There is a new bizarre theory lighting up the Internet that, with Biden continuing to struggle as a presumptive nominee, Democrats are considering the prospect of a DNC engineered ticket of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. We have previously discussed the rumbling over months about Clinton allies pulling off a convention swap to make her the nominee. However, the story has brought back to life a dubious theory put forward a couple years ago by Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, that Obama could constitutionally join a ticket as Vice President and even return as president. I found Dorf’s argument interesting, but this theory has taken flight in the imaginations of many on the Internet. The Washington Post column shows how the media seems to have endless space for any theory that fills a void for liberal fantasies whether it is unsupportable criminal interpretations against Trump or returning a president to power despite clear constitutional prohibitions on such a move. There is no constitutional foundation for this constitutional urban legend of Obama’s return. However this is the version of Fantasy Football for liberals. The problem is that many are taking this seriously.
Douglass MacKinnon triggered this frenzy with a Hill column entitled A Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama Ticket to Replace Joe Biden? The column is based on the earlier column by Philip Bump, citing Dorf, that unleashed the fantasies of liberals worldwide. Dorf previously argued for the constitutionality of an Al Gore-Bill Clinton ticket in 2000.
In fairness, MacKinnon’s column was meant not to foster the effort but to explore how “Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures” for some in the Democratic party. (MacKinnon is himself a longtime Republican).
The problem in my view is that this renewed discussion is not just unconstitutional, it is perfectly delusional.
Let’s cut to the chase. The 12th Amendment states clearly and unambiguously that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Period. Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President so he is constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President. That ineligibility is equally clear in the 22nd Amendment that states in part:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
Dorf works hard to avoid the obvious with the wildly creative in analysis. In his Washington Post in 2015, he suggested that we could bring back President Obama by adopting narrowly reading the word “elected.” He suggested “The drafters of this language [of the 22nd Amendment] knew the difference between getting elected to an office and holding an office. They could have just said ‘no person may hold the office of president more than twice.’ But they didn’t.”
The suggestion is facially at odds with the history and intent of the 22nd Amendment but such views are rarely given close scrutiny these days. The original version of the Amendment did not use solely the reference to “elected.” On January 3, 1947, House Judiciary Chairman Earl Michener and Speaker of the House Joseph Martin introduced House Joint Resolution 27 that stated:
“no person shall be chosen or serve as President of the United States for any term, or be eligible to hold the office of President during any term, if such person shall have heretofore served as President during the whole or any part of each of any two separate terms.” (emphasis added)
One could claim that the change of the language reflected a narrowing to allow an end-run by engineering a succession for additional terms by selecting a barred president as vice president. There is no support for that proposition. First, such circumventions were well known back then as they are today with authoritarian figures like Vladimir Putin. Second, the change in the language was clearly standard tightening of the text and the record shows that the focus was to block leaders remaining in power beyond two terms. What Dorf is suggesting is that the Framers of that amendment wanted to stop any president from serving more than two terms but knowingly left a loophole to make the amendment meaningless with a calibrated circumvention.
The change occurred in the Senate with an amendment from Senator Warren Magnuson who wanted a more simple construction to avoid “complicated legal language” that “could be easily understood by everyone.” The concern was focused on the possibility that a president might have been elevated to the presidency before his or her first election (the opposite of what Dorf is referencing). Magnuson did not want to penalize such leaders who first became president by an act of nature or without any manipulation. He said the clear intent was to stop a President from “perpetuating himself in office.” As Senator Joseph Tydings noted, there was a concern that “a man could be prohibited from being elected President more than once, provided that he had served more than 1 year prior to the time he was elected President…”
Others did not even want to yield on a president serving the remainder of the term of his predecessor. The result was the compromise in the amendment to allow more than eight years but to limit that period concerning an earlier elevation to the office.
What Dorf is suggesting is to take someone who has already been elected twice and then allow him to serve for additional years. There is nothing in the language or the record to support such a clearly conflicted interpretation. I should note that I do not object to such theories being raised as the foundation for provocative academic discussion. Moreover, Dorf acknowledges that this is a creative argument and does not misrepresent the authority. Rather, he relies on an expansive use of the ruling in Powell v. McCormack on what constitutes “eligibility.” I believe that analysis is off-the-mark, but it is an interesting debate. My concern is the presentation of such a theory as a compelling or even plausible option.
