Tag: national review
Conservative National Review Urges Trump Impeachment Over Latest Grift

Conservative National Review Urges Trump Impeachment Over Latest Grift

On Wednesday, the National Review – the preeminent conservative magazine since 1955 — called it: President Donald Trump has done the “impeachable.”

“There is no plausible defense of Trump's TruthSocial scheme,” declared National Review Senior Editor Charles Cooke. “It is flagrantly corrupt. It is impeachable. Congress should intervene. (It won't, I know.)” He posted this assertion over his latest article, entitled “Truth Social’s Early-Access Scheme Is Indefensible.”

As he explains, over the weekend, the Trump Media & Technology Group announced the creation of a “real-time feed on the Truth Social website that will give paying institutions early access to certain high-profile posts for between $60,000 and $100,000 per month.” Cooke doesn’t hold back with his assessment of the scheme, writing, “There is no credible defense of this. The only reason that anyone would want priority access to Truth Social is to gain priority access to President Trump’s pronouncements on that platform. And the only reason that anyone would want priority access to President Trump’s pronouncements on that platform is to act on them for pecuniary gain.”

As Cooke elaborates, “Trump often uses Truth Social as the primary forum for his announcements — announcements that include changes to personnel, the imposition or rescission of tariffs, key foreign policy decisions, and more. These announcements are extremely useful to financial institutions, and, in the age of high-speed trading, the faster those financial institutions can obtain them, the more money those financial institutions can make. Facilitating this access is not a byproduct of Truth Social’s API offering; it is its core — perhaps its sole — purpose. Simply put: President Trump is charging Americans a fee — a fee that, in part, goes into his family’s pockets — for the privilege of receiving news about his official actions earlier than those who do not pay.”

According to Cooke, it is “obvious how unequivocally corrupt this setup is. Technically speaking, the beneficiaries will not gain the information they seek directly from Trump himself, but indirectly, via an API (Application Programming Interface) whose output will be processed by a bunch of semi-autonomous servers and acted upon according to a set of predetermined parameters. But the results will be the same as if Trump had personally picked up the phone.”

He continues, “Good traders do not react to the news on the fly; they have plans of action, which are to be implemented if a war starts or ends, if taxes are raised or cut, if the Federal Reserve’s next chairman is expected to be hawkish, dovish, or somewhere in between, and so on. If, instead of using Truth Social as the middleman, President Trump announced that, for a hefty annual charge, he would call a select group of brokers at the stock exchange to inform them of his important decisions, and thereby give them a head start in executing their plans, we would call that what it is: corruption. Why not here?”

Here Cooke concludes in rare agreement with Democratic lawmakers, writing, “Senators Warren and Schiff have described Trump’s plan as ‘an outrageous abuse of the President’s office for his personal benefit that undermines everyday investors and the integrity of our markets, while enriching Wall Street and other wealthy insiders.’ They are correct… It is certainly a grave offense against honesty, transparency, and good government. If it has any self-respect, Congress will respond to the president’s brazen provocation by passing a law that renders his model flatly illegal. And, if that fails to persuade him, it will impeach and remove him from office, the better to drain the swamp.”

Reprinted with permission from Truth Social

'National Review' Demands That Trump Explain Why He Protects Epstein Cronies

'National Review' Demands That Trump Explain Why He Protects Epstein Cronies

National Review writer Noah Rothman admits Democrats are tearing President Donald Trump to shreds for clinging to friends and confidants of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Rothman pointed to a recent X post by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) — which accused Trump of protecting child abusers and claiming that in her home country of Somalia, child predators are executed — to argue that Trump is carrying the kind of baggage that could bring down an entire administration.

“The president and his allies have not been able to leverage reckless remarks like these, render them liabilities and impose a political price on their expostulators,” Rothman wrote. “They don’t even seem to be trying. It’s not at all clear why.”

Trump’s “onetime aide and federal convict, Steve Bannon,” was “chummy with Epstein long after the child abuser was convicted of his crimes,” reports Rothman. “Indeed, even on the eve of Epstein’s final arrest, Bannon was committed to making a documentary about the former financier explicitly designed to rehabilitate his image.”

So why on earth, demands Rothman, would Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer be lobbying an appeals court to drop charges against Bannon to erase his conviction for obstructing the House's January 6 investigation?

“Behavior like this is the augur in which conspiracy theories bloom,” warned Rothman.

Similarly, Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick “maintained surreptitious relations with Epstein long after he repeatedly claimed (once, under oath) that he cut the pervert off, (after 2005),” according to what Rothman told CNBC.

But the so-called ‘Epstein Files’ made Lutnick out to be a liar by revealing that in December 2012, Epstein invited Lutnick to lunch on his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The two also had business dealings as recently as 2014, according to CBS News.

Any retaliation the Trump administration makes against Democrats’ Epstein accusations, said Rothman, “will be limited by the administration’s efforts to shield those in Trump’s orbit with deeper ties to Epstein from accountability.”

“Certainly, figures like Bannon and Lutnick, who are guilty not of mere association but of misleading law enforcement, lawmakers, or the public, complicate the White House’s efforts to indemnify the president,” said Rothman. “It’s not at all clear why these two replaceable components in the MAGA machine are worth the effort."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

For Right-Wing Pundits, Garland Is Damned If He Indicts Trump -- And Damned If He Doesn't

For Right-Wing Pundits, Garland Is Damned If He Indicts Trump -- And Damned If He Doesn't

The Justice Department keeps revealing damning details about the ongoing investigation into Donald Trump’s illicit possession of highly classified documents and his alleged effort to conceal and retain those materials. That has some commentators arguing against an indictment of the former president on the grounds that it might spur a backlash from conservatives who will argue that Democrats have weaponized the DOJ.

