@realDonaldTrump tweeted this morning:
With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it…
……..may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS
Parse that. Did he say, “What terrible judgment! Undo the damage!”
No.
Why a gentle chiding but no reprimand? Is an ethics investigation really “unfair,” as Trump says? Is he concerned about the action or the optics?
What do do you take as the meaning of these two tweets from the Tweeter-in-Chief?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Mean and Nuts! Put him in a diaper.
LikeLike
KellyAnne set thiis tweet up to make him look ethical…such dung.
LikeLike
What Ellen Lubic said.
LikeLike
Absolutely., let them spend the next two years working on that and nothing else .
LikeLike
I never venture a guess as to what this man means. I don’t think HE knows what he means. If I spend the next four years closely reading his every word to try to figure him out, I’ll be wasting a heck of a lot of time. However, my guess is that he kind of proud of them for making efforts to cover his behind before he gets into office!
LikeLike
I disagree, Sue. I think he does, at some reptilian, primal level, know what he means and what he is doing. It it tempting to treat him like he is an idiot, but I think it is dangerous. A snake may not be able to read — but it is not stupid. It is dang good at being a snake.
Trump wouldn’t last an hour in a difficult, intellectual nuanced discussion — but he is dang good at being a quasi-dictator of a reactionary populist movement.
Every once in a while, he may just “whiff” on something in a clumsy way. But more often than not, we should assume that at either an instinctual or intellectual level, he knows the evil he does — and does it very purposefully.
LikeLike
DUH… not hard, Diane, to know what numb-nuts thinks of ‘ethics.’
LikeLike
Susan: HA! you are assuming Trump knows what “ethics” means. But Sue Corbin above is probably right too. Congress is removing the referee from the game so that they and Trump and Company can cheat all they want.
LikeLike
Haven’t we yet learned the folly of underestimating Trump?
With this tweet, he puts some distance between himself and what he/his advisers see as a likely unpopular move by the House, while doing nothing of substance to stop or alter it. Trump takes the high road (or appears to), as the underpinnings of the Looting Of All Time are put in place, looting that he has every intention of putting to his own personal use.
In fact, (and let the flaming begin!) how different is it from what Randi Weingarten has been doing for years: sending out a few sound bites opposing so-called education reform to misdirect her membership, while enabling it in practice?
LikeLike
I’m sure minority president elect trump thinks ethical consideration is unfair. The tweet was for optics. He supported the action with “as unfair as it is…”
LikeLike
Five times in the history of the U.S. has the popular candidate lost the presidential election. Hillary Clinton LOST TWICE WHILE WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE. The first time was to BARACK OBAMA and now to President-elect Trump. We’re you this bitter when she lost in 2008?
LikeLike
Linda Giffin,
I don’t think there was the same outrage in 2008, when Obama beat Clinton in the primaries. First, because no one doubted the legitimacy of the primary elections. Second, because there was a great deal of excitement about the possibility of the first African American president.
The outrage this time is spurred by the intervention of hackers into the election, hacking only the Democrats and obviously trying to help Trump. Whether the hackers were working at the direction of Putin, as American intelligence agencies believe, or was a 400-pound guy sitting on his bed in New Jersey, as Trump believes, is irrelevant. Emails were hacked (stolen) and leaked, day after day, benefiting Trump and only Trump.
Second, Clinton was beaten by a narcissistic con man, fraud, liar who knows nothing whatever about foreign or domestic or economic policy. His biggest con was tricking working class people into believing he cares about them. He proceeded to select a rogues’ gallery of billionaires, generals, and people to the farthest right of the GOP, who have zero interest in improving the lot of the people.
So, yes, there is good reason to be unhappy with the results.
LikeLike
FACT:
The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton’s win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state’s violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama’s margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes…
So, no, Clinton did not win the popular vote in 2008… And this is how FAKE news is built. We do not need foreigners to accomplish that, obviously
LikeLike
Rudy,
There was no outcry about Clinton’s loss in 2008 because she lost to a man who was much admired.
As I wrote earlier, the outcry this year was due to the fact of hacking–no one doubts there was hacking, only who did it–and the fact that Trump is a fool and a congenital liar.
LikeLike
Diane, the only experience Obama had prior to being elected President was that of a community organizer and ONE term as a Senator. He never held a job and had already lost his law license. The one professor at Columbia whose class was required never met Obama and neither did members of his graduation class …
Obama plays to the emotions of liberals otherwise they would question his actions. For example, for the first time since WWII there are NO U.S. BATTLESHIPS ANY WHERE AT SEA to protect this country or it’s interests. Does that seem like a rational move? The BUSH is not even expected to leave port until after January 20th..
Based on FOIA documents and court records Obama has had no less than 25 scandals during his administration, contrary to what Valerie Jarrett would have you BELIEVE. I am not including the Clinton emails, though there are documents he sent to her on her private server … a violation of Federal law. A federal March 2013 document defining a terrorist, classifies such careless disregard and/or destruction of government documents as an act of terrorism.
