I am guessing that Donald Trump has never heard of Atticus Finch, the central character in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Here is a taste of David Van Drehle’s column at today’s Washington Post:
Harper Lee understood, as she wrote “To Kill a Mockingbird,” that many people would have trouble understanding her hero, Atticus Finch. Others talk; he acts. Others equivocate; he stands firm. Others sell out and call it victory; he suffers defeat without complaint because he would rather lose the world than lose his dignity and integrity.
Though such people are rare indeed, a society cannot manage without them. And so Lee has Miss Maudie Atkinson, the shrewdest of the Maycomb neighbors, explain Atticus to his own offspring. “There are some men in this world who are born to do our unpleasant jobs for us,” she says. “Your father’s one of them.”
Robert Swan Mueller III is one, too — and not in the safe pages of fiction but in the hot kitchen of real life. For nearly two years as special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, Mueller has endured a nearly constant barrage of insults and character assassination from a Twittering President Trump and his bootlicking propagandists.
There is only one explanation for the president’s relentless attacks. He thought that Mueller was likely to throw the book at him. And there are only two explanations for that expectation. Either Trump knew he deserved it, or Trump assumed Mueller would sink to his own level of mendacity and self-serving to pervert justice. The idea that a public servant, indeed, a team of public servants, would quietly discharge a mission with honor was utterly beyond Trump’s fathoming.
The country had an unpleasant job that needed doing. The president of United States had surrounded himself with people who lied about their contacts with highly placed Russians. He had fired the director of the FBI, James B. Comey, and within hours he personally assured the Russian ambassador that he did so to shut down an inquiry into these lies. It was possible all this could be explained as the product of incompetence and naivete, because Trump had been utterly unprepared for the presidency and was surrounded by gangsters and clowns. But it was also possible something intentional was going on.
Read the rest here. Trump owes Mueller an apology.
HT: Randall Stephens via Facebook
Here is a taste of Lorraine Wolbert’s piece at Politico:
Falwell said he has urged the president to fire Sessions and told POLITICO he planned to bring up the subject again Monday evening at a small gathering with Trump and the first lady. Later, Falwell and dozens of other faith leaders were to attend a formal White House dinner celebrating the evangelical community.
In forsaking Sessions, faith leaders are turning on one of their own, a man who for decades fought in the political trenches for conservative Christian causes. As a senator from Alabama, Sessions was one of the first Republicans to endorse Trump’s long-shot presidential campaign, taking heat from his party in return.
But he has angered Trump loyalists more recently because the Justice Department has not declassified all materials sought by Republicans in regard to the Russia investigation. The president believes Sessions, who recused himself from the Russia probe because of his involvement in the 2016 campaign, has failed to rein in a probe that Trump claims is driven by politics.
This is what court evangelicals do. They tell the president to fire an Attorney General who rightly recused himself from the Mueller investigation. Falwell Jr. wants Sessions fired in the hopes that his replacement as Attorney General will end the investigation. In other words, Falwell Jr. wants to protect Trump against accusations that he is an adulterer, a liar, and a felon. Yes, this is now what we can expect from the president of the largest Christian university in the world. Oh wait, Liberty no longer holds that distinction.
Donald Trump has said multiple times that the Robert Mueller investigation into his presidential campaign’s relationship with Russia is a “witch hunt.” The use of this phrase invites historical analysis. I took a crack at such analysis last May.
In the latest issue of Perspectives on History, American Historical Association president and veteran early American historian Mary Beth Norton provides some historical analysis of her own. Norton is the author of In the Devil’s Snare: The Witchcraft Crisis of 1692.
Here is a taste of her piece, “An Embarrassment of Witches: What’s the History behind Trump’s Tweets?“:
That’s how President Donald Trump’s tweets tend to refer to the investigation led by Robert Mueller into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia.
Except for modern adherents of the Wiccan religion, people today do not believe in witchcraft—and Wiccans do not believe in the sort of witchcraft that became the subject of prosecutions in early modern Europe and America. The consensus among historians now is that witches did not exist in the past, and so by employing the term “witch hunt,” the president is implying that he is as innocent today as were the persecuted “witches” of centuries ago.
He is assuming, probably correctly, that Americans today understand his phrase in exactly that way. Anyone raised or resident in the United States has surely heard of the most famous “witch hunt” in American history, that which occurred in Essex County, Massachusetts, in 1692–93, named for the town in which the trials occurred: Salem. Indeed, many high school students today must read Arthur Miller’s famous 1953 play, The Crucible, which effectively used the vehicle of the Salem trials to comment on the House Un-American Activities Committee investigations of the 1950s, which had ensnared Miller and many of his acquaintances. Even though Miller changed many historical details to make his points—for example, turning the elderly John Proctor into a younger man and the child Abigail Williams into a femme fatale who seduces him—his image of the trials retains its hold on the American imagination.
Read the rest here.
I’ve been playing around with some tweets the last couple of days in the wake of the Michael Cohen investigation. When I saw the picture of Michael Cohen hanging around his posse yesterday I couldn’t help but think of Fredo in the The Godfather 2:
Or maybe Carlo Rizzi from The Godfather is more appropriate. Here is holding court before he gets beat up by Sonny Corleone:
And then there was this photo of a guy whispering something in Cohen’s ear. Who was this guy? It reminded me of this classic scene near the end of Godfather 2:
Phil Mudd let’s Trump have it.
A citizen in Washington D.C. is looking for a lawyer on Craigslist:
Seeking a lead attorney to represent client involved in an ongoing Federal investigation. Must be familiar with laws and procedures around discovery, executive privilege, international financing of licensed real estate, election law and the Logan Act. Working knowledge of social media, especially Twitter is a plus, as is a better than average knowledge of the adult film industry and a collection of Playboy magazines from 1985-2010. Must look the part – Gregory Peck or Tommy Lee Jones type. Prior appearances on Fox News a huge plus.
Must be prepared to work with a client who is very forceful and opinionated about his defense and is his own best counsel.
Basically your job boils down to keeping him from testifying under oath and hoping the rest comes out in the wash.
Ask about our other openings on our staff and submit your resume to be considered for potential openings in the near future. Perhaps the very near future. Like, hit refresh on your browser now. Now again.
Russian-American military historian and writer Max Boot thinks so. Here is Boot on Robert Mueller:
Mueller embodies the ideals of probity, service and self-sacrifice that trace back to the Pilgrims who came to America in search of a “city upon a hill.” The Puritans preached devotion to the Almighty and had nothing but contempt for vanity and luxury — no blue shirts for them. Over the centuries, their religious fanaticism leached away, leaving behind in American culture a residue of obligation to serve not just God but also mankind.
Here is Boot on Donald Trump:
Trump combines the hedonism of the 1970s with the bigotry and sexism of the 1950s: the worst of both worlds. His consciousness was not raised in the 1960s, but his libido was. He did not take part in the civil rights or antiwar movements and won five draft deferments — including one for “bone spurs” — so that he could devote his life to the pursuit of women and wealth. He later said that fear of catching a sexually transmitted disease was “my personal Vietnam.”
Trump is the embodiment of what Christopher Lasch in 1979 called the “new narcissist” who “praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself”; whose “emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace”; and whose “cravings have no limits,” because he “demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.” A product of the “me decade,” Trump is a “me first”— not “America first” — president whose speeches are full of exaggerated or falsified self-praise.
Read Boot’s entire Washington Post piece here. This makes a lot of sense to me.