Trump’s “defenders would claim that every person ostensibly committed to the dispassionate upholding of the rule of law is in fact motivated by rank partisanship and a drive to self-aggrandizement,” Damon Linker wrote last week in The New York Times. “This would be directed at the attorney general, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and other branches of the so-called deep state. The spectacle would be corrosive, in effect convincing most Republican voters that appeals to the rule of law are invariably a sham.”

But this smear of federal law enforcement cannot be staved off by declining to indict the former president, as Linker suggests. It is true that a bloc of Republicans and right-wing media personalities have spent the weeks since the FBI’s August 6 search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort loudly arguing that the action was a partisan sham, and they would certainly continue to do so if he were indicted. Another faction, however, is now preparing to go after the Justice Department on the exact same grounds of Democratic partisanship if it decides not to indict the former president.

This damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t tendency runs through the columns of Andrew McCarthy, a Trump-skeptical legal commentator respected in higher-brow conservative circles. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor whose columns run in National Review and The New York Post and who regularly provides legal commentary in his role as a Fox News contributor.

McCarthy’s August 9 column, written in the immediate aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago search, provided a somewhat more sober version of the incendiary conspiracy theories of a justice system weaponized for Democratic benefit that were replete at the time on Fox. The National Review columnist argued that the Justice Department had “obviously” used concerns about classified information “as a pretext” to find evidence tying Trump to the January 6 insurrection. He warned against filing charges on such grounds, saying that such an indictment “would fuel the perception that Democrats are using the Justice Department as a political weapon.”

“The Biden Justice Department is under enormous pressure from the Democratic base to indict Trump, and it is straining to deliver,” McCarthy concluded.

A couple weeks later, McCarthy was still telling readers that any Trump indictment would be politically motivated. After reviewing the redacted affidavit supporting the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, he concluded that the Justice Department would be unlikely to indict the former president unless it had strong evidence to prosecute an obstruction of justice charge or Trump talked himself into an indictment.

“I don’t think the Justice Department and FBI want to prosecute Donald Trump on classified-information or document-retention offenses in light of all the considerable downsides of doing so,” McCarthy explained. But he added: “Of course, the Biden Justice Department has shown itself to be very responsive to the demands of Democrats’ progressive base. As the midterms approach, if the left’s rabid insistence on a Trump indictment gets intense enough, all bets are off.”

After Tuesday’s damning DOJ filing, however, McCarthy concluded in his August 31 column that the DOJ possesses “formidable” evidence of obstruction on Trump’s part and that Attorney General Merrick Garland will likely approve charges. That evidence is so damning, in fact, that McCarthy wrote that the only explanation for not indicting Trump would be that the DOJ is in the service of the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.

This is a serious obstruction case that appears as if it would not be difficult to prove. The Justice Department is under immense pressure from the Democratic base to indict Trump, and the jury pool in Washington, DC, where the government would file any indictment, is intensely anti-Trump. It is thus hard to imagine that Attorney General Merrick Garland will decide against filing charges.

The best hope Trump has of avoiding an indictment is that Democrats would rather run against a wounded Trump in 2024 than indict him in 2022.

Note that McCarthy left himself room to accuse Garland of partisanship regardless of what the attorney general does: If he files charges, it will be because his department is “under immense pressure from the Democratic base to indict Trump,” while if he refrains, the only explanation is that he thinks it will help Democrats by keeping Trump on the 2024 presidential ballot.

To his credit, when the facts change, McCarthy’s stated view changes. To his detriment, the throughline is that if the Justice Department doesn’t do what he wants, it must be because it’s run by Democratic partisans.

It’s easy to imagine that this line of reasoning might spread amid the faction of the GOP that would prefer to see another candidate — perhaps Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — on the ballot in 2024 in Trump’s stead. It gives such individuals a talking point that suggests moving on from Trump without actually criticizing his behavior: It’s the Democrats who want Trump to be the 2024 Republican nominee! You can tell that’s true because the Justice Department isn’t indicting him!

The staunchly pro-Trump faction, of course, has a different view.


The Justice Department would be wise to follow the facts wherever they may lead and make a decision about whether to indict Trump based on what it finds. Trying to avoid right-wing allegations of partisanship is futile — in that information ecosystem, such conspiracy theories are the coin of the realm.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

'Dumbest Thing' Is Far Right's Latest Attack On AOC For Miami Vacation

'Dumbest Thing' Is Far Right's Latest Attack On AOC For Miami Vacation

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Almost three years after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City was first sworn into Congress, far-right Republicans continue to be obsessed with the progressive Democratic congresswoman — and many of their attacks on her fall painfully flat. A case in point: Republicans playing “gotcha!” in response to a new photo of a maskless AOC drinking outside during a visit to Miami.

People who aren’t regular consumers of right-wing media, upon seeing the photo that’s supposed to inspire outrage, are likely to respond, “So what?” A New York Post tweet reads, “AOC pictured dining maskless in Miami Beach as Omicron cases soar.”

The implication, evidently, is that Ocasio-Cortez isn’t practicing COVID-19 safety even though she has been an outspoken proponent of vaccines, masks and social distancing precautions. But AOC, in that photo, is outside in the open air and several feet apart from the person she was dining or drinking with. AOC never called for 24/7 isolation and ceasing all human contact in response to the pandemic.

The Washington Post’s David Weigel found the right-wing non-issue puzzling, and The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson found it to be just plain “dumb.”


Far-right Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' office posted:

AOC responded:

Here are some more responses to the far-right’s latest anti-AOC attack:




Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World