Friday, December 1, 2017

The Self-Destruction of American Democracy

  •  There are at least two groups working to end our democracy here in the U.S. The motto of one of these groups might be "We white people began this democracy and we can end it too". The reason would be behind this that white people no longer have the votes to control elections nationwide any longer. So, extreme protestant Christians who are extreme Republicans are now working to end out democracy for anyone who isn't white. This is why Trump is ending our democracy and turning it into a white racist dictatorship at this point in time. The other group outside the U.S. that wants the same thing is the white oligarchy of Putin in Russia which is a money cartel.

    The thought being "Money made America so money can break it too."

    So, these two rich forces are aligned in the 'Breaking of the American Democracy' Because conservative Whites can't stop all other races and minorities from voting any longer because there are just too many of them. So, the only option for them is to use their money to create a dictatorship under Trump.

    Will they win?

    That's entirely up to you.

     

    To read the graphs better please click on the word button two lines down:

    begin quote from:

    The Self-Destruction of American Democracy

    Forget Russia for a minute and look where Trump is taking us.

    Opinion | Contributing Op-Ed Writer

    The Self-Destruction of American Democracy

    Photo
    Credit Al Drago for The New York Times
    President Trump has single-handedly done more to undermine the basic tenets of American democracy than any foreign agent or foreign propaganda campaign could.
    “Trump is a political weapon of mass self-destruction for American democracy — for its norms, for its morality, for sheer human decency,” Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at Brookings, wrote by email:
    So if Putin backed him, and if he did it to damage the United States, then he dropped one extremely smart bomb in the middle of Washington.
    For the moment, let’s put aside the conclusion of “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” the F.B.I., C.I.A. and N.S.A. joint report that was released in January, which said that:
    The Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.
    This determination, disputed by Trump and others, pales in comparison to the ruinous record of Trump’s 10 months in office.
    First and foremost, Trump has gravely damaged the premises and procedures that undergird American democracy.
    Partisan polarization, which helped give rise to Trump in the first place, is getting worse as discord intensifies with every slur and insult Trump hurls.
    On Oct. 5, the Pew Research Center reported that partisan conflict on fundamental political values
    reached record levels during Barack Obama’s presidency. In Donald Trump’s first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger. And the magnitude of these differences dwarfs other divisions in society, along such lines as gender, race and ethnicity, religious observance or education.
    In the introduction to their forthcoming book, “How Democracies Die,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, political scientists at Harvard, write:
    Over the past two years, we have watched politicians say and do things that are unprecedented in the United States — but that we recognize as having been the precursors of democratic crisis in other places. We feel dread, as do so many other Americans, even as we try to reassure ourselves that things can’t really be that bad here.
    Their attempt at reassurance is not comforting:
    American politicians now treat their rivals as enemies, intimidate the free press, and threaten to reject the results of elections. They try to weaken the institutional buffers of our democracy, including the courts, intelligence services, and ethics offices. American states, which were once praised by the great jurist Louis Brandeis as ‘laboratories of democracy,’ are in danger of becoming laboratories of authoritarianism as those in power rewrite electoral rules, redraw constituencies, and even rescind voting rights to ensure that they do not lose. And in 2016, for the first time in U.S. history, a man with no experience in public office, little observable commitment to constitutional rights, and clear authoritarian tendencies was elected president.
    In an email, Levitsky argued that “it is important that we understand that the U.S. has largely been doing these things to itself,” before adding, “obviously we should investigate Russian meddling to the fullest, but to blame Putin for the mess we are in today would be ridiculous. We Americans created this mess.”
    Continue reading the main story
    Along similar lines, Ryan Enos, who is also a political scientist at Harvard, suggested that the question of Russian involvement in the election is a secondary issue:
    It might be that all the distrust and rancor we see today would have happened without Russia’s meddling. There is reason, of course, to believe this is true: after all, the dysfunction in the US political system that put Trump in office existed long before Putin’s 2016 interference.
    In addition, Enos noted,
    Trump’s ability to diminish the United States’ international standing is also made possible by flaws in our political system, for example a weak Congress that has ceded too much power to the executive.
    Trump has not only taken a hammer to the code of behavior underpinning democracy at home, he has simultaneously diminished the international stature of the United States — and arguably accelerated the rise of this country’s major competitor, China.
    Daron Acemoglu, an economist at M.I.T. and a co-author of “Why Nations Fail,” argued in an email that he believes
    the battle between the Chinese-Russian axis and Western democratic institutions to be the defining struggle of the next century. And now the US is in an ambivalent position, led by a flawed character much more sympathetic to the Chinese-Russian axis.
    Trump’s chaotic approach to foreign affairs has, in turn, served to strengthen both Russia and China, in the view of several experts.
    Arthur Lupia, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, emailed:
    As America is seen as an increasingly volatile and unreliable partner, the reduced credibility that follows creates new international opportunities for people like Putin — who can promise relative stability.
    The net result?
    “We now have reduced leverage in many international settings.”
    A Pew survey of adults in 37 foreign nations released in June provides the clearest evidence of Trump’s effect on America’s international stature. It found that
    a median of just 22 percent has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. This stands in contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64 percent expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor to direct America’s role in the world.
    As the accompanying chart shows, confidence in Obama was higher than confidence in Trump in 35 countries. Tellingly, Trump did better than Obama in only two, Russia and Israel.