I find the breaking of laws a much more serious offense than emotional outbursts not based in reality.
The reason Trump was elected was based on the large number of people that had NEVER voted before. The one thing they had in common was a dislike in the direction the country was going…to far from the dream of the Founding Fathers. They want that dream returned and Trump was the only person “outside the corrupt system” that could maybe do that.
LikeLike
Linda,
I have no idea how many battleships are at sea.
What I do know is we elected a con man (as Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Ted Cruz agreed), a pathological liar, a man who ran a fraudulent “university” that fleeced people of their life savings, a man who claims great wealth but who went through four bankruptcies and who had a reputation for not paying contractors and workmen.
He is ignorant of history, current affairs, foreign policy, and domestic policy. And he has a puzzling crush on the tyrant Vladimir Putin.
I hope I live to see this phony impeached and disgraced, although as he said, he could shoot someone dead in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue in NYC and his followers wouldn’t care.
A true demagogue.
For the first time in my life, I am ashamed of our president.
LikeLike
Diane: That pretty much covers it.
But I think the “demagogue” thing is what connects Rump up with so many of his supporters who do not respond to his many outrageous comments and actions–and here’s the odd thing–in ways they normally would respond in any other case. The outrage is still there for others whom they do not like. So it seems to me the situation is far from reasonable. This absence of outrage puts the relationship between Rump and a good many of his followers in the same category as a cult and their cult figure. They quite literally go morally-spiritually blind where their leader is concerned, or they blame someone or something else, but with more intensity than deserved, or consider that “he must have a good reason,”
Also, in another note, Mate linked to a brief interview with George Lackoff where, in my view, the same issue as above is overlooked–the cult relationship. Everything Lackoff says about reframing is true and helpful in many respects. However, again, its incomplete–precisely because, commonly when we don’t think about how someone else’s framing is (deliberately or not) guiding our own thoughts, we are prone to allow such framing to occur–a cult’s followers are no different. On the other hand, if we are aware, we can reframe if need be–in mass movements of thought, the quicker the better.
But I have to ask what reframing does, or how effective will or could it be, when faced with the cult relationship, and especially in such a massive number of people? I think that’s what’s missing in Lackoff’s interview and viewpoint. If so, clues about how to initiate a breakthrough, I think, will have to come from another profession.
Also, about the ethics turnaround today: considering Rump’s past, I can give him no credit for ever doing anything right for the right reasons. We already see too many Charlie Browns playing to Lucy and her football. We want so badly for him to be authentic. Alas.
LikeLike
the PROCESS used by the OCE is unfair. Even democrats think so (as evidenced in links sent earlier). They were looking at limiting the “powers.”
LikeLike
Rudy,
The Dems never voted to limit the powers of the OCE.
LikeLike
That doesn’t seem right to me, Rudy — because the amendments they were making were not to process. They were designed to severely weaken the OCE’s ability to do its job at all. I don’t deny that the process could probably be improved. But the effort to do that would seem to be to call a series of hearings, taking testimony from those previously accused (both fairly and unfairly) to develop a list of specific procedural and substantive safeguards that might be employed to make the OCE work more fairly. This legislation — and the way that it was “sprung” on people by surprise, falls far short of that.
LikeLike
It was a direct quote from the WP article. Since I have no doubt about the veracity of the quote, that simplifies it.
LikeLike
Rudy, direct quotes belong in quotation marks. A reference to the specific article would help as well. Thanks.
LikeLike
The quote WAS in quotation marks.
But that seemed to have escaped everyone’s attention. Article can be found on the WP website. Seems no one takes the time to look at links anyway.
LikeLike
Here is an interesting quote…
Quotation mark open – As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CNN in an interview that aired last night, “The only way we’re going to work with him is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues.”
Think about how Schumer would have responded if Mitch McConnell made that statement about a President-elect Hillary Clinton… quotation mark close
Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/01/04/daily-202-even-when-trump-shows-backbone-his-haters-refuse-to-give-him-any-credit/586c4864e9b69b36fcfeafa1/?utm_term=.9d544e7a042c
LikeLike
McConnell said the Republicans would never work with Obama. Period.
Look, a totally unqualified man was elected president. Why should Dems help him destroy the country?
LikeLike
Not much of an answer. Again, if the Democrats do it, it’s okay. When the same words come out of the mouth of a Republican (And it really would not have mattered which one won), it’s diabolical.
Obama had no record to speak of when he was elected. He was a two year senator, and spent the next four running for president.
He was even handed a Nobel Peace Prize before he had even done anything as a president. And he ends up being the man responsible for the death of untold civilians through drone warfare…
LikeLike
Two years as Senator is a lot more experience than a lifetime as a celebrity, a con artist, and a pathological liar.
LikeLike
Yep. No argument there.
LikeLike
So, it’s ok for you to make a mess with the OCE, just like House Republicans did?
They summoned independent investigation committee when Benghazi and private e-mail issued came up, but chose to shut down when their nominated candidate took office and both seats in the Congress? Heck of double-standard in ethics practice. First NC, next DC. Wow.
