Yesterday, Rep. Brooks issued issued this press release:
BROOKS APPLAUDS SPEAKER PELOSI ADMISSION OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP!
The press release contains the below bombast:
". . . Socialist Democrats and their national news media allies have searched far and wide for evidence of a President Trump impeachable offense . . .[and] have monumentally failed to discover and produce credible evidence that the Trump campaign either colluded with Russia in the 2016 election or that President Trump committed the impeachable high crime or misdemeanor offense required by the U.S. Constitution.[and] are a collective scam and fraud perpetrated on the American people to not only delegitimize the duly elected President of the United States but also for the crass purpose of accumulating political power.”[Update 4/1/19: Last week, after the Barr letter, Rep. Brooks issued a further press release
" . . .Socialist Democrats and their radical news media allies [should] cleanse their souls and atone for their sins by apologizing to the American people for the fraud and scam they committed, [that] has undermined our republic [and] been divisive to the point some Americans have been driven to violence out of hatred for President Trump."
“The American people need to see past the Socialist Democrat fraud and scam. . .[and] country will be better off if the American people reject the vile behavior of Socialist Democrats and move past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”
BROOKS ON ONE AMERICA NEWS: RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION "BIG LIE" TACTIC BOOSTS GOP 2020 ELECTION CHANCES]
B. Rebuttal of Brooks' bombast
1. Brooks is too narrowly focused - Trump's conflicts of interest problem
For two years the country has been obsessed with whether or not Trump colluded with Russia.
There is a bigger picture about Trump that is shaping up to engulf him.
One part of the picture is Trump's conflicts of interest problem.
There is a bigger picture about Trump that is shaping up to engulf him.
One part of the picture is Trump's conflicts of interest problem.
Rep. Brooks, as a lawyer, a former governmental prosecutor and a public official, is playing dumb about this, or, if he is not playing dumb, he is actually dumb.
Trump was an unprecedented Presidential candidate with his 40 year history as an international businessman and with no experience in public office before he became President.
This was coupled with Trump's choice to keep his business conflicts of interest after he became President and to profit from the Presidency. Other Presidents either did not have business conflicts of interest or took steps to eliminate the conflicts. Trump was unprecedented as President with his massive business conflicts of interest and his choice to keep those conflicts and profit from the Presidency.
Rep. Brooks, as a lawyer, a former governmental prosecutor and a public official, knows well (or should know well) the problems of public officials having conflicts of interest.
I discuss those problems, and how they are particularly mounting for Trump, at Trump's conflicts of interest problem.
Rep. Brooks' bombastic press release refers to "mov[ing] past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”
If Rep. Brooks wants that to happen or thinks that will happen, Rep. Brooks needs to respond to what I lay out in Trump's conflicts of interest problem.
One possible response that Rep. Brooks may make is that Trump may have whatever conflicts of interest he wishes, Trump may profit from Presidency as he chooses, and, in making decisions and taking actions as President, it is permissible for Trump to favor his private business interests over the interests of the United States.
If Rep. Brooks is of the foregoing mind, he should so say expressly and put his view out for consideration and debate by the voters.
If Rep. Brooks does not hold the foregoing view, then Rep. Brooks needs to express what Congressional oversight there needs to be by reason of Trump's massive conflicts of interest and Trump's unprecedented choice to keep those conflicts of interest, profit from the Presidency and make decisions and take actions as President which may favor his private business interests over the interests of the United States.
Until the foregoing is addressed by Rep. Brooks and other GOP in Congress, there will be no "mov[ing] past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”
2. Brooks is too narrowly focused - Trump's past criminality and wrongdoing
As a Presidential candidate, Trump pitched to the voters that his 40 years of business experience gave him a special qualification for running the United States as President, which career politicians did not have.
Many voters voted for Trump for that reason.
With Trump having 40 years of experience in international business, there was a risk that Trump did not do everything on the up and up.
After two years of the Trump presidency, the country is now being confronted with what to do about Trump if criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light, as is happening now.
Does the country give Trump a pass no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light?
This is coming to a matter of national debate. For more discussion, see Reckoning with Trump's past.
Rep. Brooks, in his wish for the country to "move past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history," is too narrowly focused on the Russia investigation, and Rep. Brooks needs to expressly discuss his position about whether the country should give Trump a pass no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light.
One possible position for Rep.Brooks to take is that, no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light, the only way the country should hold Trump accountable is by voting him out of office in 2020. If that is Rep. Brooks' position, he should so say, and let there be debate about that.
