Kushner and Trump: A Hit with the Saudis

It pays to be friends with Jared Kushner. You can get away with murder. Or so thinks Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Early in his tenure as a special adviser to his father-in-law, Kushner went out of his way to become Best Friends Forever with the monarchical autocrat.

Last year, Kushner travelled to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, to promote a multi-billion-dollar arms sale, encourage MBS – as the prince is known in diplomatic circles – to take part in Kushner’s plan for peace in the Middle East, and privately discuss other matters of importance. Exactly what they talked about is as clear as the private discussion the president had with Vladimir Putin earlier this year.

The two must have hit it off. The Intercept reports that in the wake of their meeting, MBS bragged to Emirati Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed that Kushner was “in his pocket.”

MBS rose to power after ousting his cousin as next in line to the Saudi throne and installing himself as heir apparent. A week after meeting Kushner last October, the prince further consolidated his power by arresting dozens of family members and associates, calling it an “anti-corruption crackdown.” He extracted billions of dollars from them to gain their release. One of them wasn’t so lucky. Multiple news outlets reported that Saudi general Ali Alqahtani died of a broken neck while being tortured by government operatives.

Mounting evidence now indicates that, at the direction of MBS, a government hit team was responsible for the assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. MBS wasn’t happy that Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post and a legal resident of the U.S., made a point of speaking truth to power and calling out the Saudi regime for rampant corruption and its autocratic rule.

Silencing its enemies has long been a practice of the House of Saud. And with an American president who continually calls the press “the enemy of the people,” why wouldn’t MBS think he could get away with one more atrocity?

President Trump initially said there would be “serious consequences” if allegations that Khashoggi was murdered were true. Within days of saying so, he flip-flopped, claiming that the killing may have been done by “rogue killers.” This was after a phone call with MBS, during which the prince used those very words, “firmly denying” he had anything to do with Khashoggi’s murder. Trump believes MBS. Because he said so.Just as the president believes Putin didn’t meddle in our elections. Because Putin “strongly and powerfully denied it.”

The Saudi government has now concocted a scenario admitting their involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, claiming it was an “interrogation” gone awry. And that Mohammed bin Salman had absolutely nothing to do with it, yet nothing in the kingdom is done without his blessing.

The Saudis are now relying on plausible deniability to get MBS off the hook and keep his friendship with Kushner and Trump alive and intact. Yahoo News reports that Jared Kushner is “deeply involved” in the White House response to the Khashoggi assassination. What are friends for?

Saudi Arabia is of strategic importance in the Middle East, but there is such a thing as taking the moral high ground. Turning a blind eye to autocrats prone to punishing their so-called “enemies” does not bode well for America’s reputation or standing in the world.And it certainly isn’t in the best interests of the American people. It does, however, appear to be in keeping with the president’s foreign and domestic policy, and his desire to defend anyone with whom he or his family – including Jared Kushner – have a personal relationship.

When she recently announced her resignation as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley called Jared Kushner “a hidden genius.” Cozying up to Mohammed bin Salman, however, may not have been the smartest move he could have made.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Kushner and Trump: A Hit with the Saudis

The Fine Art of Politics

If you’d never heard of internationally-acclaimed graffiti artist Banksy before last week, you may have by now. He’s the guy whose painting entitled “Girl With Balloon” was auctioned off at Sotheby’s in London for $1.4 million dollars.

Shortly after the gavel dropped, the painting mysteriously shredded itself by remote control, eliciting gasps from art aficionados the world over. The moment was captured on smart phones throughout the room and almost instantaneously went viral, becoming the social media meme of the day.

Banksy, who is a bit of an art anarchist who loves to thumb his nose at the establishment and those who have made him rich. His stunt was meant to poke fun at the excesses of today’s auction market, where the works of well-known artists have fetched astronomical amounts of money.

London art dealer Offer Waterman told The New York Times last week that after going through the shredder, Banksy’s painting has “become worth more as a conceptual moment than as a work of art itself.” How about this concept: $1.4 million dollars could support an American family with a median household income of $59,055 for about 24 years.

The event (or non-event depending upon how you look at it) staged at Sotheby’s last week was what is often labelled as performance art. A very expensive bit of performance art. Kind of like political campaigns.