    A Global Thumbs Down

    A survey across 37 countries asked respondents if they had confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing regarding world affairs. In all but two countries, the rating given to Barack Obama at the end of his term was higher than that given to Donald J. Trump several months into his presidency.
    American standing declined since Obama
    Standing improved with Trump
    Trump rating
    Obama
    50%
    Philippines
    69%
    94%
    Nigeria
    58
    63
    Vietnam
    58
    71
    Israel
    49
    56
    Russia
    11
    53
    Tanzania
    51
    78
    Kenya
    51
    83
    Ghana
    49
    82
    India
    40
    58
    South Africa
    39
    73
    Hungary
    29
    58
    Australia
    29
    84
    Senegal
    26
    77
    Italy
    25
    68
    Japan
    24
    78
    Indonesia
    23
    64
    Poland
    23
    58
    Canada
    22
    83
    Britain
    22
    79
    Venezuela
    20
    26
    Greece
    19
    41
    Tunisia
    18
    27
    Netherlands
    17
    92
    Peru
    17
    53
    S. Korea
    17
    88
    Lebanon
    15
    36
    Colombia
    15
    56
    France
    14
    84
    Brazil
    14
    63
    Argentina
    13
    40
    Chile
    12
    60
    Germany
    11
    86
    Turkey
    11
    45
    Sweden
    10
    93
    Jordan
    9
    14
    Spain
    7
    75
    Mexico
    5
    49
    Critics of Trump’s foreign policy contend that the drive by Rex W. Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State, to “streamline” the department by forcing out as many as 2,000 State Department employees has had the effect of diminishing America’s international presence. By the end of this month, the number in the two top ranks — career ambassadors and career ministers — is scheduled to be cut in half, from 39 to 19.
    In a Nov. 15 letter to Tillerson, Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, wrote:
    Taken together, questionable management practices at the Department of State; the attitudes of some in the Administration on the value of diplomacy; declining morale, recruitment and retention; the lack of experienced leadership to further the strength and longevity of our nation’s diplomatic corps; and reports of American diplomacy becoming less effective paint a disturbing picture.
    Their verdict:
    These factors lead us to conclude that America’s diplomatic power is being weakened internally as complex, global crises are growing externally.
    Trump’s assault — and that of his appointees — on democratic standards and principles is the central element of what might be called a brutalizing or “decivilizational” process. That’s part of what underlies the eternal return of the president’s mendacity, reappearing this month in his behind-the-scenes recitation of lies about Obama’s birthplace and the Access Hollywood tape on which he can be heard bragging about what you can do to women “when you’re a star.”
    These developments have revived open discussion of Trump’s mental health.
    There are “signs that Trump is sometimes incapable of discerning real life from fiction,” David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic on Nov. 27.
    On Wednesday, Trump pushed the envelope even further, retweeting videos from an ultranationalist group in Britain “purportedly showing Muslims committing acts of violence.” Prime Minister Theresa May explicitly faulted Trump, saying “It is wrong for the president to have done this.” As The Times reported, “No modern American president has promoted inflammatory content of this sort from an extremist organization.”
    Trump’s extraordinary record of prevarication calls the truth into question. As Hannah Arendt famously put it, when this happens, nothing can be believed anymore:
    One could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.
    Or as Arendt told a French interviewer in 1974:
    The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie — a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days — but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.
    Add to Trump’s list of lies, his race baiting, his attacks on a free press, his charges of “fake news,” his efforts to instigate new levels of voter suppression, his undermining of the legitimacy of the electoral process, his disregard for the independence of the judiciary, the hypocrisy of his personal posture on sexual harassment, the patent lack of concern for delivering results to voters who supported him, his contempt for and manipulation of his own loyalists, his “failure of character” — and you have a lethal corruption of democratic leadership.
    On Nov. 15, Acemoglu wrote in Foreign Policy:
    It’s been one year since the election of Donald Trump as president and, despite his questionable commitment to the country’s political traditions, American democracy is still standing.
    Acemoglu then asked, “Is it time to rejoice in the strength of American institutions?” Short answer: no.
    Political norms that are the bulwark of our democracy cannot be easily repaired once damaged, even if Trump’s most dangerous policies are stopped. Nor can white supremacist, anti-immigrant, and nativist rhetoric be swiftly sidelined once condoned by the U.S. president.
    In the face of these threats, Acemoglu continues, “the performance of U.S. checks and balances so far gives no comfort.”
    The test facing our democracy now is whether the rules of engagement that make the system work can be restored. Trump trampled on those rules and won the presidency. That precedent may, in and of itself, have inflicted irreparable damage.
    Is there a legal remedy? From the Mueller investigation, for example?
    “Executive authoritarianism and lawlessness can be hemmed in and checked but not fully constrained by courts, the criminal law, or the written Constitution,” Jacob T. Levy wrote this week in “The Limits of Legalism,” published by the libertarian-leaning Niskanen Center:
    They ultimately have to be confronted by elected officials: co-partisans willing to exercise serious restraint, or if not, an opposition voted into office who will do so instead.
    At the moment, Trump’s co-partisans, House and Senate Republicans, have shown little willingness to confront him. The longer Trump stays in office, the greater the danger that he will inflict permanent damage on the institutions that must be essential tools in any serious attempt to confront him.