One possible response that Rep. Brooks may make is that Trump may have whatever conflicts of interest he wishes, Trump may profit from Presidency as he chooses, and, in making decisions and taking actions as President, it is permissible for Trump to favor his private business interests over the interests of the United States.
If Rep. Brooks is of the foregoing mind, he should so say expressly and put his view out for consideration and debate by the voters.
If Rep. Brooks does not hold the foregoing view, then Rep. Brooks needs to express what Congressional oversight there needs to be by reason of Trump's massive conflicts of interest and Trump's unprecedented choice to keep those conflicts of interest, profit from the Presidency and make decisions and take actions as President which may favor his private business interests over the interests of the United States.
Until the foregoing is addressed by Rep. Brooks and other GOP in Congress, there will be no "mov[ing] past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”
2. Brooks is too narrowly focused - Trump's past criminality and wrongdoing
As a Presidential candidate, Trump pitched to the voters that his 40 years of business experience gave him a special qualification for running the United States as President, which career politicians did not have.
Many voters voted for Trump for that reason.
With Trump having 40 years of experience in international business, there was a risk that Trump did not do everything on the up and up.
After two years of the Trump presidency, the country is now being confronted with what to do about Trump if criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light, as is happening now.
Does the country give Trump a pass no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light?
This is coming to a matter of national debate. For more discussion, see Reckoning with Trump's past.
Rep. Brooks, in his wish for the country to "move past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history," is too narrowly focused on the Russia investigation, and Rep. Brooks needs to expressly discuss his position about whether the country should give Trump a pass no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light.
One possible position for Rep.Brooks to take is that, no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light, the only way the country should hold Trump accountable is by voting him out of office in 2020. If that is Rep. Brooks' position, he should so say, and let there be debate about that.
[to be continued]
[continued 4/1/19]
3. Investigate the investigators: The Deep State
[continued 4/1/19]
3. Investigate the investigators: The Deep State
Trump has instigated GOP calls for an investigation of the investigators to find out out why the investigation of him and his campaign of possibly colluding with Russia was commenced in 2016. Suggestions have been made that the investigation of Trump and his campaign were part of an illegal and treasonous plot of Deep State actors to undo the results of the 2016 election.
These are extremely serious charges, and the Democrats are pushing back hard.
The charges, and the push back, threaten to sink the United States deeper into chaos.
Rep. Brooks is a leader in the charge on the Trump side.
In being a leader in the charge, Rep. Brooks is escalating his bombast.
Most likely, Rep. Brooks will only do bombast and has no use for thoughtful, rational discussion in Alabama.
Be that as it may, thoughtful, rational discussion in Alabama has been attempted in this blog entry, and will be continued.
In that vein, thoughtful rational discussion of The Deep State is called for.
When he left office in 1961, Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex.
Jumping ahead to 2015, Mike Lofgren published in 2015 a book entitled
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
In the introduction, Lofgren says:
These are extremely serious charges, and the Democrats are pushing back hard.
The charges, and the push back, threaten to sink the United States deeper into chaos.
Rep. Brooks is a leader in the charge on the Trump side.
In being a leader in the charge, Rep. Brooks is escalating his bombast.
Most likely, Rep. Brooks will only do bombast and has no use for thoughtful, rational discussion in Alabama.
Be that as it may, thoughtful, rational discussion in Alabama has been attempted in this blog entry, and will be continued.
In that vein, thoughtful rational discussion of The Deep State is called for.
When he left office in 1961, Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex.
Jumping ahead to 2015, Mike Lofgren published in 2015 a book entitled
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
In the introduction, Lofgren says:
Our venerable institutions of government have outwardly remained the same, but they have grown more and more resistant to the popular will as they have become hardwired into a corporate and private influence network with almost unlimited cash to enforce its will .. . .
I use the term [Deep State] to mean a hybrid association of key elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States with only limited reference to the consent of the governed as normally expressed through elections.
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure that has given us the most unequal society in almost a century, and the political dysfunction that has paralyzed day-to-day governance.
Reflection on, coherent articulation of, and discussion of the Deep State for the benefit of the American people, are not something Trump has done or will do.
With such a leadership deficit on the part of Trump, it would help if each of our #algop in Congress laid out what they understand about the Deep State as the "big story of our time," including when they became aware of the Deep State, whether they consider themselves willing participants in the Deep State, what they say to their donors about the Deep State, who in Congress they identify as participants in the Deep State, and what actions they are taking to counter the Deep State.
[to be continued]
No comments:
Post a Comment