Right now, hundreds of millions of dollars are being thrown at candidates throughout the country. Most of them will not be elected. Some never stood a chance. They’ll soon be having their own shreddable moments; here today, gone tomorrow. Once in office, those elected will become the tangible assets of those who funded them. And very good investments indeed. Amortized over time, politicians are worth much more than a Picasso. And contributions are tax-deductible.

Many who acquire great works at auction often remain anonymous. They have an appreciation for the fine arts, but they like their identities kept secret.Then, there are the men, women, and interest groups clandestinely funding candidates seeking office.Those folks have an appreciation for the dark arts, and they like to keep their identities hidden from view as well.

People who help fund grass roots political campaigns are not, by law, allowed to remain in the shadows. Their contributions have limits and their names and dollar amounts contributed are carefully recorded and submitted to the Federal Election Commission. Not so for those contributing to non-profit organizations that receive millions in unreported “donations” from corporations, unions, and individuals whose names are undisclosed, all hoping to influence election outcomes with their so-called dark money. A recent Supreme Court ruling may change that, but how it impacts these donors in the future remains to be seen.

And speaking of the Supreme Court, let’s look at the Judicial Crisis Network, a dark money conservative advocacy group that sunk millions in support of Brett Kavanaugh’s campaign – for that, indeed, is what it was – for a seat on the court. Now that the battle is behind them, they’re shifting focus.

This past Tuesday, the Judicial Crisis Network announced they were launching a six-figure television and digital advertising campaign “thanking” Maine Senator Susan Collins for voting in favor of now-Justice Kavanaugh. This at a time when a serious challenge for her seat looms on the horizon.

And where does that money come from?Nobody knows. Just like the money used to purchase Banksy’s “Girl With Balloon.”

Is there a realistic way to determine the value of a work of art? Several years back, Banksy voiced the much-repeated aphorism that “art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.” As are politicians. Like Susan Collins.

While Banksy may well have pranked collectors with very deep pockets, when it comes to political performance art, the joke is usually at the expense of the average voter. Who often pays a steep price for investments with a much lower rate of return. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again: a case of art history repeating itself.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on The Fine Art of Politics

When Donny Met Kim: A Love Story

The president’s bad breakup with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G7 apparently left him feeling vulnerable and angry. He was a man ripe for a rebound relationship, and found it several days later when he first met North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. As the president noted at a rally in West Virginia this past week, “we fell in love.” Then again, love is blind.

There’s no question that the president yearns for a peace treaty with Kim and he should be lauded for his efforts to secure one. He wants to prove he’s a great negotiator on the international stage, that he succeeded where his predecessors failed, and that a deal with Kim will help secure his place in history as the greatest American president ever. His choice of the Supreme Leader as his next bromantic conquest, however, has consequences that are far-reaching and potentially dangerous. And lest we forget, Kim is a two-timer.

During their hot date in steamy Singapore, the Supreme Leader signed a marriage contract of sorts with the president, yet almost immediately afterward, he cheated. Vowing that he would begin to denuclearize, Kim instead ramped things up, starting work on new nuclear facilities. He extracted assurances from the president that the U.S. would divorce itself from the “provocative” war games it holds each year with South Korea, a promise Mr. Trump did, indeed, deliver on much to the consternation of U.S. diplomats and military leaders. “Beautiful letters” from Kim aside, the president has repeatedly been blindsided by him, despite Kim’s professions of undying love.

Speaking of dying, the president should be advised that North Korea’s “Dear Leader” is prone to domestic violence and not to be trusted. The objects of his abuse have been family members, close advisers and military officials, musicians and even the manager of a turtle farm who tried to explain to Kim that his critters were expiring due to power failures and lack of food and water. The Institute for National Security Strategy has reported that they were among the 340 North Koreans executed since Kim first came to power, in 2011. Those deaths don’t include the tens of thousands of his countrymen who have died in gulags and of malnutrition; a conservative estimate.

Of North Korea, the president says the Supreme Leader “ran it tough.” It’s the type of tough love any normal person could do without, but Mr. Trump spoke those words approvingly.

Senator Lindsay Graham (R, S.C.), who enjoys his own bromance with the president, told an audience at the Atlantic Festival this past Wednesday, “this love crap needs to stop. There’s nothing to love about Kim Jong Un.”

