‘Excusing the most blatant assault on the rule of law since Watergate’: Conservative columnist explains why so many Republicans have succumbed to Trumpism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Conservative Washington Post journalist Max Boot has made no secret of the fact that he considers Donald Trump’s presidency to be one of the worst things that has happened to the Republican Party in recent years. The 49-year-old Boot’s disdain for President Trump is so vehement that he left the GOP after decades as a member. But many others on the right, unlike Boot, have been rallying to Trump’s defense—and Boot explains the psychology behind loyalty to Trump in his most recent Washington Post column.
Reflecting on Attorney General William Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1—when he evasively responded to questions from U.S. senators about his response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report for the Russia investigation—Boot cites Sen. Lindsay Graham as an example of a veteran Republican who went from being Trump critic to Trump sycophant. Graham, Boot observes, went out of his way to “spout pro-Trump conspiracy theories from his perch as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and berate FBI agents for expressing opposition to Trump in 2016 —while conveniently forgetting that he himself called Trump a ‘kook,’ a ‘bigot,’ ‘crazy’ and ‘unfit for office.’”
Boot quickly adds, however, that Graham is hardly alone is praising a president he once attacked. “A similar metamorphosis has occurred not only among other conservative politicians, but also, conservative commentators,” Boot explains. “National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, RedState founder Erick Erickson, New Criterion Editor Roger Kimball and too many others to cite have all gone from opposing to supporting Trump.”
Quoting a May 1 New York Times op-ed by former FBI Director James Comey, Boot asserts that Trumpism has a way of separating principled conservatives from unprincipled conservatives—and he cites former Defense Secretary James Mattis as one of the principled ones who wasn’t afraid to stand up to Trump. Conservatives who have character, Boot writes, have been able to resist Trumpism, while Graham and others lacking character fear that resisting Trumpism would be a bad career move.
“The fear of economic extinction is a powerful inducement to see Trump in the best possible light, to focus on things you like—tax cuts, judges, Israel—while ignoring or excusing things that are hard to defend, like blatant xenophobia, attacks on the media as the ‘enemy of the people,’ demands to lock up the opposition, declarations of ‘love’ for Kim Jong Un, etc…. Eventually, you end up excusing the most blatant assault on the rule of law since Watergate and saying that Trump is the best president ever.”
Boot ends his column by quoting Comey again and stressing that after a conservative has succumbed to Trump’s influence, “you are lost. He has eaten your soul.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
115 visitors
[Removed]
Have no idea what the comment was because it has been removed.
He wasn't Hillary is why he got my vote. It's horrifying to think of the trouble we'd be in if she somehow stole the election.
Many of the main stream Republicans are starting to see the error of their ways.
And you have no idea what you even talk about on any article, I'm mean after all all you ever do is throw trollisms.
You only two articles taught you so much rather a pathetic "much"
Actually, all I have ever seen you do is routinely throw insults and innuendo at any who dare disagree with you or your political views. Your extreme hatred of Trump and/or anything you see as even remotely conservative or right leaning makes it almost impossible to have a reasonable or intelligent conversation. You really need to lighten up...
My objection to Trump is not on a policy level, although I don't agree with many of his policies. We have had many other conservative or Republican presidents who were not unfit to hold office, and thus not subject to the type of attack Trump provokes.
Donald Trump is not fit to be the president of the United States, it's that simple. Now he wants to run for re-election and his lemmings are falling in line. In toto, it is definitely a crisis (albeit a slow motion one) for our country.
Ed, pledge that you will not vote for Trump in 2020 under any circumstances, and I will see you in a different light than I do now.
I did not vote for him to begin with, nor do I plan on voting for him in the future.
Morning Ed … it no longer matters that one did not vote for Trump, nor ever intends to .. you have been labeled my friend! (there is no escaping it, labels now make the world go'round)
Good to see you, hope all is good with you .. the weather is warming in the Norse land - it actually made it to 67 for a day : ) Take care of you Ed...
Peace...
