I think he's saying that Trump could have approved these expenditures, and if Pruitt had asked he probably would have, and Pruitt just assumed it was OK. But he didn't get the approval, so when it got out he ended up on the wrong end of the scandal. Had he gone through proper channels, it would be on Trump to explain why he approved it.

 

Most organizations have some policy that says what level of management approval is required for different sizes of expenses.

[Winstonm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/09/29/daily-202-putting-tom-price-s-charter-flights-in-perspective/59cd5e8f30fb0468cea81c73/?utm_term=.a9a79c76fcd1

 

So we are saying that Pruitt had to call President Trump before he took the charter flights that costs thousands more than a traditional train fare? I am not sure about the review and approval process as it relates to travel for federal employees. Who is blessing the expenditure before Pruitt steps foot on the charter plane?

 

My initial thought is there is a certain "delegation of authority" financial amount Pruitt has to approve expenditures in his department before he has to expressly seek "secondary approval" from another federal executive above him. If the amount of the expenditure is within his delegation of authority assigned to him by the P.O.T.U.S., then he doesn't have to seek additional approval.

 

This is why I think we need to cut jobs at the federal government AND INCREASE THE staff and budget ASSIGNED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL who found this messy situation.

 

Inspector Generals are the ones who pull the curtain back and show us the ugly underbelly of our government system. They create a level of accountability the federal government sorely needs--especially as it crumbles under its own weight of bureaucracy.

 

No, what I am saying is that just like the oligarchs in Russia, the people in this administration think and act as if rules and laws do not apply to them. They act as if they were oligarchs because they do not think there will be any repercussions from Trump.

[kenberg]

I think he's saying that Trump could have approved these expenditures, and if Pruitt had asked he probably would have, and Pruitt just assumed it was OK. But he didn't get the approval, so when it got out he ended up on the wrong end of the scandal. Had he gone through proper channels, it would be on Trump to explain why he approved it.

 

Most organizations have some policy that says what level of management approval is required for different sizes of expenses.

 

Most organizations have a policy, just as you say. And there is someone to take care of getting it right. A busy person with heavy professional responsibilities may well not have the time or inclination to read all the rules. But s/he doesn't have to. There is someone whose job it is to take care of keeping the busy person on the right side of spending rules. This works only if the busy person cooperates. If the busy person effectively says "Who cares, rules don't apply to me" then stuff happens.

 

When I had grant money I often did not know exactly what the spending rules were. I did however know how to ask someone whose job it was to know the rules on what I could spend how and what I could not. This is not difficult. It all comes down to whether the person thinks it is important.

[Winstonm]

Most organizations have a policy, just as you say. And there is someone to take care of getting it right. A busy person with heavy professional responsibilities may well not have the time or inclination to read all the rules. But s/he doesn't have to. There is someone whose job it is to take care of keeping the busy person on the right side of spending rules. This works only if the busy person cooperates. If the busy person effectively says "Who cares, rules don't apply to me" then stuff happens.

 

When I had grant money I often did not know exactly what the spending rules were. I did however know how to ask someone whose job it was to know the rules on what I could spend how and what I could not. This is not difficult. It all comes down to whether the person thinks it is important.

 

And the reasons why the government ethics chief and the head of the DEA both resigned is said to be related to this administration's disregard for rules, procedures, and laws.

[jjbrr]

You guys are making it sound as if being incompetent is the worst this administration is guilty of. Please keep things in perspective.

[RedSpawn]

No, what I am saying is that just like the oligarchs in Russia, the people in this administration think and act as if rules and laws do not apply to them. They act as if they were oligarchs because they do not think there will be any repercussions from Trump.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/29/trump-fire-tom-price-hhs-secretary-president-says-hell-decide-tonight/716209001/

 

HHS Secretary Tom Price has resigned from office in disgrace.

 

[Winstonm]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/29/trump-fire-tom-price-hhs-secretary-president-says-hell-decide-tonight/716209001/

 

HHS Secretary Tom Price has resigned from office in disgrace.

 

 

I guess it wasn't fake news this time around - just really bad news.

[kenberg]

I guess it wasn't fake news this time around - just really bad news.

 

For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.