The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

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

Reprinted with permission from Shareblue.

On Thursday afternoon, Trump lied his way through a 35-minute press conference to end the NATO summit, but also managed to expose the truth about his own weakness with Russia.

Washington Post reporter Phil Rucker asked Trump if NATO is of value in protecting the U.S. from Russia, but Trump sidestepped the question. Instead, Trump brought up his upcoming summit with Putin.

“I’m meeting with president Putin on Monday, and I think we go into that meeting, not looking for so much,” Trump said, and grudgingly added, “We will, of course, ask your favorite question about meddling. I will be asking that question again.”

“What if he denies it again?” Rucker asked.

“Well, he may, I mean look, he may. What am I going to do? He may deny it, it’s one of those things,” Trump said. “All I can do is say ‘Did you?’ and ‘Don’t do it again,’ but he may deny — you’ll be the first to know, okay?”

It’s telling that Trump called Russian election meddling “your favorite question.” This exchange deeply demonstrates the degree to which Trump does not take Russia’s actions seriously.

The fact is that Trump could do much more than accept Putin’s denial, or impotently asking him to stop. For example, he could address Putin with the U.S. intelligence community’s unanimous conclusion that Russia did interfere in our elections, and threaten additional sanctions instead of delaying and obstructing the ones Congress has already imposed.

But that would require him stand up to Putin, and Trump has repeatedly shown that he would rather attack our allies — as he did at the NATO summit — than offend the Russian dictator. Time, and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, will tell why that is.

Published with permission of The American Independent.


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning


YouTube Screenshot

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, some conservatives and mainstream media outlets have suggested that anti-abortionists may be willing to support more generous family welfare programs to offset the financial burden of forced birth. These suggestions, whether made in bad faith or ignorance, completely misunderstand the social function of prohibiting abortion, which is to exert control over women and all people who can get pregnant.

In adopting or replicating the right’s framing of anti-abortionists as “pro-life,” these outlets mystify the conservative movement’s history and current goals. Conservatives have sought to dismantle the United State’s limited safety net since the passage of the New Deal. Expecting the movement to reverse course now is absurd, and suggesting so serves primarily to obfuscate the economic hardship the end of Roe will inflict on people forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Keep reading... Show less

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters

YouTube Screenshot

Donald Trump's hand-picked candidate Blake Masters is the latest to endorse the unpopular idea.

The front-runner in the GOP primary to run for Senate in Arizona in November against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly suggested on June 23 that Social Security should be privatized, an approach to the popular government program that experts say could jeopardize a vital financial lifeline for retired Americans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}