The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Would Like Trump and Vance to Know That They Have Jumped the Shark
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Putin Wins the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office Spectacle: Vice President Vance starts a public fight that only helps Russia’s dictator
Last week, at the United Nations, the United States sided with North Korea and Belurus, refusing to support a European resolution condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine. Then, on Friday, there was the debacle in the Oval Office. Taken together, these developments have led many to conclude that the United States has switched sides in the Cold War.
Writing about yesterday’s TV spectacle in the Oval Office, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board does not focus on whether or not the US has actually switched sides. Rather, true to its lodestar value—namely, the election of Republicans to office, where they can pursue a business-friendly agenda of low taxes and minimal regulation—the Board has some pointed words about the political peril ahead. The Board writes,
“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media on Friday afternoon after the exchange, while booting the Ukrainian president from the White House. “He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” The two didn’t sign a planned agreement on minerals that would have at least given Ukraine some hope of future U.S. support.
The meeting between Messrs. Trump and Zelensky started out smoothly enough. “It’s a big commitment from the United States, and we appreciate working with you very much, and we will continue to do that,” Mr. Trump said of the mineral deal. Mr. Zelensky showed photos of Ukrainians mistreated as prisoners of war. “That’s tough stuff,” Mr. Trump said.
But then the meeting, in front of the world, descended into recriminations. The nose dive began with an odd interjection from Vice President JD Vance, who appeared to be defending Mr. Trump’s diplomacy, which Mr. Zelensky hadn’t challenged. Mr. Zelensky rehearsed the many peace agreements Mr. Putin has shredded and essentially asked Mr. Vance what would be different this time.
Mr. Vance unloaded on Mr. Zelensky—that he was “disrespectful,” low on manpower, and gives visitors to Ukraine a “propaganda” tour. President Trump appeared piqued by Mr. Zelensky’s suggestion that the outcome in Ukraine would matter to the U.S. “Your country is in big trouble. You’re not winning,” Mr. Trump said at one point.
Why did the Vice President try to provoke a public fight? Mr. Vance has been taking to his X.com account in what appears to be an effort to soften up the political ground for a Ukraine surrender, most recently writing off Mr. Putin’s brutal invasion as a mere ethnic rivalry. Mr. Vance dressed down Mr. Zelensky as if he were a child late for dinner. He claimed the Ukrainian hadn’t been grateful enough for U.S. aid, though he has thanked America countless times for its support. This was not the behavior of a wannabe statesman.
Mr. Zelensky would have been wiser to defuse the tension by thanking the U.S. again, and deferring to Mr. Trump. There’s little benefit in trying to correct the historical record in front of Mr. Trump when you’re also seeking his help.
But as with the war, Mr. Zelensky didn’t start this Oval Office exchange. Was he supposed to tolerate an extended public denigration of the Ukrainian people, who have been fighting a war for survival for three years?
It is bewildering to see Mr. Trump’s allies defending this debacle as some show of American strength. The U.S. interest in Ukraine is shutting down Mr. Putin’s imperial project of reassembling a lost Soviet empire without U.S. soldiers ever having to fire a shot. That core interest hasn’t changed, but berating Ukraine in front of the entire world will make it harder to achieve.
Turning Ukraine over to Mr. Putin would be catastrophic for that country and Europe, but it would be a political calamity for Mr. Trump too. The U.S. President can’t simply walk away from that conflict, much as he would like to. Ukraine has enough weapons support to last until sometime this summer. But as the war stands, Mr. Putin sees little reason to make any concessions as his forces gain ground inch by bloody inch in Ukraine’s east.
Friday’s spectacle won’t make him any more willing to stop his onslaught as he sees the U.S. President and his eager deputy unload on Ukraine’s leader. Some Trumpologists have been suggesting Mr. Trump will put pressure on Mr. Putin in due time. But so far Mr. Putin hasn’t made a single concession on territory, or on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future after a peace deal is signed.
President Trump no doubt resents having to deal with a war he thinks he might have prevented had he won in 2020. But Presidents have to deal with the world they inherit. Peace in Ukraine is salvageable, but he and Mr. Zelensky will have to work together on an agreement that Ukrainians can live with.
Mr. Trump does not want to be the President who abandoned Ukraine to Vladimir Putin with all the bloodshed and damage to U.S. interests that would result. Mr. Vance won’t like to run for President in such a world either.