Flynn to plead guilty for lying to FBI

Michael Flynn
Expected to Plead
Guilty to Lying to
the F.B.I.
New York Times
8 mins ago
Trump's ex-adviser
Flynn expected to
plead guilty to lying
to FBI
Video

Michael Flynn Arrives at Court for Plea Deal

Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, was charged with lying to the F.B.I. about two conversations with the Russian ambassador last December.
By CBS, VIA REUTERS. Photo by Stephen Crowley/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, is expected to plead guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about two conversations with the Russian ambassador last December during the presidential transition.
The charges were the latest indication that Mr. Flynn was cooperating with the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Flynn was scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington at 10:30 on Friday morning.
A plea deal with Mr. Flynn brings Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Such an agreement suggests that Mr. Flynn provided information to prosecutors, which may help advance the inquiry.
The development came at a particularly sensitive moment for the White House, just as Mr. Trump and Republican congressional leaders are toiling to hold together a tenuous coalition to push through a large tax cut plan. It marked an unwelcome headline at a time when the president’s team is hoping to focus public attention on what they argue is an impressive list of accomplishments in his first year.
The White House had no immediate response on Friday to requests for comment on Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea.
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Flynn’s lawyers recently told the president’s legal team that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation as they had been — a sign that Mr. Flynn had decided to cooperate with the prosecution. The investigation has dogged Mr. Trump’s first year in office.
Mr. Flynn is the fourth Trump associate to be charged. He was accused of making false statements to F.B.I. agents about two discussions with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak. Lying to the F.B.I. carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
In one of the conversations described in court documents, the men discussed an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter.
Mr. Mueller’s investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel, according to two people briefed on the inquiry. Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, took the lead in those efforts. Mr. Mueller’s team has emails that show Mr. Flynn saying he would work to kill the vote, the people briefed on the matter said.
In the other discussion, according to court documents, Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak that Moscow refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions announced by the Obama administration that day against Russia over its interference in the presidential election.
The F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Flynn at the White House four days after the president was sworn into office. American intelligence agencies had grown so concerned about Mr. Flynn’s communications with Mr. Kislyak and false accounts that he provided to Vice President Mike Pence that the acting attorney general at the time, Sally Q. Yates, warned the White House that its national security adviser might be compromised by the Russians.
Mr. Flynn served just 24 days, resigning on Feb. 13 after it was revealed that he had misled Mr. Pence and other top White House officials about his conversations with Mr. Kislyak.
Slide Show
Slide Show

