Donald Trump: Backpedaler-in-Chief

Though Donald Trump frequently and regularly backpedals, denies, and waffles on what he says, some weeks stand out in that regard. This past week was one of those; Trump backpedaled on at least five major issues.

Trump began the week by calling the prime minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, “nasty,” after Frederiksen pronounced Trump’s proposal to purchase Greenland “absurd.” (It should be noted that Trump reserves the term for outspoken women, not men.) By the end of the week, however, Trump was praising Frederiksen as a “wonderful woman” after she personally phoned him.

Trump also backpedaled on the topic of more extensive background checks for potential gun owners. Early in the week, Trump said he advocated legislation calling for “strong background checks” for gun users. A bill to that effect had been drafted and had bipartisan support.

“We vow to act with urgent resolve,” said Trump on Monday. 

By the end of the week, Trump (after meeting with Wayne LaPierre, Chief Executive and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association), said that, as far as gun control was concerned, he had decided that “we already have meaningful background checks,” adding that bipartisan gun control legislation was a “slippery slope” that could mean the downfall of the second amendment. 

On Wednesday, Trump proclaimed, “I am the Chosen One!” Looking to the sky and talking with reporters about his trade talks with China. Two days later, he said he had been joking.

“It was sarcasm!” He said with a sneer. 

Regarding the escalating trade war with China and the plummeting stock market, Trump tweeted on Friday, “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China including bringing …your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” When challenged, Trump cited the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act as justification. 

By Sunday, however, Trump told reporters, “I have no plan right now. Actually, we’re getting along very well with China right now. We’re talking.”

On Tuesday, Trump said he would advocate a cut in payroll tax to help fend off a recession. “Payroll tax is something that we think about, and a lot of people would like to see that, and that very much affects the workers of our country,” said Trump.

On Wednesday, however, Trump said he was no longer considering a payroll tax cut, declaring that the economy is great, and is not in danger of a recession. “I’m not looking at a tax cut now. We don’t need it. We have a strong economy,” Trump told reporters Wednesday.

Ever notice how Americans are supposed to have the innate ability to discern when Trump is “just kidding” from when he’s serious; and to recognize when he says something from which we’re expected to extract the opposite meaning? And that Trump supporters will get fully behind what Trump says until he says he didn’t say it? At which time his supporters develop an almost uncanny ability to tell the difference between an absurd Trumpism that was intended, and another equally absurd one that shouldn’t be taken literally?

How is Trump’s continual backpedaling congruent with his supporters’ slogan, “Says what he means and means what he says”?

Trump all over the place on gun background checks | CNN
[2019-08-21]

President Trump: “I am the chosen one.” 
| C-SPAN [2019-08-21]

William Barr: Obstruction is in the Eye of the Beholder

Attorney General William Barr has decided that Donald Trump should not be charged with obstruction of justice in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, based on Mueller’s report on the investigation. Shortly after Barr handed down a heavily redacted version of Mueller’s findings, a follow-up letter from Mueller to Barr came to light. The letter criticizes the way William Barr handled the public release of Mueller’s core findings in the Russia investigation.

In turn, Barr characterized Mueller’s letter as “snitty.”

“… I think it was probably written by one of his staff people,” said Barr about Mueller’s letter.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr stated that he asked Mueller if he had an issue with Barr’s summary of the report, and if Mueller felt Barr’s summary was accurate. According to Barr, Mueller said he didn’t have an issue with how Barr presented the summary.

“But he had an issue with how the press covered it,” said Barr. In other words, according to Barr, press reporting on Robert Mueller’s report had been inaccurate.

Barr has summed up Robert Mueller’s report on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election in this way: Mueller found that there was no collusion with Russia on the part of Trump or the Trump family, and “therefore, how (could) Trump obstruct an investigation?”

This logic is only convincing if we pretend that both factors are dependent on each other. In making his decision that Trump didn’t obstruct justice by trying to curtail the Russia probe, Barr said he focused on how the president didn’t commit a crime with Russia and how “we now know that he was being falsely accused.”

But faulty logic aside, Barr’s chosen interpretation of Mueller’s report is that Mueller saw “no corrupt intent from Trump to obstruct Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.” According to William Barr, Mueller reported that the U.S. government did not have a prosecutable case in Trump.

Barr seems to forget that Mueller also found that a number of White House staff members would have been guilty of obstruction of justice had they carried out various orders or requests from Trump along those lines. When asked by a member of the House Judiciary Committee whether Barr felt it was ok for a president to direct others to lie on his behalf, Barr declined to answer.

It is also important to consider that Mueller’s overall findings, though they showed no evidence of collusion with Russia on the part of Donald Trump, could be summarized more accurately in this way: “We can’t indict a sitting president, but there are enough things we found that we can’t clear him of.”

Barr was given the choice to indict or not to indict Trump on obstruction of justice charges, based Robert Mueller’s findings. Barr chose not to. William Barr appears to see the powers of the presidency as extending to the privilege of shutting down any investigation into the president if he thought he was falsely accused – and that this would somehow be different from obstruction of justice.

William Barr’s testimony reveals rift with Mueller over Russia probe | National Review [2019-05-03]

Graham to Mueller: Did Barr misrepresent your call? | CNN [2019-05-03]