He’s the leading Never Trumper supposedly on the right along with the leadership of the failed weekly magazine.
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 either. Of course I was an even bigger Never Hillary than a Never Trump so I voted 3rd party. In 2020 in Ca. It doesn’t matter what I do in 2020 either but I’ll consider voting for him because I like most of what he’s done so far and to offend all the Never Trump people left in the GOP. After the way the secular progressive left has treated Trump I will be honored to vote for him now.
honored huh...
good for you,
i guess ?
What Ed said. You appear to be unable to carry on an intelligent and informed discussion.
Sad when the first sentence starts with a lie. But then it's alternet, so who's surprised?
Max Boot very publicly announced he's not a conservative.
Pro-tip, seed the original article, not the dishonest write up from the batshit crazy left wing site that lies about it and breaks it up in little pieces for it's idiot readers for whom the Washington Post is too intimidating to read.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Then pretty much every post from the seeder is removed.
I don't even know who Max Boot is, nor do I care. I have never read the WaPo and probably never will.
WaPo is Amazon’s liberal rag.
In 2017, Max Boot in a interview referred to himself as "socially liberal".
Yeah. It means he isn't anti-people for any reason and won't take away the birth control.
Sites as far to the right as Alternet is to the left end up off the mainline at MBFC for any of a variety of their excuses.
Graham has always been a hack. He would piss into the wind if he thought it would further himself.
It is rather stunning to watch, though I always found Sen. Graham to be a bit of a self important putz, since Sen. McCain passed away he had no one to hold his leash so he went for the closest fire hydrant.
If it was only Mr. Graham I would not be bothered as there are always one or two sycophants in play, but almost to a man (and women) the entire GOP seems to have allowed Mr. Trump to own them. And they call the Dems sissies.
And who owns the Democrats?
They appear to have become mindless sheep following the hard left mantra of the "hate America first" extreme left.
Not sure now, after Hillary bought the DNC in 2016.
Her surrogate "Donna Brazile" helped.
Probably, but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz really was the driving force behind it as co-chair of Hillary's campaign.
The "Sarge" (Schultz) …. Definitely had a 5 finder discount in Hillary's ….. "Expenses" !
That's a slogan I am unfamiliar with.
.
It's been so troubling watching the devolution of Lindsey Graham.
After McCain died it was like Lindsey, having lost the most important male influence in his life, became unable to resist being drawn to the BIGGEST DICK in his circle of peers, (Trump).
What ever became of Graham the man?!
The Russians got the RNC cheap.
So you claim. Evidence would be nice.
Hey, read the Russian indictments.
BTW, how about you cite evidence of your claim.
And irrelevant.
I have, have you? Anything in there about Russians buying the GOP?
Please do quote it since you seem to think it is in the indictments.
Riiiiiight...
Yep and I even understood them.
More evidence than you've furnished that Hillary 'bought' the DNC.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-no-debt-clinton-brazile_us_58c805a2e4b0428c7f...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-hillary-clinton-didnt-take-over-the-dnc-but-barack...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../2/brazile-says-obama-left-dnc-deep-debt-clinton-camp
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-robbed-bernie-sanders-130941702.html
https://www.npr.org/.../clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Actually, you provided bupkis.
You probably already knew that.
Laughable at best.
Now, I don't know what constitutes evidence in your little world, but merely claiming something isn't proof in the real world where I reside.
Brazile says Hillary Clinton basically bought the DNC by loaning it $20 million in return for complete control of the organization. Brazile also charged Clinton rigged the 2016 Democrat primary to cheat Sanders out of the nomination.
Hillary Bought DNC, Clinton’s Deepening Legal Trouble, Fed ...
usawatchdog.com/hillary-bought-dnc-clintons-deepening-legal-trouble-fed-head-change/
Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. Excerpted from the book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House to be published on November 7, 2017 by Hachette Books, a division of Hachette Book Group. Copyright 2017 Donna Brazile.
Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie. So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks. By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
***
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.