And yet, Trump is now eagerly awaiting a second date with Kim. His attempts at seduction include suggestions that he may extricate the U.S. from a trade deal with South Korea and remove all American troops from the Korean peninsula. According to “Fear,” Bob Woodward’s tome on the Trump White House, when that idea was floated, Secretary of Defense James Mattis explained to the president that keeping troops there was to “prevent World War III.”

Unfortunately, the so-called “adults in the room” at the White House hold little sway over a man who, two years ago, told the Republican Convention, “I alone can fix it.” But when it comes to North Korea, Russia, China, the Middle East, the EU, NATO and beyond, the president is out of his league. Rather than consult with State and Defense Department officials and the intelligence community, Mr. Trump prefers, instead, to fly solo and take a scattershot approach to diplomacy. In doing so, someone may very well end up getting killed, be they American soldiers and their dependents, the Korean people, or regional allies like the Japanese.

The president said of Kim, “we have this great relationship.”Maybe. For now. It might, however, be wiser to listen to Lindsay Graham, who said, “If Rocket Man believes that he’s got Trump loving him and backing off, then we are all in trouble.”

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on When Donny Met Kim: A Love Story

Women of America, Your Leaders Have Failed You

Let’s forget for a moment names in the news like Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, Christine Blasey Ford, or Deborah Ramirez. Let’s talk about an even bigger – more important – issue: there aren’t enough women holding elected office in America. The paradigm needs to shift. Now.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re Republican, conservative, Democrat, liberal, Democratic Socialist… whatever. If you’re a woman and you’ve ever remotely entertained the idea of running for public office, this is your time. Because the men who currently hold positions of power in your community, your state, in Congress, or in the White House are failing you miserably.

While one major political party may appear to be more patriarchal than the other, there is an overall institutional failing in how women are perceived, listened to, and represented. Recent events may have turned the spotlight on this inequity, but it transcends the current political climate.

Men holding high office may profess to be sensitive to issues affecting women, but, logically, we can never be truly empathic to your causes and concerns. And there’s only one way to change that. Women need to mobilize. We’ve already seen the beginnings of that mobilization, but demonstrating in the streets is not enough. And while more women are running for office at all levels of government in this election cycle than at any other time in history, we need more of them.

Observers have pointed to the rise in women seeking office in the immediate aftermath of the abusive treatment of Anita Hill during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Some are pointing to the election of Donald J. Trump as impetus for the recent surge in women on the stump. Many are suggesting that the horror show currently taking place in Washington will further ramp up that number in future elections. Good.

Why should men be left to decide matters of women’s reproductive health, gender and pay inequality, the veracity of women’s claims of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace, and far too many other issues that have a direct impact on women? Why should they? This topsy-turvy logic is unacceptable. Women will never be entirely heard or taken seriously unless more of them are directly involved in the crafting of legislation that directly impacts them.

Women of America, the condescension being exhibited among men who are either ignorant, antiquated, or not forward-thinking, is on display every day in homes, on the job and, especially, in government. Only you can do something about it. Demographically, you are in the majority but in the halls of government you are, decidedly, in the minority.

The hundredth anniversary of a woman’s right to vote in the United States will coincide with the next presidential election in 2020. Yet, according to congressional archives, only 329 women have served in the House and Senate since Jeannette Pickering Rankin, a progressive Republican from Montana, became the first woman elected to the House in 1916 and, again, in 1940. She was instrumental in the passage of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing that women could not only serve, but vote as well.

Currently, only eighty-four women are serving in the House and twenty-three in the Senate; six women hold governorships. That may change in November. With 184 non-incumbent women running for office, a potential seismic shift could well be in the offing. And complacent men in positions of power who have long enjoyed the status quo are running scared.

Whether you are a woman who is pro-life or pro-choice, run. If you’re committed to a particular agenda or ideology or issue, run. If you want to make your country or your world or your hometown a better place, run.

The old adage of all politics being local has been supplanted by the new reality that all politics is personal. And women throughout the land have a very personal stake in the outcome of this year’s elections and beyond.

Men in positions of power may hear you, but they aren’t listening. Or learning. In short, they are failing you. Only by having more women in office at all levels of government can that be changed.

