Trump would rather defend his own ego than defend the country

150928-trump-ap-1160

(AP)

Donald J. Trump’s reaction to charges that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 election tells us something critically important. It tells us that Trump does not think as a president of the United States should and in fact must think, and that he may not be capable of doing so.

Ask yourself: What’s the single most important duty of a president? The most important duty of the president is to protect the country. In this case, a president guided by that sense of duty would immediately recognize that Russian intervention into our electoral process — regardless of which side it takes — constitutes a foreign assault on the integrity of our democratic systems. It is, as Sen. John McCain describes it, “a form of warfare.”

Even if you’re not fully convinced of Russia’s guilt, as president the mere possibility of such foreign intervention would require you to take the claim seriously, undertake an in-depth investigation and then take action if that investigation proves conclusive. There can be no other responsible course, and yet Trump has chosen to take another direction entirely. From the beginning, he has dismissed these claims as groundless and ridiculous and not even deserving of further notice. And he has done so despite the fact that government agencies and top private-sector cybersecurity experts are all telling him that he is wrong. (Another private assessment of the evidence is here, and Wired has a compendium of evidence here.)

In other words, Trump has treated this not as a potential assault on the country, but as an assault on something that he considers far more important, which is his own ego.  It is all about him. Every action, every response coming from the Trump camp has been motivated not out of concern for the country but out of concern for protecting Trump’s self-image.

And in rushing to defend the Trump ego, he and his staff have done even greater damage to the country.

For example, by lashing out and attacking the patriotism and professionalism of our intelligence community, Trump has opened a gaping breach with those who must serve as his eyes and ears on the rest of the world once he takes office next month.

He had already been deeply dismissive of their work, refusing to receive the daily intelligence briefings that are standard for presidents-elect because, as he explained it on Fox News this weekend, he’s already “smart”  and doesn’t need to sit through the briefings. However, he has now put the intelligence community and everyone else in government on clear notice:  As president, he will not react well when bad news is brought to him; he will attack those who do so and he only wants people who will tell him what he wants to hear.

And of course, there’s no shortage of people eager to play that role. Take John Bolton, who is apparently in line for a top job at the State Department. Over the weekend, Bolton defended Trump by suggesting that the hacking of both the Democratic and Republican parties was a “false flag operation” conducted by American intelligence at the orders of the Obama administration, with the goal of falsely implicating the Russians as the culprits.

That’s just an extraordinary plummet down into the rabbit hole.

Bolton would rather believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, that his own country perpetrated the crime. If the evidence points to Russia, that’s proof that the evidence was planted because again, the possibility of Russia intervening to elect Trump cannot be tolerated.

And in case you are tempted to take Bolton seriously for even a millisecond, don’t. His whole notion collapses upon even a cursory examination:

Bolton’s theory requires you to believe many wacky things, most notably that as a key part of this “false flag operation,” the Obama administration not only hacked the email servers but also arranged the leaking of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In essence, he needs you to believe that Obama threw the election in order to later point the finger at Russia and Trump.

It is madness, pure and undiluted madness. And yet those engaging in this madness are being given the keys to immense power. We screwed up, America, and it appears that we are going to pay a helluva price for doing so.

Reader Comments 0

1984 comments
Kamchak
Kamchak

Trump is Putin's sugar woogum SHEETZ!

Donnie_Pinko
Donnie_Pinko

From DowninAlbany's link about the 'unhinged liberal' Joyce Behar: 

"It’s like they are discrediting the CIA — his campaign and he, the president-elect of this country, is discrediting the organization that basically protects us from foreign invasion

And this CIA-kowtowing fool is some kind of wild-eyed liberal leftie HOW? 

lol

td1234
td1234

"Longshot plans in Colorado and elsewhere to deny Donald Trump the presidency through the Electoral College were dealt a severe setback on Monday after a federal judge refused to suspend a law requiring electors to vote for the presidential candidate who won the state in November.

U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel denied a request by two Colorado electors who contended that the law binding their vote to Colorado vote winner Hillary Clinton violated their First Amendment rights and the intents of the Constitution's framers, reported The Associated Press. The electors had sought the right to vote for someone other than Clinton in order to unite behind a consensus Republican other than Trump when the Electoral College convenes on Dec. 19.

Daniel found that suspending the Colorado requirement would have harmed the state's voters and jeopardized a peaceful presidential transition. "Part of me thinks this is really a political stunt to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president," said Daniel, who was nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1995."

TomGaff
TomGaff

Hey Bookman, are you going to be a whiny little man for the next 4 or 8 years, at least? You and your lib groupies LOST, get over it!

td1234
td1234

@TomGaff He will probably either retire or be fired before the end of 8 years but probably be negative nanny for the next 4. 