Elon Musk is a a Liar, and the Truth is not in Him
A Day That Will Live in Infamy
Federal District Judge Reyes Asks, What Would Jesus Do? The Attorney General is Deeply, Deeply Offended
ABA Journal, DOJ files complaint against federal judge for alleged hostility against government lawyer
Her Excellency, Attorney General Bondi, would like the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to please, pretty please say some bad things about Judge Reyes. And what, you may ask, was the burr in the Attorney General’s saddle?
A few days ago, Judge Reyes held a hearing in the case of Talbott v. Trump, challenging an executive order requiring the expulsion of transgender troops from the military, and specifically defaming all transgender people as dishonorable, untruthful, and undisciplined.
As an aside, I have to hand it to Orange Mussolini; if anyone knows how to recognize someone who’s dishonorable, untruthful, and undisciplined, that would be him.
Anyway, during the hearing, the judge was really tough on the unnamed Justice Department attorney who had the misfortune of trying to defend Trump’s words and actions. The ABA Journal writes,
The Associated Press and Law 360 report that during the hearings, Reyes:
• Raised her voice and demanded an answer from a government attorney about whether President Donald Trump’s executive order showed animus by calling “an entire category of people dishonest, dishonorable, undisciplined.”
• Engaged in a rhetorical exercise regarding discrimination. Reyes declared that graduates of the University of Virginia School of Law would be barred from her courtroom because they are “liars and lack integrity.” She then told the government lawyer who was a University of Virginia School of Law grad “to sit down.” According to the ethics complaint, the directive “served no legitimate judicial purpose and transformed an attorney appearing before the court into an unwilling participant in the judge’s unnecessary demonstration.”
• Asked the government lawyer what “Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’?” she asked. The complaint says the question “placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes’ personal religious beliefs.”
Cass Sunstein Explains the Unitary Executive Theory of Presidential Power
Cass R. Sunstein, This Theory Is Behind Trump’s Power Grab
Professor Sunstein, a distinguished public intellectual, teaches law at Harvard. As I often remark: you can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.
In this guest essay in the New York Times, Sunstein brilliantly covers a whole lot of ground and explains a whole lot of political theory and history, in a way that an ordinary educated person can readily understand.
Bottom line: full presidential control over all aspects of the federal executive is not, contrary to claims of some, mandated by the text of the Constitution or by our history. Such massive control poses many, many dangers.
Professor Sunstein is a polite person, so he did not say, in so many words, that presidential dictatorial powers given to a crazed monomaniac would likely produce disastrous results.
Bad as the unitary executive theory, read broadly, would be, Trump is also pursuing other ideas that are even worse. Sunstein writes,
[C]onsider the claim that the president gets to impound congressionally appropriated funds and choose which ones to spend. That claim would render Congress subordinate to the executive in what might be its most fundamental power: the purse. Impoundment authority, on the part of the president, would go well beyond the idea of a unitary executive. It would be a devastating blow to the separation of powers.
He did not add—but might well have added—that the notion that the president gets to pick and choose which court orders he obeys would likewise end the constitutional republic, and that right soon.
Indraneel Sur, Esquire’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day in Court
Politico, Judge warns Trump administration to comply with court order on foreign aid payments
Indraneel Sur graduated from Yale, earned his law degree at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania Law School, worked as an associate at the prestigious law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and then joined the Justice Department as an attorney. One source claims that he is a member of the Federalist Society. Yesterday, he appeared in court to defend the government’s response to the judge’s pending order to resume payments owed for supplies delivered to USAID.
The Washington Post reports that “During the contentious 90-minute hearing, Justice Department lawyer Indraneel Sur told [the judge] he was ‘not in a position to answer’ whether the Trump administration had taken needed steps to allow the assistance to begin moving.”
Politico writes about his day in court yesterday:
During a telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali grew impatient with a lack of clear responses from the administration’s lawyers to claims from aid contractors that they have seen no payments from the State Department or U.S. Agency for International Development since Ali issued an emergency order Feb. 13 halting a broad freeze on aid-related programs.
“I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you,” the judge lamented after Justice Department attorney Indraneel Sur repeatedly sidestepped a question about whether the Trump administration released any funds following the judge’s earlier order.
After Sur suggested that officials were holding up or canceling payments under the terms of individual contracts, Ali said he was baffled by the government’s view.
“I guess I’m not understanding where there is any confusion here,” the judge said. “It’s clear as day.”