Running for office is a marathon, not a sprint. Ladies put on your running shoes. The race is just beginning.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Women of America, Your Leaders Have Failed You

Kavanaugh Deserved Better… and So Do We

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was never going to get a fair break during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The fault lies not with obstructionist Democrats, however, but with Republican leadership and members of the committee.

By not turning over all documents in their possession, Republican members of the committee did the judge and the American people a disservice. And dumping hundreds of thousands of selected pages of documents, emails, and other correspondence on Democrats the night before hearings were scheduled to begin wasn’t a solution.

Releasing all relevant material would have provided a fuller picture of Kavanaugh’s legal philosophy and writings for both the majority and minority. Not doing so only further riled Democrats still fuming over Republican obstruction of Judge Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination in the waning days of the Obama administration. It succeeded in provoking confrontation and partisan conflict. Whether or not Judge Kavanaugh escapes the wrath of Democratic committee members, the real losers are the American people.

Questions have arisen based on actions Kavanaugh took during time spent in the George W. Bush White House, including discussions about detainee torture during the early years of the war on terror, as well as a breach of secret Democratic files on judicial nominations. His writings have advocated broad presidential powers that have implications on ongoing investigations into Russian election meddling and questionable actions on the part of the president. Kavanaugh equivocated when asked whether he would uphold long-standing legal precedents, including those related to Roe v. Wade, LGBTQ rights, and affirmative action.

There are indications that Kavanaugh may have perjured himself, not only during his recent confirmation hearings, but during testimony before the Senate committee when he was originally nominated for the federal appellate court in 2006. These charges have been corroborated in emails and other work product that several committee members brought to light against the wishes of the majority.

And now comes the latest bombshell: allegations that Kavanaugh assaulted a young woman during a party while in high school. These are inflammatory charges that must be explored.

What really needs further exploration is the entire process by which the Senate evaluates nominees for lifetime positions on the high court.

Throughout the hearings, many of Kavanaugh’s responses to questions posed by committee members were evasive and rife with subterfuge. His discomfort was, at times, palpable. He did an inadequate job in presenting or defending his legal perspectives on issues that will certainly come before the Supreme Court.

To think that members of the judiciary cannot or do not hold personal beliefs, opinions, or philosophies is naive. We all have opinions, ideologies, codes of ethics and moral conduct. Americans have long lived under the rule of law and a system of government that affords us the opportunity to hold them. That said, we have the right to know if appointees at every level of the federal bench can divorce themselves from personal feelings in relation to the law of the land. That they must, to the best of their ability, make rulings that consider established precedent. Kavanaugh’s record must be allowed to speak for itself without obstruction or obfuscation.

Republican members of the Judiciary Committee fueled a smoldering fire by hindering the Democrats ability to fully-explore and accurately gauge where Kavanaugh stands on established law and how he might approach his deliberations as a member of the high court. This would have provided an opportunity for senators from both parties to make an educated choice in determining whether Kavanaugh should earn the committee’s blessing for confirmation and a subsequent vote by the entire Senate. Instead, their actions do nothing more than pave the way for Democrats to engage in future games of tit-for-tat in times they hold the majority.

The modern judiciary – the last bastion of independent thought and final arbiter of our nation’s laws – has become grossly politicized. This is a bipartisan issue, and members of both parties must be held accountable for this deterioration.

The entire Senate Judiciary Committee treated Kavanaugh unfairly, but we the people are the ultimate victims of its injustice.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Kavanaugh Deserved Better… and So Do We

Nicaragua Could Be Trump’s Wag the Dog Moment

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s recent warning to the United Nations Security Council that civil unrest in Nicaragua poses a threat to the stability of Central America may have set the stage for Donald J. Trump’s “Wag the Dog” moment.

The reference is made to a 1997 movie about a U.S. president embroiled in a sex scandal who attempts to save his presidency by staging a fake war in a country far from American soil.

The idea of this president attempting to divert the American people’s attention from investigations into his conduct in office in similar fashion is not such a far-fetched idea. Redirecting attention from “fake news” is an everyday occurrence through tweets, talking points, spin by the president’s surrogates, or outright lies.

New revelations of increased turmoil in the White House and a president described by intimates as “unhinged,” has left many questioning whether the country may be in store for a much bigger distraction. Nicaragua could be the answer.

