Wednesday, April 10, 2019




Redactive Therapy



More Alternative Reality:  Trump has booted his Homeland Secretary and is in the process of replacing much of the rest of Homeland Security leadership with individuals who he believes will be more willing to implement harsher policies even when those policies violate the orders of those very “bad” and “unfair” judges. Yesterday, departing Homeland head Nielsen announced that the Acting Deputy secretary Claire Grady, the next in line for her position, had “resigned,” forced out so that Trump could promote his preferred candidate to Acting Secretary.  Nevertheless when asked about the forced turnover at Homeland Security, Trump denied that he was doing “housecleaning” and then also denied that there were any plans to reinstate the child separation policy that he probably does plan to reinstate.  As to that policy, he went on to assert that it was a holdover from Obama and that he should get credit for stopping it.  He was almost immediately fact checked on the Obama reference with Shepard Smith at Fox News declaring it fake news.  For the record under Obama children were separated from parents only when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian, but not as a blanket policy.  In any case Trump is right about one thing, the numbers of  immigrants trying to cross the southern border is up significantly, not yet at historical levels but still high.  Not only aren’t his policies working, its highly likely that they are being counterproductive. It turns out that threatening to shut the border and cutting aid intended to make countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras more secure for vulnerable populations doesn’t do much to halt migration.  Who knew that stopping migrant flows could be so complicated?  Separately the New York Times reports that Trump has been quietly firing the many undocumented employees that have been keeping his resort properties running for years. 

Redactions Galore:  Yesterday Attorney General Barr testified in front of the House Appropriations Committee where he was subjected to countless questions about the Mueller Report.  He pretty much refused to answer any questions about the substance of the report but did confirm that the Justice Department is on schedule to release their redacted version by mid-month, probably around the same time that Congress goes off on its Easter break because the best time to release controversial information is when everyone is out of town.  As to the report, he confirmed that it will be redacted to remove secret grand jury information; material that can compromise sensitive sources and methods (spy stuff); information that could affect ongoing investigations; and material that could affect the privacy and reputations of peripheral third parties, of course he didn’t define peripheral. He also said that he had no plans to ask a judge for permission to share any of that Grand Jury testimony even though he could leaving the general impression that transparency is not his priority and may in fact be the enemy of the administration and Trump who appears to be growing increasingly concerned about what the report, even the redacted one, will reveal.   Barr said that before he released his now infamous four page “summary” the letter that allowed Trump to declare that he’d been fully exonerated, he offered to let Special Counsel Mueller read it, but that Mueller expressed no interest.  He also denied that he’d heard anything from any of those Mueller team members who are reported to be quite distressed about the way that he’s been handling their work product.   Curiously Barr refused to tell lawmakers whether the Department of Justice had briefed the White House on the report.  At least one Democratic Congressman, Pennsylvania’s Matt Cartwright, managed to ask a question about something very pertinent to most Americans, Barr’s decision to weigh in on the side of the red state attorneys general seeking to have the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) declared unconstitutional.  Barr responded with a shrug, saying more or less that he’s just a lawyer, he’s not in charge of health care and that if Democrats thought that the attorneys general’s case was so weak and the lower court judge who ruled against Obamacare had taken such an “outrageous position,”  they had nothing to worry about.  Apparently, the possibility, even a small one, that more than 20 million people could lose access to health care and that the entire insurance market could be upended doesn’t bother Barr.  While Barr was parrying with the Appropriations Committee, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was tangling with Chairperson Maxine Waters’ House Financial Services Committee. He testified that Treasury lawyers had consulted with but did not, or at least so far, have not taken direction from the White House on the issue of releasing Trump's personal tax returns.  When queried about that by NY Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Mnuchin said that he didn’t “see that as interference” partially because they had their conversation before they received the formal request for the returns.  So basically, since it was only in expectation of getting the request, it didn’t count. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, former Treasury Secretary and current Harvard professor Lawrence Summers said that the law was clear, that Mnuchin shouldn’t even be involved in the tax return conversations, that it was up to the IRS to do their job and release the returns, and that the White House shouldn’t be consulted.  He’s probably right, but then again we know that’s not how it’s going to come down in this administration.     

Other News:  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is on his way to an unprecedented fifth term.  With 97% of the results in, both Netanyahu’s Likud party and his opponent Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party have won 35 seats in the Knesset.  Both gave victory speeches last night but it looks like Gantz may have to take his back as Netanyahu has a better chance of forming a ruling coalition.  Netanyahu still faces possible indictment for corruption unless of course he manages to push through a law ruling out indictments for sitting prime ministers.  Sound familiar?


No comments:

Post a Comment