There is little chance that such an effort will be made or that it would ever be seriously considered seriously by a reviewing court. However, it is the fantasy element that is most striking in the current discussion. There is a bottomless cavity in coverage for such theories that allow either the removal (or incarceration) of Trump or the return of figures like Obama. One could dismiss this is just the junk food of media analysis, but there remains a striking lack of balance in some media outlets in not only replicating such theories but airing few alternative views. It often seems like the easiest way to get published is to write a column that says Trump is close to being frog marched to a federal penitentiary or Democrats can operate free of express constitutional prohibitions in retaking the White House.
The only frenzy over this fantasy is being led by JT who hasn’t noticed important things going on which might rightly detract from his daily search for something to attack democrats on. I read the WaPo, the NYTs, and various other responsible news sources and I have not heard of this anywhere but here. So much for liberal fantasies.
Hey, I thought JT was supposed to be a Democrat, but here he is again decrying “liberals”, defending Trump, and picking any stupid nit he can find on the cutting room floor to justify an anti-Democrats column.
JT knows his rubes won’t just look to Google for information. Obama can serve as a Vice President. I have said it before, I’ll say it again, JT likes picking the nat crap out of pepper for Trump.
Just like the movie industry. We can’t come up with any great new stories…soooooo, we’ll do a reboot of a favorite film! Yeah, that’ll sell! Meh.
Prairie Rose – as a side note, Disney is in real financial difficulty.
Paul S.,
I’m not surprised. They had to buy creativity via Pixar.
Bill and Monica sitting in a tree…
K I s s I n g.
First comes love..
Then comes marriage..
Then comes Hillary with a baby carriage!
Wrong Obama! I agree wholeheartedly that an anti-Biden, Hillary Clinton coup could be in the works . . but who’s to say that her VP would be Barrack? Michele’s name has been floated about . . .
OMG! You didn’t broach Obama’s immutable ineligibility and non-“natural born citizen” status again, did you?
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.
– A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
Liberalism symptom no. 326: Specious flights of fancy to get what they can’t have in this world. See also equality, social justice and ignoring manifest facts
Meanwhile, in the real world and real crisis which DNC is trying to ignore. The world is ignoring or laughing at the DNC and Biden is done
“Axios reporter mocks NY Times’ call for ‘unbiased’ DNC panel to investigate Biden: ‘Is this satire?'”
Axios reporter Jonathan Swan repeatedly mocked the New York Times editorial board Sunday, after they suggested that a sexual assault allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden be investigated – by none other than the Democratic National Committee.
The Times editorial called for records from Biden’s time in the Senate to be reviewed by what they called “an unbiased, apolitical panel, put together by the D.N.C.,” leading Swan to speculate whether the Times was actually serious.
“Is this satire?” Swan tweeted, quoting the above language.
Swan then said this editorial could be among the worst he has ever seen.
“I’ve seen some spectacularly stupid stuff from NYT ed board but this might take the cake,” he added.
The Times editorial equates their call for investigating Biden with their 2018 call for investigating Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh when sexual assault allegations were made against him during his confirmation process. Kavanaugh, however, was investigated by the FBI and questioned by senators from both parties, while the Times says a Biden probe should be done by his own party.
The DNC itself called the Times’ idea “absurd” in a statement from communications director Xochitl Hinojosa that was posted by ABC’s Johnny Verhovek and retweeted by Hinojosa herself.
“This is an absurd suggestion on its face,” Hinojosa said, setting aside “whether it’s the job of the DNC to do this kind of thing.”
Hinojosa’s reasoning is that Biden had already been vetted before becoming vice president in 2008, although Kavanaugh had also previously been vetted before being confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006.
Meanwhile, in the real world and real crisis which JT is trying to ignore:
The world is ignoring or laughing at the US and China is reaping the benefit of our purposeful withdrawal from it.