Trump has a habit of casting out shiny objects to lure our attention away from the ever-increasing list of dilemmas he’s been forced to confront since the beginning of his presidency. Last year’s missile strikes on Syria – launched in retaliation for that government’s use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians – were viewed by many skeptics as manipulative and an effort to demonstrate his willingness to take on Russian interests at a time when he was accused of being a puppet of Vladimir Putin.

The Associated Press reported last summer that at a meeting with his military and national security advisers, Trump floated the idea of invading Venezuela. He believed escalating violence and unrest there posed a national security threat and warranted a swift military response. At a time when special counsel Robert Mueller was ramping up an investigation into Russia’s meddling in our elections.

Many at the meeting, including former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, were stunned. They made a concerted effort to walk the president back from carrying out such an action, explaining that it might backfire and destroy a decades-long initiative by the U.S. to build good will among governments throughout Latin America.

The president clearly had his own idea. At a press conference soon afterward, Trump told reporters that the U.S. had troops all over the world in distant places and that “Venezuela is not very far away and there are people suffering and dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary.”

Woof.

When addressing the Security Council last week, Ambassador Haley said: “With each passing day, Nicaragua travels further down a familiar path. It is a path that Syria has taken. It is a path that Venezuela has taken.”

Woof. Woof.

Here’s an interesting piece of trivia. In a 1986 Washington Post Op-Ed, President Ronald Reagan’s Communications Chief Patrick Buchanan wrote, “If Central America goes the way of Nicaragua, they will be in San Diego.”

Nicaragua is slightly closer to our southern border than Venezuela. Hundreds have been killed there since April, thousands injured, tens of thousands are seeking asylum in Costa Rica. A small number have considered coming here. It might be enough to set off alarm bells, precipitating something tantamount to a national security crisis that by little stretch of the imagination could, with the stroke of a presidential pen, lead to military intervention. To protect our borders, of course. Why wait for a wall to be built when guns are so much more effective?

Covert actions to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua during the 1980’s, as well as questionable activities regarding their funding, came very close to toppling the presidency of Ronald Reagan. When their actions became known to the public, their deception, as well as their lack of transparency and candor got them into trouble. Despite the ethics and legality of what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan administration decisions were rooted in a combination of ideology and realpolitik, not optics.

Commitment to an ideology isn’t in this president’s DNA. Commitment to, and the preservation of, Donald J. Trump is. He loves pretty pictures and staged events that depict him as a decisive leader who keeps promises and gets the job done. He’s a master of reality television. And nothing could be more real – or distracting – than a small televised intervention somewhere south of the border – in the interests of the American people of course. And Donald J. Trump.

Woof. Woof. Woof.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Nicaragua Could Be Trump’s Wag the Dog Moment

Google Politically Incorrect? Search Me.

The White House has launched a new salvo in its ongoing assault on the media and free speech. Instead of railing against newspapers and cable news channels, Donald J. Trump’s ire is now being directed at Google.

Somehow the president’s gotten it into his head that the search engine’s algorithms are “rigged.” He’s convinced that whenever anyone inputs “Trump news,” only negative stories – the ubiquitous “fake news” stories – about him rise to the top.

It’s a little unclear how the president developed this theory, although his favorite “real news” channel, Fox, had reported similar claims early Tuesday morning. If Trump was more adept at using computers, he might realize that sites linked to “real news” organizations tend to take precedence over blogs and conservative opinion sites.

The president’s aversion to email and computers is well-known. It appears his only nod to technology manifests itself in his compulsive urge to tweet whatever happens to be on his mind. If he was truly concerned about the negative coverage he invites, he might re-think some of the actions he takes and statements he makes. Major news organizations are focused on fact, not fiction.

Late on Tuesday, the president said, “Google and Twitter and Facebook, they’re really treading on very, very troubled territory. And they have to be careful.”

That may not sound like a threat, but nothing the administration does should be taken at face value. Trump’s ongoing assaults on the media and his obsessive attempts to employ government agencies – including the FCC, the IRS, and the Department of Justice – to bend established norms is on display for all the world to see on an almost-daily basis. Presidential musings are often menacing and meant to intimidate; rarely are they oblique.

