The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

 

Michael McFaul, the former United States Ambassador to Russia, on Sunday slammed Donald Trump for declaring the European Union a “foe,” arguing it’s “not in America’s national interest” to antagonize its closes allies.

Trump on Sunday called the E.U. a “foe,” prompting a response from European Council President Donald Tusk.

“America and the E.U. are best friends,” Tusk wrote on Twitter. “Whoever says we are foes is spreading fake news.”

Speaking with MSNBC, McFaul tore into Trump’s comment.

“It’s ridiculous,” McFaul said. “I hate to be undiplomatic as a former diplomat. It goes to show what we were talking about. He doesn’t read what—the talking points. There is no way to call the European Union a foe of the United States of America. That is not in America’s national interest.”

McFaul went on to call Trump’s remark “deeply disappointing.”

The former ambassador also explained Putin’s strategic advantage over Trump.

“[Putin] has met Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now President Trump,” McFaul said. “All the issues that you have just been discussing, he has been working on for years. So he knows the details of Syria. He knows the details of Ukraine. By the way, he also knows the details of how to interfere in an American election. Whereas President Trump, he has only been at this for a year and a half. he does not know these details. Therefore, that one-on-one meeting, I think, is rather dangerous for President Trump.”

Watch below:

Elizabeth Preza is the Managing Editor of AlterNet. Follow her on Twitter @lizacisms.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Wandrea "Shaye" Moss

YouTube Screenshot

Just who deserves protection in America?

If you observe the folks this country chooses to protect and chooses to ignore, you may get an answer that doesn’t exactly line up with America’s ideals.

Keep reading... Show less
YouTube Screenshot

The First Amendment reflects a principled but shrewd attitude toward religion, which can be summarized: Government should keep its big fat nose out of matters of faith. The current Supreme Court, however, is not in full agreement with that proposition. It is in half agreement — and half is not enough.

This section of the Bill of Rights contains two commands. First, the government can't do anything "respecting an establishment of religion" — that is, sponsoring, subsidizing or providing special favors for religious institutions or individuals.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}