What Seems to be Happening—and Some Friendly Advice from Your Dutch Uncle Ron
The picture will become clearer as this case proceeds—along with the many dozens of other cases involving the legality of the Trump administration’s acts. Right now, however, the picture that seems to be emerging is that someone in the administration is ordering its frontline lawyers to pull the wool over the eyes of the judges in these cases.
So here’s a friendly piece of advice. If you have drunk freely of the Trump Kool-Aid and want to defend its contentions about its dictatorial powers, then you can probably do so without being disbarred or sent to jail.
But do not lie to the court. If you do, you are going to be in a world of hurt.
And the day when your boss—or his boss—orders you to lie to the court is the day you need to walk off the job.
For your own protection, if for no other reason than to protect yourself.
Richie Rich and Joe Six Pack Contemplate Their 2024 Vote
This is What Happens When Rich Folks Want Their Tax Cuts So Much That They Hand Over Power to an Actual Crazy Person
Trump’s Hissy Fit About the WSJ Editorial Board
Folks, grab a six pack and pop a big old bowl of popcorn.
The Guardian writes,
A Wall Street Journal editorial slamming Donald Trump’s tariff plans as terrible for the US economy and auto industry prompted a broadside from the president on Wednesday followed by threats to sue the media.
In an opinion piece titled Trump’s Tariffs Will Punish Michigan, the Journal argued Trump’s tariff plans would harm “US auto workers and Republican prospects in Michigan”.
Trump has threatened to impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, a move the editorial argues would increase US vehicle prices, hurt auto workers and advantage Asian and European manufacturers.
“If the goal is to harm US auto workers and Republican prospects in Michigan, then by all means go ahead, Mr President,” wrote the Journal.
On his social media site, Truth Social, Trump wrote the Journal is “soooo wrong”. “The tariffs will drive massive amounts of auto manufacturing to MICHIGAN, a State which I just easily one [sic] in the Presidential Election,” he wrote.
Trump followed the rebuttal with a threat to those publishing “Fake books and stories with the so-called ‘anonymous’, or ‘off the record’, quotes” criticizing the opening month of his second presidency.
“At some point I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general, to find out whether or not these ‘anonymous sources’ even exist, which they largely do not. They are made up, defamatory fiction, and a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty. I’ll do it as a service to our Country. Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!,” he wrote.
The Journal’s conservative editorial board has been a persistent critic of Trump’s tariff plans, calling them “the dumbest trade war in history” earlier this month.
The Budget Resolution That Passed Last Night
Some websites aim to capture anti-Trumpers’ clicks with screaming headlines—“Trump Slides Downhill!” “Trump Humiliates Himself!” etc. etc. But I find The Bulwark’s presentations more objective, and much more useful in understanding what is actually happening, as compared with the rosy scenario sites. Besides, this video is entertaining too.
Friends, let’s never lose our sense of humor. Because the loss of our sense of humor would make it a lot harder to survive this shitshow.
Last night’s nonbinding budget resolution directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in budget cuts, over the coming decade, from the programs which that committee oversees. According to Newsweek today,
Trump has said multiple times that Medicaid would not be affected, telling Fox News last week that it would not be “touched.”
But the House Energy and Commerce Committee would have to find this money, out of Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
If the committee takes its cuts from everything that is not health care, reducing this spending to $0, it would still be more than $600 billion short, according to analysis by The New York Times.
I tried, without success, to get a definitive answer as to what percentage of Medicaid funding would be lost if $880 billion were cut over a ten-year period. That’s a hard number to find for various reasons, including the fact that there will be lots of political back-and-forth about spending levels over the next decade.
Even so, there’s no doubt that $880 billion is a nice chunk of change.
On the one hand, clearly, axing $880 billion will let a whole lot of Medicaid spending continue. On the other hand, and equally as clear, decreasing funding by $880 billion would most assuredly “touch” Medicaid, contrary to Trump’s promise.
And who would be hurt as and when Medicaid is in fact “touched”?
According to a reliable source, for the year 2023, there were 24,046,700 white people under the age of 65 enrolled in Medicaid. In other words, the 24 million poor white Medicaid recipients don’t count all the white grandmas who have run through their savings and are relying on Medicaid to stay in their nursing homes.
Poor people supported Trump disproportionately in 2024. White people supported Trump disproportionately in 2024. And if you look at the combined category—poor AND white—they were mostly Trump supporters.
But it was still a close election. And the number of poor white folks who will feel pain from significant Medicaid cuts vastly exceeds Trump’s tiny margin of victory.
Facing MAGA 