“…The tone of news headlines ranges from straight-faced in Kompas, a major Indonesian news outlet—Trump Usulkan Suntik Disinfektan dan Sinar UV untuk Obati Covid-19, or “Trump Proposes Disinfectant Injection and UV Rays to Treat COVID-19”—to snide, from Le Monde in France—Les élucubrations du « docteur » Trump, or “The Rantings of ‘Doctor’ Trump.” The incredulous first paragraph of an article in Sowetan, from South Africa, declares that “US President Donald Trump has again left people stunned and confused with his bizarre suggestion that disinfectant and ultraviolet light could possibly be used to treat Covid-19.” El Comercio, a distinguished Peruvian newspaper, treated its readers to photographs of Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus-response coordinator, grimacing as the president asked her whether the injection of disinfectant might be a cure.
Quotations from the president’s astonishing April 23 press conference have appeared on every continent, via countless television channels, radio stations, magazines, and websites, in hundreds of thousands of variations and dozens of languages—often accompanied by warnings, in case someone was fooled, not to drink disinfectant or bleach. In years past, many of these outlets presumably published articles critical of this or that aspect of U.S. foreign policy, blaming one U.S. president or another. But the kind of coverage we see now is something new. This time, people are not attacking the president of the United States. They are laughing at him. …
But if Trump is ridiculous, his administration is invisible. Carl Bildt—a Swedish prime minister in the 1990s, a United Nations envoy during the Bosnian wars, and a foreign minister for many years after that—told me that, looking back on his 30-year career, he cannot remember a single international crisis in which the United States had no global presence at all. “Normally, when something happens”—a war, an earthquake—“everybody waits to see what the Americans are doing, for better or for worse, and then they calibrate their own response based on that.”
This time, Americans are doing … nothing. Or to be more specific, because plenty of American governors, mayors, doctors, scientists, and tech companies are doing things, the White House is doing nothing. There is no presidential leadership inside the United States; there is no American leadership in the world. Members of the G7—the U.S. and its six closest allies—did meet to write a joint statement. But even that tepid project ended in ludicrous rancor when the American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, insisted on using the expression “Wuhan virus” and the others gave up in disgust. Not only is the president talking nonsense, not only is America absent, but the nation’s top diplomat is a caricature of a tough guy—someone who throws around insults in the absence of any capacity to influence events.
Others are drawing even more radical conclusions, and with remarkable speed. The “disinfectant” comments—and the laughter that followed—mark not so much a turning point as an acceleration point, the moment when a transformation that began much earlier suddenly started to seem unstoppable. Although we are still only weeks into this pandemic, although the true scale of the health crisis and the economic catastrophe is still unknown, the outline of a very different, post-American, post-coronavirus world is already taking shape. It’s a world in which American opinions will count less, while the opinions of America’s rivals will count more. And that will change political dynamics in ways that Americans haven’t yet understood.
Look beyond the Lego video at China’s more serious public-relations campaign: the stunts at airports around the world, from Pakistan to Italy to Israel, designed to mark the arrival of Chinese aid—masks, surgical gowns, diagnostic tests, and sometimes doctors. These events all have a similar script: The plane lands; the receiving nation’s dignitaries go out to meet it; the Chinese experts emerge, looking competent in their hazmat gear; and everyone utters words of gratitude and relief. Of course some of this, too, is propaganda.
In reality, some of the equipment billed as aid has been purchased, not donated. Some of it, especially the diagnostic tests, has turned out to be defective. Some of those who receive these goods also know perfectly well that they are designed to silence questions about where the virus came from, why knowledge of it was initially suppressed, and why it was allowed to spread around the world. If, in these circumstances, the propaganda “works,” that’s because those who receive it have made a calculation: Pretending to believe it is a way of acknowledging and accepting Chinese power—and, perhaps, a way of expressing interest in Chinese investment.