See the Charges: U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn

Credit
But after accepting Mr. Flynn’s resignation, the president repeatedly said he thought Mr. Flynn was “a very good person” who had been treated poorly. The day after Mr. Flynn resigned, Mr. Trump told the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote describing that meeting.
In a news conference on Feb. 15, two days after Mr. Flynn’s resignation, the president blamed the media.
“General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he has been treated very, very unfairly by the media, as I call it, the fake media in many cases,” Mr. Trump said. “And I think it is really a sad thing that he was treated so badly.”
But even before Mr. Trump said he would appoint Mr. Flynn as his national security adviser, questions swirled around Mr. Flynn’s connections to Russia, particularly a dinner he was paid to attend in Moscow in 2015 when he sat at the same table as Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.
Throughout the campaign, Mr. Flynn was an intense and vocal advocate of closer relations with Mr. Putin, arguing that the United States must work with the Russians to battle extremists. After he was named national security adviser, he continued to urge closer cooperation between the two nations.
The White House has said that Mr. Flynn has no information to provide prosecutors that would hurt Mr. Trump. A deal between Mr. Flynn and the special counsel is nonetheless significant. He was a key figure in the Trump campaign and the transition team. As Mr. Mueller tries to understand the behind-the-scenes story of those months, hearing from Mr. Flynn is important.
Mr. Flynn was a sometimes high-profile member of Mr. Trump’s campaign, often appearing on Fox News to advocate for the candidate’s foreign policy views.
Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Flynn was a brash, outspoken critic of former President Barack Obama, asserting that Shariah, or Islamic law, was spreading in the United States under his watch — a claim that was repeatedly debunked — and saying that the United States is in a “world war” with Islamist militants.
A controversial figure in the defense and intelligence community before joining Mr. Trump’s campaign, Mr. Flynn served as the head of Mr. Obama’s Defense Intelligence Agency. But he repeatedly clashed with Obama administration officials, who succeeded in persuading the former president to push him out of the intelligence job.
After he left the Obama administration, he formed a consulting group that led to inquiries into questionable lobbying for foreign governments, including the Turkish government, and hazy business ties with Middle Eastern countries.
Investigators working for the special counsel have questioned witnesses about Mr. Flynn’s dealings with the Turkish government and whether he was secretly paid by Turkish officials during the campaign. After he left the White House, Mr. Flynn disclosed that the Turkish government had paid him more than $500,000 to represent its interests in a dispute with the United States.
White House officials had been bracing for troublesome developments in the special counsel investigation, even as the president and some of his senior advisers had been saying in recent weeks that they believed Mr. Mueller was nearing the end of his probe.
Mr. Trump was not scheduled to make any public comments on Friday, though Mr. Flynn’s plea provided an awkward backdrop for remarks he was scheduled to give behind closed doors at an afternoon holiday reception with members of the news media.
Correction: December 1, 2017
An earlier version of this article said Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Trump, had pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. He was expected to plead guilty but had not entered a plea when the article was first published.
Continue reading the main story

Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election

Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.