Donnie_Pinko
Donnie_Pinko

@TomGaff 

Hey Bookman, are you going to be a whiny little man for the next 4 or 8 years

-

4-8 years. 

Very good. Someone FINALLY showed some basic understanding of how our political process works and didn't automatically assume 8 years.

Donnie_Pinko
Donnie_Pinko

@td1234 @Donnie_Pinko 

But, he's been here quite a long time. There would have to be some reason for him to be concerned for his job, and I don't see that. 

Do you? 

td1234
td1234

@Donnie_Pinko How long did Dick Williams stay at the AJC or many others? They did nothing wrong either but the paper decided they needed to change it up and they did. 


They let Mr. College Football go a few years back and on the college football scene he was one of the most read in the entire southeast. 


It is the nature of the industry.  

Kamchak
Kamchak

drudgey.  Now, there's where I look to for a sane insight. 

td1234
td1234

@Kamchak Why do you think you are to good to get your news from the same sources that the majority of the people get their news from? 

Kamchak
Kamchak

@td1234 

Why do you think you are to[sic] good to get your news from the same sources that the majority of the people get their news from?

Majority?

Got proof, or was it "read" from your butt?

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

Who's up for some genetically modified rice? 

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@Nick_Danger @FIGMO2

Who knows? There's a big movement against genetically modified food sources.

It's likely you and I have both eaten some.

Is one of your legs shorter than the other? One of your arms?

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

For DiA, here is the truth about race relations. The best explanation I've ever heard:

"When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it's all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they're not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before."

"So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he's the first black person that is qualified to be president. That's not black progress. That's white progress. There's been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship's improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, "Oh, he stopped punching her in the face." It's not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner's relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn't. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let's hope America keeps producing nicer white people."

~Chris Rock



DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@Paul42 @DownInAlbany  Chris Rock has a history of really racist jokes.  Oh, what am I saying...we ALL know that a black person can't be racists.  They simply cannot be.

Paul42
Paul42

@DownInAlbany

Since you jumped to disparaging the messenger, I have to assume you either agreed with the message or could not think of any rational rebuttal.

Paul42
Paul42

@DownInAlbany

I find his language in his act over the top.  But in this case he made some really worthwhile points.

Nowhere did he introduce the idea black people can't be racists.  That's one of those red herrings white people toss out.  When many of us hear it, we have to wonder why they do it.

Kamchak
Kamchak

I take you down.

I just love it when a Pomeranian bows up and tries to be an alpha.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@Kamchak

Tries?

Howz'bout IS when it comes to your Pee Wee.

schnirt

Paul42
Paul42

Someone posted earlier about how Trump had 'won over' Bill Gates.

I don't think the status is quite as locked in as the poster imagines.

"Bill Gates’s $1 Billion Fund Will Back Radical Clean Energy Ideas

It hopes to find audacious startups that can provide electricity, food, transportation, and more—without contributing to climate change."

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603111/bill-gatess-1-billion-fund-will-back-radical-clean-energy-ideas/?utm_campaign=add_this&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post


Who know, maybe Gates will win over Donald on the reality and science of climate change?  The guy has changed his mind in the past.  When it didn't consist of 'euphemisms.'

Paul42
Paul42

@KUTGF

Yeah. 

It's be nice, also, if some of our posters would get in the habit of using it before posting.

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@Paul42  It's about time that some of these climate change advocates put their money where their mouth is.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

@Paul42 Trump needs to feel liked so this may be a perfect move for Gates. Get the President-elect all pliable over his new friend Bill.

Paul42
Paul42

@DownInAlbany

It's been going on for some time.

Ever heard of Elon Musk?

Or the people who buy Teslas?

Or other hybrid automobiles?

That's one small example.  Lots others exist.

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

Gates speaks rather highly of Trump...."But in the same way President Kennedy talked about the space mission and got the country behind that," Gates continued, "I think whether it's education or stopping epidemics ... [or] in this energy space, there can be a very upbeat message that [Trump's] administration [is] going to organize things, get rid of regulatory barriers, and have American leadership through innovation."

Paul42
Paul42

@DownInAlbany

I'd find it interesting if 'business leaders' would specifically identify those regulations they see as having an unnecessarily deleterious effect.  All we hear from Republican leaders is 'regulations.'  I'd like to hear from the business community (and not a rehash of Heritage's or some other entity's papers).

I can think of a major one right off the bat.  Came from the guy who runs the financial group our family's associated with.  Business people have to be willing to get in the game and not defer to politicians' rhetoric.  

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@Paul42  A few words for the POTUS elect vs $1Bn for clean energy?  The phrase "put your money where your mouth is" comes to mind.