In the Western world, this dynamic has played itself out with striking success in Italy. Flattened by the virus and depressed by the lockdown, Italians are deeply divided by years of conspiratorial social-media campaigns, some with Russian backing, that have attacked Italy’s traditional alliances, NATO as well as the European Union. China has added its own unsubtle social-media campaign. Bots have been promoting Chinese-Italian-friendship hashtags (#forzaCinaeItalia) and thank-you-China hashtags (#grazieCina). But there is another, less visible layer of activity, too.
A year ago, Italy became the core European member of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese trade-and-infrastructure project designed to create deeper links across Eurasia and to provide an alternative to the transatlantic and Pacific trade pacts quashed by Trump. Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, until recently the leader of Italy’s anti-EU Five Star Movement, has cultivated links to China too. Chinese investment has gained importance. Already, a Chinese oligarch has bought the Inter Milan soccer club; Chinese banks already own big stakes in Italian companies like Eni and Fiat.
Thanks to the economic havoc created by the coronavirus, China’s efforts in Rome may now bear fruit. Maurizio Molinari, the editor of La Repubblica, told me that Chinese businessmen are right now building on their contacts, looking for companies and properties to buy, scouting out factories that are suddenly bankrupt and entrepreneurs who want to sell out. I asked him what the source of China’s appeal was right now: “Money,” he replied. By contrast, the most conspicuous gesture that the U.S. administration has made in Italy’s direction since the pandemic began was Trump’s abrupt decision to ban flights. Apart from a modest and belated aid package, little in the way of friendship came from the United States.
Chinese propaganda may find unexpectedly fertile ground elsewhere too. Chinese aid has also been delivered to Japan and South Korea, two U.S. allies who have sought close relationships with Trump and have received, in exchange, demands that they pay more for American bases. As close neighbors and former foes, both countries have many reasons to be wary of China. But now that Trump is a laughingstock, now that America is absent from the game, some in both Tokyo and Seoul may conclude that they should start hedging bets. China has also offered major assistance to Iran, a country that had already been given a major role as a Belt and Road hub. Iranian leaders now have extra reasons to hope they can outlast sanctions if the American president calling for them need not be treated as a serious person.
China’s relationships with the Arab world have also deepened during the pandemic. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait sent aid to Wuhan during the earlier part of the crisis; later, China reciprocated. The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates has described China as the role model to follow in this crisis. On March 8, Chinese medical workers arrived in Baghdad—an advance team, perhaps, poised to take advantage of the inevitable American retreat. In each one of these places, America is absent, distracted, stumbling—and laughable.
To be absolutely crystal clear: I am not praising China’s efforts. I am simply calling attention to the fact that, in a world where people laugh at the American president, they might succeed. Inside the bubble of officials who surround Pompeo, it may well seem very brave and cutting-edge to use the expression “Wuhan virus” or to call for bigger and bolder rhetorical attacks on China. But out there in the real world—out there in the world where Pompeo’s boss is perceived as a sinister clown, and Pompeo himself as just the sinister clown’s lackey—not very many people are listening. Once again: A vacuum has opened up, and the Chinese regime is leading the race to fill it.
Judging from their own recent statements, Trump-administration officials do not yet understand the significance of the chaos they have created in place of what used to be American foreign policy. Pompeo has spent time in recent days trying to organize sanctions on Iran, as if Russia and China or even European allies were still willing to follow his lead. Philip Reeker, assistant secretary of state for Europe (or rather, acting assistant secretary of state for Europe, because the Trump administration is in constant chaos) was recently asked by French journalists whether the coronavirus crisis could repair the poor state of transatlantic relations. His pompous response made him sound like a member of the Soviet nomenklatura at the end of the 1980s: “I don’t agree with the premise of your question,” Reeker said, before claiming that transatlantic engagement, and particularly Franco-American cooperation, is “remarkable.” Yes, it’s remarkable—remarkably invisible.
Even the more learned analyses of U.S.-China relations suddenly look out of sync with reality. It’s all very well for think-piece authors or former Trump-administration officials to suggest that a post-pandemic America must change its relationships with China, rally its allies to defy China, and rewrite the rules of commerce to exclude China. But when Trump seeks to lead the world against China, who will follow? Italy might refuse outright. The European Union could demur. America’s close friends in Asia might feel nervous, and delay making decisions. Africans who are furious about racism in China—African students have been the focus of heavy discrimination in the city of Guangzhou—might well do a quick calculation and seek good relations with both sides.