Portions of a pair of Tuesday’s Trump Tweets read as follows: “They are controlling what we can and cannot see. This is a very serious situation – will be addressed!” He also queried of algorithm-driven search results: “Illegal?”

Realistically, the only thing the president wants anyone to see is what he wants us to see: good news about Trump, 24/7. Anything else should be outlawed. Earlier in the day, Trump’s economic adviser Larry Kudlow stated that the White House is “taking a look” at whether or how Google should be regulated by the government.

Republicans, as a rule, do not believe in government overreach. They find excessive rules and over-regulation abhorrent. So, it should come as no surprise that they and their Democratic nemeses actually agreed in pointing out that government has no place monitoring search results or regulating online content. Nor did advocates of free speech – both conservative and progressive – or the folks in Silicon Valley.

Several weeks back, an internal letter – made available to The New York Times – circulated among Google employees that voiced concerns over the company’s willingness to adhere to censorship requirements “that raise urgent moral and ethical issues.”

Google’s employees were responding to the company’s decision to secretly build a censored version of its search engine for China. Which, if Trump had his way, is exactly what he would have Google do for all of us here at home.

Most Americans don’t understand what bots are. We don’t quite get trolling. For many, cookies are something that make us gain weight, not annoying tech tidbits whose purpose is to clutter our computer screens with useless junk and unwanted ads. We may not understand how algorithms work or how invasive revolutionary forms of artificial intelligence programs are fast becoming. It sounds a bit ominous. You can almost understand how it makes the president a little crazy.

Enduring nuisances and sensory overload is a necessary evil when consumers opt to use search engines like Google. As bad as it may be, however, it’s a lot better than having Big Brother – or Donald J. Trump – dictate what we can and cannot see, hear or think.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Google Politically Incorrect? Search Me.

For Manafort and Cohen, the Truth and Nothing But the Truth

There may be hope for the American judicial system.The felony convictions of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is evidence of this, as is the plea agreement of former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen.

Despite the incoherent ramblings of one-time law and order advocate Rudy Giuliani, the truth is the truth.

Despite being unable to convict Manafort on all 18 counts for which he was charged, a jury of twelve Americans weighed the evidence against him and agreed with the government’s assessment that he was guilty of committing serious crimes. That he was not telling the truth.

Despite Cohen’s long-ago willingness to “take a bullet” for Trump, the consequences of actions he took on Trump’s behalf were cause enough for him to plead guilty to eight criminal counts – including election law violations – and tell the truth.

In his riveting book “On Tyranny,” author Timothy Snyder writes, “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom… If nothing is true [as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump insist], then all is spectacle.”

The Trump presidency is certainly that. As was the now-defunct Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus.

Trump continues to mislead. He continues to lie. He continues to speak anything but the truth.

In the wake ofManafort’s conviction on eight counts of criminal misconduct, Trump called the newly-convicted felon “a good man.” Just as he refers to white nationalists as “fine people.” He reiterated that the Manafort trial had “nothing to do with Russian collusion.” No one suggested it did.

Manafort was convicted on tax evasion and bank fraud charges, and lying about having bank accounts in foreign countries. Whether Manafort is also guilty of being involved in activities related to Russian meddling in the 2016 election and acting as a foreign agent remains for another jury to decide next month.

“No collusion, no collusion, no collusion,” Trump drones repetitively.

Snyder’s book notes that Victor Klemperer, a renowned German scholar who witnessed the rise of the Third Reich, wrote that this type of “endless repetition” is meant to “make the fictional plausible and the criminal desirable.” It is fascistic in nature and tyrannical in intent.

Trump and his minions would have us believe that verifiable facts are a distortion of reality, his reality, and that anyone who says otherwise – meaning the press and the opposition – is an “enemy of the people.”

At one of his Munich-like pep rallies in Kansas City last month, Trump told attendees, “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news… what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

That’s right. Don’t believe your own eyes and ears. You’re hallucinating.

When presented with cold hard facts, twelve jurors independently and collectively reached the conclusion that Manafort lied. Through their deliberations, they uncovered the truth. Not the truth according to Trump. The real truth.

In Cohen’s case, the president himself has been implicated in criminal behavior. Cohen told a court that his felony campaign law violations were made in “coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” Meaning, Trump. He did so for “the principal purpose of influencing the election.” This is not “deep state,” this is truth, sworn to under oath.