LikeLike
Obviously they had the desired effect, the GOP has decided NOT to do their overhaul (rather wait and see what the new administration might suggest maybe).
LikeLike
The whole thing was theater.
LikeLike
Like Trumps last three jobs anouncements
LikeLike
announcements
LikeLike
Of course it was, Joel.
There was a whole lot of blow-back, not just from the public (which Congress really doesn’t care about), but from a number of Republicans, including the very conservative Judicial Watch.
(Although, it amazes me that two of the critics were Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney, both felons, but I guess they should know something about ethics violations.)
LikeLike
Kabuki
LikeLike
Interesting tweets. That is, from “reading” in an historical frame, everything I’ve seen from Trump is about consolidating power, shifting responsibility, controlling the narrative, and knocking down anything that gets in his way. As above about ethics, presently, he is still in a stance where he knows he must recognize the supporting power of the people (such as it presently is) who elected him, and so he blithely shifts responsibility–for what might make The People squirm a bit–to the Republicans who then become (and are) the centers of a moral and Constitutional crisis–they’ll fold, and Trump gets what credit he can and goes forward unhurt–again. Further, they keep accusing Democrats of stonewalling–even before the confirmation hearings occur. (Does this “ring” with “if Trump loses, it will mean the election is rigged”?). Rarely has “the pot calling the kettle black” been so blatantly obvious (since of course the Republicans know nothing about such practices). As an aside, now they’ve picked up the term “playbook” to apply to the democrats–it’s propaganda using mirrors–all pied piper, whirling dervish stuff. I should put a paragraph here, but I want to hide this narrative with the hope that no one of oppositional significance (aka Trump trolls) will read it: It’s not necessary of course–nothing human and historical is–but here’s the historical similarity, said now in the context of the present push-back we are seeing from some Republicans on the Hill (God bless them). Three things: first: a consolidation of power and the breakdown of Constitutional constraints, rights, and the law, is often followed by trumped-up charges, jailing, and elimination of enemies. Second, it’s done quickly before the enemy gets a chance to appeal to other opposing powers and of course long before theepeople wake up and a new election can trash the whole thing. And third, those opposing powers, including those associated with founding documents, recede, dissipate, and disappear as a result of (1) the first above; (2) the hopes of those who are close to power and who too-easily replace their lifelong adherence to ethical and democratic principles with out-of-the-box ego and unrestrained greed and (3) gut fear. If my take on the present interviews and discussions that are going on in the press and on television, more than a few are feeling the same kind of preparatory fear.
LikeLike
Unpresidented. The only accurate thing Trump has contributed to public discourse.
LikeLike
GregB: If you mean by: “The only accurate thing Trump has contributed to public discourse” is his critique of Congress’ actions about ethical oversight: It’s a happenstance. That is, Trump’s ideology is “Trump.” He knows very well how to get on the truth and the good for a ride–when it serves him and happens to come by.
And besides–they can do what they want later, either rescind again, or just do what they do best–play around with words until they bypass the intent of independent ethical oversight, buy someone off, threaten to kill their children, kill all freedoms, and get what they want. The precedent is what’s important–the breaking of the emoluments clause. It becomes easier and easier. And again, what we saw is this cause-and-effect: Trump speaks > Congress jumps.
LikeLike
No, wasn’t meant that way. Just that he contributed an accurate word to our vocabulary. Political Freudian slip of sorts.
LikeLike
ETHICS: I see Trump either (1) is genuinely worried about ethical oversight; or (2) he overplayed his hand.
9:21 am/Washington Post: “Republicans back off gutting of House ethics office after critical Trump tweet
House Republicans abruptly reversed course and pulled language to weaken the independent Office of Congressional Ethics and subject it to internal House rule.
“The decision came after President-elect Donald J. Trump tweeted that the move should perhaps not be the House GOP’s first priority.”
LikeLike
Yes, from the guardian also: “House Republicans have withdrawn a proposal to gut a congressional ethics watchdog following criticism from Donald Trump.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/03/house-republicans-drop-ethics-watchdog-trump
Are they playing good cop, bad cop (actually bad cop, worse cop) kabuki theater?
LikeLike
Joe: Don’t worry–the Republican Congress with get with the program. It takes time to put one’s conscience on life support, even if it’s somewhat practiced already.
LikeLike
I don’t think this ethics watchdog monitors the White House. Littlefingers Trump could care less. If it survives, it’s still not a threat to any of his presidential corruption to come.
LikeLike
I like Alec Baldwin’s offer. He will stop satirizing Trump when Trump releases his tax returns. Meanwhile keep watching Saturday Night Live for a funny depiction of the Huckster and Con Man in Chief.
LikeLike
I’m a fan of Alec Baldwin’s Saturday Night Live Littlefingers impersonation. Baldwin does a great job getting under a very thin layer of fake billionaire skin.
LikeLike
me too
LikeLike
GOP reversed itself on gutting the ethics panel.
LikeLike