I wish I could say for certain that a President Joe Biden could turn this all around, but by next year it may be too late. The memories of the prime minister at the airport, welcoming Chinese doctors, will remain. The bleach jokes and memes will still cause the occasional chuckle. Whoever replaces Pompeo will have only four short years to repair the damage, and that might not be enough.
And if Trump wins a second term? Any nation can make a mistake once, elect a bad leader once. But if Americans choose Trump again, that will send a clear message: We are no longer a serious nation. We are as ignorant as our thoughtless, narcissistic, ignorant president. Don’t be surprised if the rest of the world takes note of that, too.”
ANNE APPLEBAUM is a staff writer at The Atlantic. She is a senior fellow of the Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. Her latest book is Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine.
Ms. Applebaum,
President Trump won the election fair and square, following the rules. And it was Hillary who claimed in one of her last debates she would accept as president whoever won the elections in 2016. Did she?? Nope, and neither have you or any other globalists. Get over it. Modern globalism is merely currently kowtowing to Red China. And the slaughter of innocents in Red China was worse then what happened with Stalin.
Who is the one who brought billions of Red Chinese money back to invest in his company?? Hunter Biden, brought it back with him as he returned from China with your globalism senile Presidential candidate Sleepy Joe.
Since when was it a good thing for Hillary Clinton to go to China to praise their “one child” policy which has led to the sex selective abortions of little girls.
A happy President Trump supporter.
ef, you should read the column again. The author is not advocating “kowtowing to China”. On the contrary, she is relating the ground we are losing to them by inept leadership and purposeful destruction of alliances we have had with fellow democracies, many since WWII.
Domestically, the president you claim to be happy with declared himself a wartime president but then has refused to lead. During WWII – another serious crisis, admittedly worse than the current one – we went from having the 16th strongest military in the world in 1939 to the best by1943, and in 1944 we pulled off the massive DDay attack. We didn’t do that by leaving organization and procurement to the governors who lack the authority, tools, soap box, and funds to provide for and launch a coordinated attack. Only President Trump has those resources and he’s AWOL. I don;t know how you can be happy with this performance.
I quote your obviously unbiased (LOL 😂 ) statement of your lofty opinion “inept leadership and purposeful destruction of alliances”, “inept leadership” according to who?? John Kerry?? The bonehead who negotiated a treaty with US enemy Iran, paying them billions when the “treaty” failed in the US Senate?? And Trump was always against it. Which alliances were destroyed??? NATO allies are finally paying closer to their fair share, we got new trade agreements with Japan, China and South Korea. Our relationship with the UK, and Australia has never been better. We got rid of NAFTA and replaced it with a new treaty between Canada, the US and Mexico.
Your definition of wartime President is odd, as the President Trump changed the rules of engagement to allow the US Armed forces help the Iraqi Army and Pershmerga WIN and get rid of ISIS in Iraq, destroying their caliphate that erupted after Obama became President and changed the rules of engagement to essentially disarm american soldiers helping our remaining allies in the Middle East.
Also, your demands for President Trump to LEAD in the way you think he should is absurd and specifically ignores the US Constitution and Federalism, where the States and Localities have responsibility for health emergencies and through FEMA the US Government facilititates their efforts. You liberals essentially were accusing Trump of being a potential dictator, so he must be impeached and removed. And now when he essentially shows he is acting like a Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch of the US Govwernment, you complain and say he is not being dictatorial like Nazi Democratic Governors like Pritzker, and Whitmer, who are acting to essentially destroy small businesses in their respective states. Well, those wannabe dictators will reap what they sow in their next elections.
Trump cannot and should not “rule” by Executive orders, despite the fact that Obama violated the constitution many times in trying to do so.
The legislative branch passes the laws and appropriates the money. Trump merely signs their bills.
