Tag Archives: donald-trump

WHAT ZELENSKY CAN LEARN FROM BIBI

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. In keeping with established Russian military doctrine, its invasion plans called for the immediate decapitation of the Ukrainian government, including the capture and execution of its President, Volodymyr Zelensky . The U.S. Government, which had confidential sources in the Kremlin, disclosed that Zelensky was a “prime target.”   Ukrainian intelligence disclosed that the Russians had marked Zelensky as “target No.1” and his family as “target No.2.”

The U.S. Government offered to evacuate Zelensky and his family from Kyiv to safety.

Zelensky declined the offer, stating: “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”

It is worth recalling these facts while reviewing the nauseating scene that played out in the Oval Office last Friday. President Trump thought he could browbeat Zelensky, just as he had gelded his Secretary of State, who sat there, silent and ashen. But it simply was not in Zelensky’s DNA to stay quiet while Trump and his Vice Presidential lackey berated him. Instead, Zelensky calmly but forcefully corrected Trump and Vance when they uttered lies about Ukraine’s record of willingness to negotiate, Europe’s  level of support for Ukraine, and Putin’s trustworthiness.

He did not immediately correct their lie about not thanking the United States for its support, perhaps because he had thanked America so many times (33 times in English, and an unknown number in Ukrainian, according to one count), it hardly seemed necessary. Nevertheless, immediately after the meeting, he wrote on X: “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you POTUS, Congress, and the American people.”

But however disgusting Trump’s performance may have been, Volodymyr Zelensky cannot entirely escape responsibility for the debacle.  After all, he knew full well the nature and character of the man he was meeting. Just days before the meeting, Trump had called him a “dictator without elections” and had stated that Ukraine “never should have started” the war. Zelensky should have been prepared to deal with Trump without jeopardizing Ukraine’s supply of American military assistance.

It would have been difficult but Zelensky could have placated Trump without groveling. How? By emulating another leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy

WHY TRUMP SHOULD WATCH “REAGAN”

President-elect (or should we say, President-elected-again) Donald Trump is not known for being much of a reader. So it is doubtful he is preparing for his second term by reading biographies of his presidential predecessors. But as he embarks, there is a useful teaching instrument available to him in movie form: Reagan, the biopic starring Dennis Quaid.  Watching it could be a good use of Trump’s time.

The movie, released two months before the election, chronicles the life of our 40th President, from his hardscrabble origins in a small town with an alcoholic father, to the White House.  It received the kind of reception that ought to appeal to the new President. Critics loathed it. According to Rotten Tomatoes, it earned a paltry 18% score among them. But ordinary Joes and Janes loved it.  Rotten Tomatoes recorded an astronomical 98% rating among regular moviegoers.

The movie is not Academy Award material, as even some honest fans of the Gipper have admitted. It is hagiography, in the tradition of Parson Weem’s Life of Washington.  (If Ronald Reagan ever confessed to chopping down a cherry tree, the movie would have shown it.) And a very wide chasm separates the respective ideologies, temperaments, and dispositions of Reagan and Trump.

Nevertheless, Reagan offers valuable lessons for the incoming administration, if Trump is willing to watch – and learn.  Here are a few of those lessons.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, Politics

TRUMP SHOULD STAY ON THE BALLOT

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument on whether or not Donald Trump is qualified to appear on the ballot in Colorado. Disqualification challenges have become a weapon used by Trump’s opponents to stop him from regaining power. Outside Colorado, a disqualification challenge succeeded in Maine. Challenges in Michigan, Minnesota, and California have failed. But depending on the Court’s ruling, there could be more.

The Supreme Court acted sensibly in accepting the Colorado case on an expedited basis. It would be chaotic to have a presidential election decided by different states following different disqualification criteria. It would also be dangerous to our democratic system.

The Colorado case will focus national attention on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court will confront a number of issues:

  Does this disqualification language apply to the President? Note that it specifically mentions “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President.” It also refers broadly to “any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” But it does not specifically mention the presidency itself.

  What constitutes an “insurrection”? Is a violent riot, like the one that occurred on January 6, sufficient? Or must there be an armed and organized attempt to overthrow the government, like the Bolsheviks storming the Winter Palace or the Confederates bombarding Fort Sumter?

  What does it mean to have “engaged” in insurrection? Is cheering from the sidelines sufficient? Or must there be personal participation in the activity?

All of these issues present interesting, if arcane, legal issues, the kind lawyers and jurists love delving into and debating. But if it chooses, the Supreme Court can reject Colorado’s attempt to keep Trump off the ballot for two simple and straightforward reasons.

First, Colorado (and Maine) failed to provide Trump with anything even approaching the kind of due process to which he was entitled in this important matter. Second, the question of whether Trump should be disqualified for having engaged in insurrection has already been decided in a trial before the U.S. Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. And he was acquitted. Neither Colorado, nor Maine, nor any state, has the right to retry him.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Filed under Law, Politics