How Republicans Are Digging Their Own Grave By Being Overly Defensive

(Un)Popular Statement of the day: By defending Flynn on unrelated personal misdeeds, the conservatives helped perpetuate conspiracy theories and false narratives.

Frankly, by ceding moral ground on various issues in the course of last year's elections, Republicans have made both the president and the party as a whole more vulnerable to baseless attacks. Had more of them been willing to stick by issues, while calling out various officials when they warranted it, instead of adopting the head-in-the-sand approach with regards to every accusation from the left, we would not be wasting our money on an investigation into obstruction of justice claims by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and giving free ammunition to Mueller.

Mugabe and The Dog's Ear

There's a good old-fashioned military coup in Zimbabwe with the horrible dictator Mugabe in custody, but no one cares because everyone's too busy discussing the breaking news brought to you by CNN of how Trump looks like the inside of a dog's ear.

Republicans Continue Tripping Over Their Own Feet

We no longer have the specter of Hillary haunting our upcoming electoral future. How are Republicans going to motivate the voters into turning out en masse to the Congressional elections next year when a) the momentum is with the Democrats, who are staunchly opposing Donald Trump (and any Republican initiative) b) Republicans are disunited and ready to eat each other alive c) many Republican Congressmen are retiring, so many of the spots will be up for grabs and d) Republicans have thus far failed spectacularly to deliver on their promises? You cannot keep scaring people with imaginary boogeymen forever, and you cannot keep feeding them incoherent and half-baked promises that your own state's constituents don't actually want or you are not ready to full-heartedly sell to them and to fight for in Congress. You also cannot keep backing Obama-lite foreign policy that leaves us and our allies less secure and dominated by aggressive and tyrannical powers. 

At the rate we are going, we are facing a massive and well-deserved blowout... which will not teach anybody, anything as Republicans, after each loss, will continue to use DOnald Trump's unpopularity or failure of any particular candidate to align with him, for this loss rather than engage in self-reflection on how party can do better. I've said it before and I'll say it again: you can bully people into supporting a particular candidate at the Convention. You cannot bully them or the entire country into sharing the spirit of the message that candidate brings. That just doesn't work; GOP's messaging continues to be behind the times and poorly delivered, and the same "old hands" from their positions of looking down, continue to believe that charging after your own and forcefeeding cheap propaganda somehow translates into unity building are completely delusional. I do not hope that the Republican politicians will take any lessons from last night's electoral developments or the very obvious pattern easily observable on the ground, but I do hope that grassroots, sooner or later, and with however many election losses and intersectionality victories it requires, eventually figure it out.

Trump Campaign's Best Defense Against Accusations of Collusion Is Lack of Central Planning

So the narrative that George Papandapolous was unimportant, had no connections to anyone important, and was not an authorized member of the campaign is failing. He appears to have been present at a national security briefing with Trump himself in attendance.

On the other hand, the campaign was chaotic, and it sounds like any random idiot could get into national security meetings without a specific authorization, a trend that continued well into the White House, until COS Kelly put a kibosch on that. What this tells you is that

1. Trump's campaign was more incompetent in basic security matters than it was malicious and conspiring

and

2. Current apologists are trying way too hard. Trump's best defense is not the attempt to diminish the significance of GP, but actually the inherent flaws of his campaign.

There was mass miscommunication and disorganization, which we have seen with the rollout of the immigration EO early at the start of administration. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. You can't have a properly masterminded collusion there. Rather, it sounds like a bunch of haphazard opportunistic contacts at various levels and for various reasons.

When the Cover-Up Is a Crime, and the Actual Act Being Covered Isn't

I'm of mixed feelings on the George Papadopolous case. On the one hand, it's commendable that the White House is not covering up for obstruction of justice in the form of George P's lies to the FBI, and fully cooperated with the probe, and gave everything that was needed to build the case.

On the other hand, I can't really rid myself of a nagging feeling that George P. may have been lying per the request FROM the White House, and if so, he is being made into a scapegoat for not only the thrust of misguided initial policy towards Putin, but engaging in crime for the sake of the President who is perfectly ok with having someone else commit a crime just to avoid scrutiny of non-criminal but bad policy.

I mean, I wasn't sure what Papadapolous thought would happen as a result of his lies, and it was remarkably stupid and unethical for him to do that, regardless of whether he did that of his own initiative or was asked to do so. But there is something altogether Nixonian about having low-level grunts engage in obstruction of justice to cover up for someone with an enormous ego who is likely not man enough to face the political consequences of strategic mistakes made during his presidential campaign. Again, the irony of this is that none of the initial comments about Putin or even meetings with Russian diplomats are in and of themselves criminal.