He does serve as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, and the fact that ISIS is no longer a significant threat to our allies is proof of his leadership in that area, as well as the buildup and replacement of military material needed to fully defend the US against foreign enemies, and his got the money to do that, through the legislative process NOT executive order.
So bythebook, what book are you referring to?? Regarding Executive branch leadership, it is NOT the US Constitution.
EF, your favorite guy is a serial and compulsive liar, so no wonder you are getting everything wrong.
Iran is producing nuclear materials in violation of the agreement for the 1st time, and we got …….? As part of the deal Kerry negotiated, Iran received money owed to them and it’s some citizens since 1980 and at terms favorable to us on interest. That was not our money.
“…The nuclear agreement included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, so Obama didn’t carry out any part of it on his own. The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iran’s assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program.
Secondly, $150 billion is a high-end estimate of the total that was freed up after some sanctions were lifted. U.S. Treasury Department estimates put the number at about $50 billion in “usable liquid assets,” according to 2015 testimony from Adam Szubin, acting under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence…”
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama-didnt-give-iran-150-billion-in-cash/
Obama got the NATO members to agree to up their military budget to 2% in 2014, not Trump. It was partly in response to increased Russian activity and partly due to hectoring that went back to W’s administration. Like the economy he walked into Trump likes to take credit for what others do.
“Mr. Obama persuaded NATO leaders to increase their military spending at a meeting in Wales in 2014, after a newly aggressive Russia invaded Ukraine. Back then, alliance members pledged to work toward raising spending levels to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024. All 29 allies have begun to increase their military budgets in real terms, and two-thirds of them have plans to reach the 2 percent target by 2024. And they reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment” to these targets in the communiqué issued at the end of the two-day summit in Brussels this week…”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/opinion/editorials/trump-nato-obama.html
and
The new agreement with Mexico and Canada is NAFTA upgraded to the good for labor, the environment, and domestic content from the 3 signees on autos, but still NAFTA. Praise to all involved including Trump. On the other hand Trump killed the TPP which was intended as leverage against China and is functioning quite well without us – to our disadvantage.
Trump is empowered by the DPA and emergency powers in ways no one else is and his failure to step up on the corona virus is leaving a chaotic supply chain for tests and PPEs to the detriment of our successful reopening. These are necessary components which will cost us in the long run financially and maybe in lives and any competent president would have taken the lead and made it happen.
As to Congress appropriating money, perhaps you’ve forgotten the end run around that principle on the wall money, but no one is constraining him on requested virus crisis funds.
I have no desire to respond to TDS Democratic party stock talking points. It is a waste of time. Trump won the election in 2016, and will again in November. Get over it.
As the party of Bill Clinton assaulting women who worked for him and his campaign, and used Hillary to cover for his lies and betrayal of his office, counting Trump’s hyperbole, misstatements, and lies and ignoring Biden’s is laughable. ROTFL Hilarious, I guess you got triggered. Sleep well tonight young one.
Oh come on, bring him back.
Shows you how far removed the DNC/liberal/far left marxist leninists are from being suitable to hold public office or even have citizenship and voting rights. No President is allowed to hold another government office again. One reason to get their retirement hiked up so high.
Are these stupid party people for real? Idiots!
Hillary should form a third party called The Bitch Party.
Biden should convince Michelle to get on his Dem ticket as VP.
Trump is not gonna run and is endorsing Pence.
Hillary & Barry, that’s the ticket!
DonEstif – Hillary and Bill would be the perfect ticket. 😉
Turley said: “The Washington Post column shows how the media seems to have endless space for any theory that fills a void for liberal fantasies whether it is unsupportable criminal interpretations against Trump or returning a president to power despite clear constitutional prohibitions on such a move. There is no constitutional foundation for this constitutional urban legend of Obama’s return. However this is the version of Fantasy Football for liberals. The problem is that many are taking this seriously.