Trump also took an oath: to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” He consistently thumbs his nose at that very Constitution and, by extension, the people he was elected to serve. He might eventually be named an unindicted co-conspirator for two of the felony charges to which Cohen pled.

Many Americans have been lulled into complacency by Trump’s exhortation that he alone can solve the nation’s ills. It’s worked on those Republican members of Congress who’ve abrogated their constitutional responsibilities. Like many of his followers, they have bought into Trump’s cult of personality and a fictional narrative rife with “alternative facts” and lies, one that is antithetical to the foundations of our democracy. That is a truth for which they will eventually be held accountable by the people they serve.

The truth will, in all probability, not set Manafort and Cohen free. But it should send a very clear message to Donald J. Trump that no one is above the law. Not even those closest to him. Trump, however, can’t handle the truth. Nor, it would appear, can his most ardent supporters.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on For Manafort and Cohen, the Truth and Nothing But the Truth

Media Struggles Covering White Nationalists, Antifa and Trump

White Supremacists were supposed to descend upon Washington, D.C. this past weekend for a demonstration commemorating the anniversary of last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

One problem. Next to no one showed up.

There were more police and counter-protesters and – of course – media in attendance than the throngs of hate-mongers who were supposed to attend. Sprinkled among the peaceful counter-demonstrators were members of the not-so-peaceful Antifa movement, the quasi-anarchic group that believes overthrow of the government is the best solution for America’s ills.

In addition to white nationalists, white supremacists, fascists, neo-Nazi groups, the KKK, sundry members of the alt-right, and the federal government, Antifa also makes the press an object of their scorn.Which is something Antifa has in common with far-right extremist groups.

Both the far-right and far-left dislike the media. Except when they don’t. Meaning, whenever the need arises to draw press coverage to help amplify their respective messages. Which is usually most of the time.

Either way, the day was a win-win for purveyors of “fake news” since they got to cover people from both sides of the political spectrum whose disdain they’ve managed to earn in equal measure. The press was effectively left scratching their heads given that the only thing they ultimately had to cover was each other.

There is no question that the weekend’s demonstrations and counter-demonstrations could have devolved into something entirely different – and not something most of us would have liked to have seen on display. We didn’t need to witness splashy coverage of innocent bystanders being victimized by haters. Nor did we need to shift uncomfortably in our seats as the prevaricator-in-chief reprised last year’s observation that there was “blame on both sides” and that there were “some very fine people on both sides.”

Of course, we don’t need any of this. But these events are part of our new reality. The legitimate press has an obligation to keep the country informed and conscious of the good and ill that has befallen 21st century America. Regrettably, in today’s 24-hour news cycle, they’re not always as discerning as we might expect them to be. Oftentimes, there’s a blurred line between real news and orchestrated spectacle. Nowhere is this more evident than at a Donald Trump event.

Trump on the stump is no different than he was three years ago when he first began his run for office. His talk is tinged with racism, self-adulation, and venom. He grows frothy when launching yet another tirade against the mainstream media. The same media that was instrumental in helping Mr. Trump reinvent himself. We shouldn’t be surprised. Even Frankenstein’s monster eventually turned on his creator.

The backdrop of a presidential speech today is nearly identical to that on display during Trump’s campaign, composed of mostly white, hard-working Americans with a smattering of black and brown faces and an occasional Asian-American thrown in for good measure. There is no meaningful oratory, no laser-like focus on serious issues.

Trump talks are pep rallies bordering on the masturbatory. The only true digression from Trump’s fluffing is when he singles out members of the press, practically goading his followers to do them harm. Yet, as much as the press is intimidated by the crowd, as much as they vilify the president’s attempts to quash free speech, his distortions, deceit, and outright lies, they keep coming back for more.

But what if they threw a rally and nobody came?

What if the press covered the story – just the story – and refrained from airing the stage-managed made-for-television images Team Trump provides for the benefit of the media he claims to loathe and their audiences at home?

Coverage of Trump and his adoring followers is growing increasingly tiresome, redundant, misleading, and downright dangerous. Viewing them night-after-night is akin to watching reruns of “The Apprentice.” We pretty much know how each episode is going to end, so why bother tuning in?