It's the cover-up that raises legal questions, and it's unclear why it's even necessary, since it makes the whole thing look significantly worse than it was originally was.

How FBI, the Clinton Campaign, and DNC Colluded over the Trump dossier

Money quote from the WaPo bombshell about Clinton Campaign/DNC collusion over the Trump dossier:

"After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports."

Let's translate this: FBI, having relied on the likely compromised report to try to get FISA warrants, continued to rely on the same source even as it became increasingly obvious that something funny was going on and that both his client and his sources had political agendas. And this continued after the election, and McCain found out about it before the president. Not until Trump had taken office did the FBI reveal that they were secretly spying on him via a paid agent of the Democratic party.
Methinks, it's time for a long thorough Congressional investigation of all involved.

How Obama Outtrumped Trump

With respect to the media, Obama did what Trump brags about wanting to do.

Whatever else you want to think about the two presidents, Obama is way more competent at being evil than Trump.

After all, Trump has yet to actually abuse the Espionage Act to search the journalists' phone records, particularized search targeting, and so forth. In fact, I doubt he is even aware of that possibility.

So do be duly horrified of the President's dangerous and reckless statements, but also keep in context that what he merely thinks about doing someone else has already done. Likely setting an example for others to follow.

What Will Not Defeat Trumpism - and What May

RINOism is never going to weaken Trumpism. It will only empower Trumpism. The only real response that could possibly sway Trump supporters in a different direction is strong, principled, consistent conservatism without the overblown populist rhetoric and buffoonery.

At the end of the day, while many people may prefer Trump and Trumpism to Democrats, they want a non-chaotic, consistent, and well thought out response to the issues they are concerned about. If the Republicans can develop that brand that is responsive to national concerns, while also eschewing the excess of Trumpism and the populist elements that feed off fearmongering and ignorance, they will be able to overcome this current wave or movement or whatever you want to call it.

 But the likes of Jeff Flakes and Mitch McConnell are part of the problem; they are certainly not the solution, and cannot be any part of it unless they learn their lesson and start siding with the conservatives. In the long run - if conservatives play it right, and it may be a very long run indeed - the rise of Trump, while disastrous on many levels to the brand of the party, may yet prove to be the best thing that could happen to the rise of constitutional conservatism. We shall see.

One Of These Two Is Not LIke The Other

On the Harvey Weinstein-Trump comparisons:

One has been accused of rape by multiple people and caught on police tape actually groping someone.

The other bragged about the women who let him grab them and acted crude and off-putting.

The first is deeply illegal. The second is in exceptionally poor taste and undignified, but NOT RAPE.
So no, not all uncouth behavior is created equal. If it turns out that Harvey rumors are unsubstantiated and he never harassed anyone and there is no truth to rumors of rape, maybe then you can say that the comparisons Trump have been appropriate.

But as of now, the allegations against one, that appear to have at least some merit, are significantly worse than the allegations against the other. You just can't compare the two.

Dislike Trump all you want. There are plenty of things you can say about him. You can say that HIS videotape was shocking, inappropriate, unpresidential, immoral, and awful. All of that is true.

But comparing someone who is possibly a rapist to someone who is definitely not is doing no favors for the victims of rape and sexual harassment.

Opportunism Galore

Threatening to jail people for misusing pronouns fully qualifies as political posturing.

You want to see Trump stop wasting his time?

Then stop wasting ours with this nonsense.

Whatever idiocy you come up with to grab attention will come back tenfold in angry reactions.

In Which the State Department Stands in Support of... Taliban

When the Trump administration took completely reasonable steps to try to closed down the Taliban office in Qatar, the State Department pushed back, claiming that such a step would undermine US efforts in Afghanistan.
Wait a minute - we spent 16 years in Afghanistan, fighting... who or what exactly?
Since when has Taliban (backed by Russia and Iran) been helpful to our efforts in Afghanistan?
Why shouldn't we be taking all possible action to pressure the enemy we are ACTUALLY FIGHTING?
What am I missing here, and who exactly works for our State Department?
I hope Tillerson goes on a massive firing spree after this "dissent memo". This is absolutely unacceptable.

Breaking Up Egypt and North Korea: Why Sissi's Illicit Trade with North Korea Makes Sense

Earlier, I expressed bewilderment when the State Department sanctioned Egypt by withholding aid due to the alleged broken promise regarding an NGO law that Egypt had reassured the US government it would not implement, but did.  The pragmatic Tillerson's willingness to intervene in an ally's internal issues when other similarly situated allies, such as Turkey do much worse, with no reprimand from the White House, seemed a little excessive and unfair. I thought there had to be more to the story and that the stated reason was probably not the real one. A bit later, an update regarding Egypt and North Korea's ongoing and illegal arms trade caught my attention, and I wondered whether that's what really was going on. However, at the time, there was no comment from the White House that would link the two events, nor did the analysts so much as suggest that could be the real reason for the tensions between Sissi and Tillerson.