But why so much fantasy? Obama didn’t really advance Liberal causes to any great degree. He was kinda Republican-light. I think it is more likely that this particular fantasy life and obsessions are a means of dealing with cognitive dissonance. The Democrats lost to Trump, and that means they are not as smart and hip as they think they are. So they must deal with a ton of cognitive dissonance – reality does not comport with their belief system. This article may help shed some life on this particular defense mechanism:
————-
Option two is what causes the majority of our obsessive crushes and attachments. Rather than making a swift decision and moving on, or focusing on more important things, we choose to search for more information — and most people will do it without directly asking. Why? Because asking is considered too up-front and risks rejection.
Instead, we go down the analytical route and choose to spend more time thinking about that person and all our interactions with them. As I’ve written about before, this is dangerous. The more time we spend thinking about a person, the more we become invested in them. What happens next is you spend your time analyzing the situation and reading into things that probably mean nothing. You start boring your friends with the same conversations, and before you know it, you’re mentioning this person at every opportunity.
The result is simple — you work yourself into a violent loop of consistently dissecting all your encounters and projecting what you want to be true into all of them. You start to mistake a genuine smile for a sign of attraction. You start to google “Signs he likes you” or “What does it mean if she brushes her hand against you.”
Our constant need to resolve the dissonant belief ourselves leads to a continual search for evidence that disproves it. We have to find reasons and proof that they like us — even when it isn’t there. The more we do this, the more invested and entrenched in the situation we become. After a while, we start to rationalize that all the effort we put in is the result of our immense feelings of attraction for that person.
[]
If you find yourself in a similar situation to what’s been described, take responsibility and action. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over — and expecting different results. The most effective ways to resolve dissonance is to follow Option 3 — That is to and focus on reducing its importance in your life by following your passions and finding your purpose.
https://blog.usejournal.com/is-cognitive-dissonance-causing-your-obsessive-crush-fa586fe45df3
——————
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
He was kinda Republican-light.
Absolutely not. The problem was that he, Holder, Pelosi, Reid, Frank et al proceeded in such a way in 2009 and 2010 that they alienated a critical mass of voters who then turned out Democratic legislators in droves. That left him pretty much stymied for six years in re any policy which required congressional co-operation. Note, it’s hard to get Congress off the dime when your part has substantial majorities. Jimmy Carter learned that the hard way. George W Bush stuck to applause line initiatives, for the most part.
Absurd, Squeaky, every Bernie Bro believes Obama was ‘Republican Light”. And we heard, before Obama was ever elected, that he was ‘not’ too left of center. Old classmates were saying that in addition to pundits.
But rightwing media could not treat the first Black president as anything ‘but’ a leftist. Had Fox News, for instance, portrayed Obama as moderate, viewers would have been confused. It would have been too complicated of a narrative for the Culture Wars, which is, in reality, Fox’s real business.
So consequently rightwing media proceeded to portray Obama as a wild-eyed radical and quasi pimp from a 70’s Black exploitation movie. That image created a total disconnect with reality that lasted until the day Obama left office.
Not long ago PBS’s Frontline presented a film about the Obama presidency. And a recurring theme of that film was the glaring disconnect between the real Obama and coverage from rightwing media. It was like Fox News was broadcasting from an alternate universe where everything was upside-down.
But sadly that disconnect continues to this day.
every Bernie Bro believes Obama was ‘Republican Light”
Have a satisfactory supply of Bernie Bros in my family. Not one of them has ever made such a remark.
The real Obama is the deputy dean of students. He doesn’t have many ideas of his own and pretty much reflects the resultant of the vectors at work in the Democratic Party. His signatures have been; (1) he’s weirdly secretive (to which the press responded deferentially); (2) his kow tow to Iran and (3) his green energy fetish. The third is quite unremarkable for someone of his vintage. So is the second, particularly among people like Obama, whose disposition is ‘post-American’.
Obama manifested the tastes and prejudices of gentry liberals. That’s the problem. Gentry liberals of his vintage are repulsive and unfit.
It would have been too complicated of a narrative for the Culture Wars, which is, in reality, Fox’s real business.
No, it would have been flat-out false.
Very brave, no not ‘brave,’ very odd that you would suggest Obama was “Republican light.” I think you need to go back to your mentor Lynette, the oracle of Spahn Ranch, and get some different fantasy visions, maybe with help from some White Lightning.