Pretty pictures – nor ugly ones for that matter – do not an informed public make. Real news goes beyond the headlines, beyond the choreographed on-screen content the administration’s propaganda apparatus is only too happy to provide.

The First Amendment provides for both a free press and free speech. Unfortunately, there are no Constitutional guarantees for sound editorial judgment.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Media Struggles Covering White Nationalists, Antifa and Trump

Politicians Less Than Frank About Their Use of Franking

Let’s be frank. Congressional incumbents seeking re-election have a distinct advantage over their opponents. One of those advantages is the congressional franking privilege.

For those far enough away from high school civics class to remember, franking allows members of Congress to transmit mail under their signature without paying postage. Franking legislation has a long history, dating back to the First Continental Congress in 1775.

Franking was originally intended to allow lawmakers to regularly communicate with their constituents. In the days before radio, television, the internet, email, and social media, it was a valuable tool. Over time, however, more than a few legislators ended up abusing their privilege – especially in periods leading up to elections.

Franking evolved into something akin to free campaign advertising. In response, federal laws, House and Senate rules, and committee regulations were tightened to curtail misuse. Despite the best of intentions, workarounds continue that allow officials to use franking as a means of self-promotion.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are less than frank when it comes to their use of franking. These communications are supposed to be employed when responding to constituent requests, official member activities, positions on issues, and notifications of town hall meetings among other specified uses. Yet, for many incumbents, there’s a fine line between information and caged campaign communications. Those lines are often blurred in hotly-contested races. Given the stakes in the upcoming mid-terms – and the possibility that Democrats might possibly wrest control of the House – many incumbents on the endangered species list have employed this congressional perk as a means of voter outreach.

House members are prohibited from sending franked communications within 90 days of a primary or general election in which they are a candidate. Legislators know this, and they push the envelope, franking right up to the deadline. If, in recent weeks, you’ve been on the receiving end of postcards or letters touting what your representative may have done for you lately, it may have been delivered to your home on your dime. It’s easy to figure this out. By law, your representative must note whether the mailing was made at taxpayer expense.

A 2016 analysis published by Roll Call found that lawmakers in vulnerable congressional districts spend almost three times as much on constituent communications as their counterparts. Maybe your representative is one of them. Putting an informative piece of mail in a constituent’s hand is often the next best thing to a handshake. Especially for beleaguered politicians who avoid town hall meetings.

Many voters (and I’m one of them) may recently have been on the receiving end of “robo-calls” announcing a telephone town hall meeting. They’re often made minutes before the meeting is taking place. For those whose days aren’t spent sitting next to their phones, those calls often head straight to voicemail or an answering machine. Maybe you don’t even have voicemail or an answering machine. The result is being unable to call in, hear what your representative has to say or – more importantly – take them to task for positions held or votes cast.

Franked mail and telephone town hall meetings are often a simple solution for unresponsive representatives unwilling to be called on the carpet by folks at home.

Constituents are ultimately consumers. They expect and deserve good customer service from their elected officials regardless of party affiliation. Franked communications and robo-calls are usually not a true test of your representative’s achievements. To understand where they really stand and whether they’re aligned with your own beliefs and priorities takes effort. It means going online and researching their voting record or calling their office to ask questions or voice concerns.

We’re now within 90 days of an extremely important election. Franked mail will no longer fill our mailboxes. Instead, we’ll be left with distorted, disingenuous and often bilious paid campaign literature. After tossing it unread into the garbage along with all the other unwanted junk mail you receive, do your homework, find out where the candidates stand and, then, decide for yourself.

It’s a lot to ask. Many of us have grown lazy, apathetic, or feel beaten down by partisan rhetoric. Others vote along party lines or are swayed by misinformation and half-truths. Or facts gleaned from franked mail and other forms of impersonal congressional communication. We can ill-afford to do so.

As menacing as ongoing Russian election meddling may be, a more ominous threat to American democracy is a disengaged, uninformed electorate.

Copyright 2018 Blair Bess distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Blair Bess is a Los Angeles-based television writer, producer, and columnist. He edits the online blog Soaggragated.com, and can be reached at [email protected].

Comments Off on Politicians Less Than Frank About Their Use of Franking