Now, it seems, my suspicions were unequivocally confirmed by an explicit statement from the administration acknowledging that the sanctioning of the aid was at least in part due to the incident of a ship flying under Cambodian flag, found caught delivering North Korean arms to Egypt. According to the article, Egypt claimed innocence and cooperation with the UN in destroying the weapons; however, the Egyptian intelligence only reacted when there was no other choice and did not volunteer information; furthermore, despite profuse denials, it appeared that the rogue ship was destined for Egyptian companies rather than some third parties. Reason for dealing with North Korea? North Korea is both cheaper than most other suppliers, and has been modernizing where Russia, and others have stuck to distributing old Communist arsenals.

Several questions naturally arise at this juncture:

1. Why is Egypt so desperate for cheap weapons?
2. Why does it value those cheap weapons more than it values its alliance with the United States? (Sissi had to be fully aware of the operation, as well as the priority this administration has placed on not dealing with North Korea)
3. The incident happened last year during Obama's administration. Has anything changed since then? Has the new administration made its priorities sufficiently clear at the outset?  Was it wise for the new administration to punish Egypt for the sins committed under Obama?
4. What impact have the new sanctions had a) on Egypt-North Korea relations and b) on Egypt-US relations?
5. What is the next step for the administration if Egypt is found to continue trading with North Korea in violation of both old and new sanctions against the latter?
6.  What should US do if it legitimately wants to woo Egypt away from bad actors? (This is a separate question from what I think the administration will actually do).

I will start off with a tentative and entirely unscientific guess that Egypt was as angered by Trump's reaction to last year's incident as Trump was by perceived deception, and will continue to do whatever it feels like doing just because it can. Does it seem rational in terms of the fact that this incident already cost Egypt badly needed aid from the US and Trump's much desired goodwill? If we were discussing a Western democracy, it would sound completely irrational, even crazy, indeed. But we are talking about a Middle Eastern dictator, and therefore, all of this makes complete sense.  First of all, Sissi did not view Obama as an ally and felt no obligation to constrain his own decisionmaking by US concerns, especially since Obama himself did not seem all that particularly concerned about North Korea, and certainly not concerned enough to go after all the other countries that we now know have been involved in illegal arms trade with the Junche regime. Sissi needed weapons to fight ISIS and internal enemies, and he sure wasn't going to get all those weapons from the US, and North Korea was simply cheaper than everybody else providing such services.  Trump's reaction must have been somewhat surprising to Sissi who probably thought of Trump as a more pragmatic-minded leader than Obama and was hopeful that the relations between the two countries would start off well.  Trump, however, made North Korea a top foreign policy priority, and Sissi's unwillingness to see eye to eye on that matter was a red line.  Allegedly, Obama was likewise angry at Sissi for alleged other North Korean weapons deals over the years, but if that is the case, none of that made it to the level of public knowledge and one may wonder why that was the case.

However, based on the available evidence, it appears that this administration's response has been reactionary. The rocket deal from last year impacted Trump's decision to delay or freeze aid to Egypt, which is understandable... but unwise. First, it just does not make sense for a new administration to build relations with an ally based off solely an incident that took place under a previous administration. Now, if it turns out that there is evidence of continued trade that has gone into this year, and that after many behind the scenes discussions about the importance of cutting it out, Egypt failed to comply, I would say Trump would be wholly justified in making that decision.  If that is not the case, though, the administration is making a mistake that may take well with the president's base here in the United States, but will not move Sissi to improvements, certainly not in the immediate future, not even if Sissi needs Trump a lot more than Trump needs Sissi (which isn't the case, either). To bend to Trump's terms under such circumstances - if this freeze is indeed a reaction to one past incident rather than a result of an ongoing and failed dialogue - would mean to lose face, and as I've argued before, that's just not something Sissi can afford to do and certainly not something he would ever consider.