Obama didn’t really advance Liberal causes to any great degree.
Perhaps you forgot what he said about some Americans and guns but some of us never will. And he said it behind closed doors. Communist to the core. Communists practice “dividid y conquistar”.
I was no fan of Obama, but in reality, what did he do to us that say, a Mitt Romney would not have done? He put Wall Street types in charge of the recovery. He deported millions of illegals. He got Obamacare passed, which was based on Romney’s plan for Massachusetts. And even when the Republicans were in charge of the Senate and the House, they would NOT repeal Obamacare.
Now, there were things that Obama TRIED to do, like the Dreamer crap, but even that had some Republican support. I think Obama was horrible on race issues – like Trayvon Martin. But gee, it was a Republican administration in Florida that knuckled under and prosecuted poor George Zimmerman.
Obama did not pull us out of any wars we were in , and in fact, even allowed warmongering Hillary to purge Kaddafi of Libya.
As far as Obama’s patronizing opinion of us Deplorables, do you think there aren’t a slew of Republican leaders who have the same opinion? They may keep quiet about it, but do you really think there is much of a difference between say, Paul Ryan and Obama? On anything substantive. I don’t.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“poor George Zimmerman”
Now that’s a hoot.
You will find no comments by me on this forum supporting Republicans. The US Presidency has never been the same since Ronald Reagan.
But gee, it was a Republican administration in Florida that knuckled under and prosecuted poor George Zimmerman.
Not really. Gov. Scott (an insurance man new in office) took the advice of the state attorney-general and appointed Angela Corey the special prosecutor. It’s a passable wager that he did not know that Corey is weirdly hostile to people who defend themselves with firearms. Glenn Reynolds remarked on this pattern in her behavior. Zimmerman wasn’t the only person her office prosecuted for this.
Jerilyn Merritt in a post-mortem on the Zimmerman trial offered her opinion that the testy back-and-forth between the judge and the defense counsel was quite unremarkable. What she did find remarkable was the unprofessional behavior of the trial prosecutor, Bernardo de la Rionda. She said in her years in criminal defense work, she’d never seen someone play hide-the-ball to that extent. IIRC, Alan Dershowitz said something similar.
yawn!!!
…and it was SUCH a nice Sunday morning until I read this. Now the thought of Obama returning, even if impossible as Turley (re)assures us, will rest in my mind like a bad smell lingers in the air.
Change your diet.
It’s probably his upper lip.
What’s the Hillary obsession with you people? She’s a grandmother and loving it! Horrendous and absurd.
And baking cookies.
Inside every Democrat is a totalitarian thug screaming to get out.
Sunday morning thought….if Biden were to choose Michelle Obama as VP, could Barry serve in a cabinet level position? Please tell me I’m wrong.
Exactly. No disrespect to the prof, but his blinders for the DNC appear to be made of ten-foot concrete. Yes, even if JT is a reasonable and just person, the modern DNC would *absolutely* pull a stunt like this (they LOVE quoting amendments when it suits them). Though no, Barack can’t run – Michelle can, Hillary can. et. al. To contemplate this isn’t far-fetched at all after the last few years of dems and the MSM.
At some point you’d think a party that has to resort to the dem’s levels of the brazen chicanery of recent times would figure out that people don’t want to vote for them.
Oops. I said, ‘think’, and implied they actually care about their constituents and what they want.
If you think the current administration cares for anyone but themselves then I unite you to join the Trump and Pence #Covid19RussianRoulette challenge: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-white-house-events-coronavirus-testing/2020/05/01/21a9b5bc-8bbe-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html
Obama throughout his life has shown no interest in any special subset of public policy. As for Mooch, she has an interest in the daily business of being a mother and in decorative arts. She’s getting what she wanted out of life. Another tour in public office is not what she wants. Pat Buchanan, who had had occasion to observe up close Pat Nixon and Nancy Reagan in action, offered the opinion in 2010 that MO was ‘not a happy camper’ in the First Lady’s job.
Who be MO?
I am sure Pat was in the inner circle, how did he rate pat N’s life view and why would it matter?
Who is Barry?