What should President Trump have done? Exactly what I just suggested: engaged in a quiet behind the scenes conversation with Sissi, explained that North Korea is providing dangerous assistance to Iran, and  thus presents a danger to everyone, promised to cut a good deal on necessary weapons, and to increase cooperation related to fighting ISIS, and told Sissi in no uncertain terms that while the administration is willing to let Obama era bygones be bygones and start out on a fresh page, no further infringements of sanctions on North Korea would be tolerated, and that a relationship with the US would have to be predicated on a basic degree of honesty and respect.  No matter how tempting and unnerving it may be, you just don't start out a new relationship with an apparent and eager ally with threats and punishments, especially when you are simultaneously letting other countries off the hook for various human rights violations and security infringements (and I'm talking Turkey - Sissi has a less than cordial relationship with Erdogan, who is housing Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and is alleged to have supported ISIS). Acting in an apparently hypocritical manner was likely seen as a stab in the back by Sissi and did not make him warm up to any concessions. SO the issue here is not that Sissi doesn't want or need a relationship with the US, but that he perceives the decisionmaking as being done by Trump (which is not inaccurate), and predicates a strong relationship with the US on a strong relationship with Trump. If the US is not providing Sissi with what he needs to retain power, some level of support, and ability to control the security situation, then what kind of an ally is it, and why does Sissi need it, when he can have Russia, which makes no such preconditions? That is how Sissi thinking at the moment. He would prefer US to Russia, but he will prefer a loyal ally who understands what he needs over one that just makes constant demands. That's not to say that Trump was incorrect in having these expectations either, and from Trump's perspective, Sissi's actions were also most disappointing, and perhaps even seen as an act of betrayal. But we are adults here, which means, we realize that national self-interest here should trump whatever personal issues either leader has with each other at this point.

While I cannot say for certain what happened in meetings between the administration and Sissi's people before the sanctions were announced, I can tell you what's happening right now: Egypt may be more careful in trying not to get caught, because it's aware that it's under greater scrutiny now than ever before, but it will continue to try to cut deals with North Korea whenever it can until and unless something major changes: either it suffers an emergency and desperately needs US help, the international situation changes such that it becomes simply too costly and damaging to do business with North Korea, or there is a change in US leadership, and Sissi feels he can try again with a new president. He would certainly be willing to reconsider if Trump himself makes a move to put this messy business behind him, but I doubt that's going to happen in the near future.  As for the US, given that it has been some time since the freeze on aid has been announced, and there have not been further developments, I think the administration is planning to maintain its stand for the time being, and unless there is a new adviser who informs Trump that the current course of action will not lead to a breakthrough, I likewise see no warming of relations with Egypt in the immediate foreseeable future for largely the same reasons. If the US catches Egypt continuing to engage in North Korea, it may try to slap on more sanctions, or engage in tough talk behind the scenes, but at this point, without a serious investment into the repair of the damaged relationship, I doubt that additional tough steps, particularly if they are public, will change Sissi's mind. He will simply look for other partners. As for Trump, if he ever wants to get back on track with Sissi and move that conversation in a much more constructive direction for both countries, all he needs to do is pick up the phone - and make an offer (or a deal, if you will) that Sissi can't refuse.

How Trump is Shooting Himself in the Foot on Puerto Rico

Let's separate the wheat from the chaff - the media generated propaganda about what Trump is or isn't doing regarding Puerto Rico recovery, and what Trump is saying about the situation.

 Trump's appointment of the general to lead the recovery seems a wise choice. The military has been exceptionally helpful during all of the hurricanes in recent memory that I've been keeping track of. Maria relief is no exception. Along with private efforts, they so far have been the best, especially since the Jones-related shipping rules have finally been lifted.

 One could criticize the administration from getting involved later than what would have been optimal, but now that they are involved I'm not sure that it's inadequate. The island is indeed devastated, and there's only so much that can be physically done in one go in terms of bringing help and saving lives.

  Trump's comments about Puerto Ricans wanting everything to be done for them were completely uncalled for. Yes, PR has major economic issues, exceptionally poor leadership, and union-related problems that may in fact be causing frictions with FEMA and slowing down the recovery. None of that is relevant right now, nor is this the time to accuse the many vulnerable people who've lost and are struggling to survive of being lazy bums and a burden on the US economy. Criticizing such comments is completely legitimate. And getting into fights with local mayors is a major distraction from whatever positive coverage of the administration's help towards recovery that would have otherwise been warranted. Trump is basically undermining his own case here.

Turkey's Extortionism Pays Off

Turkey is holding an evangelical US pastor hostage. Erdogan is trying to extort the US into giving up his political enemy, Fetullah Gullen, in exchange for the American. Yet President Trump continues to do business as usual with this terrorist regime, that is holding a US citizen on trumped-up charges, and recently cut an airplane deal with the Erdogan regime. That's called negotiating from a position of weakness. Where's that in the "Art of the Deal", Mr. President? How can you consider a country that is detaining your citizens for no reason an ally or a business partner? Are there no other non-terrorist states that would be willing to buy our planes? Are we so desperate for Erdogan's "friendship"? In addition to attacking peaceful protesters on US soil, detaining US citizens on trumped-up charges should be considered an act of aggression, punishable by sanctions against everyone involved.