The Friday Cover
Sign up for POLITICO Magazine’s email of the week’s best, delivered to your inbox every Friday morning.
Email
Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.
“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
The POLITICO Mag Profile
Nancy Pelosi Has Trump Right Where She Wants Him
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”
The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.
I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.
When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support. Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary. I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
Had you actually understood them, you would have never made your statement about them. Anyone reading those indictments KNOWS that there isn't one damn thing about buying the GOP off.
But since you insist, please provide the quote from the indictment backing your statement up.
Because what you HAVE provided isn't anything at all besides a little hot air.
Why would you need me to provide you with the Russian indictments if you already READ them Tex?
Your comments refute that claim.
Because for some very strange reason, you seem to think that the indictments contain info about Russia buying the GOP.
I have asked several times for the quotes from the indictments, and you still have come up empty.
Next time, maybe it would be best if you wrote the truth.
Still waiting for YOUR proof, Where is it???
I have never needed a thing from you, and most likely never will.
And since you can not anyways, what is your point? Do you have one?
So your posit is that LOANING means buying. Got ya.
Oooh. nice SPIN from you!!
Where is YOUR quote from the indictments? Still can't find anything to back your false statement up????
Again, the Russian indictments contain MORE evidence of funds being used to BUY a party leader than you ridiculous links.
Your inability to connect the dots is on you Tex.
Already did.
BTW Tex, your links fail miserably.
Nor is there anything in any of my comments that claims that they bought the GOP 'off'.
Well since ALL of your links say LOANED not BOUGHT, that isn't spin Tex.
Brazile says Hillary Clinton basically bought the DNC by loaning it $20 million in return for complete control of the organization. Brazile also charged Clinton rigged the 2016 Democrat primary to cheat Sanders out of the nomination.
Hillary Bought DNC, Clinton’s Deepening Legal Trouble, Fed ...
usawatchdog.com/hillary-bought-dnc-clintons-deepening-legal-trouble-fed-head-change/
gee, what is that word? Oh, yeah, BOUGHT!
So yeah, you are still just spinning.
Well then, that makes your comment utterly ridiculous.
Have you forgotten what YOU wrote? Here is a refresher for you:
And just in case you are still confused, the bold are your words, and the italicized ones are mine.
Maybe you can invent some bullshit about what you "really"meant by that statement.
Or not!
Instead of merely braying about it, how's about PROVING that?
Typical answer when pressed to defend a false claim.
Still going to stick with THAT BS?
LOL!
[Discuss the seeded topic, not members of the forum.]
I see word salad is still on the menu!
thought you'd be available to toss
Nope! I'll leave all of that to you since it seems important to you.
I can read gibberish in lots of places if I choose.
Or not, as in the case with any further posts from you.
awww Tex, what ever shall i do, without an audience of you...
He's evolved.
That’s for sure...
"Nevertheless it was one of the primary themes of the obama campaign for president."
Really? I sort of paid attention to what he was saying most of the time and I don't recall him saying anything like that. Could you post a link? I'd prefer one with a couple of lines before and after he said it, with full sentences, not a clip with half or a quarter of one.
They're all a bunch of cheap whores. They all bent over for Putin
Comments removed from 4.0 for off topic. Please discuss the topic.
They don't seem to specify which law.
That's because the 'rule of law' is a principle, not a statute.
It's silly to claim there is an assault on the rule of law if you can't say how. It is kind of hard to have an assault on the rule of law if no law has been broken.
Max Boot has multiple social media accounts and he has said HOW in most of them. You can always go READ his WP article for yourself.
Actually, it isn't. An assault on HOW or whether justice is administered doesn't inherently break a law yet it DOES assault the rule of law.
Sounds really boring. It also sounds like you can't think of a law that Trump has broken. It seems to me that if he had broken a law, law enforcement might have said so. So far, they aren't saying that. Hence . . . no assault on the rule of law.
Yeah . . . hmmm . . . not seeing that either.
You're the one who picked the subject.
You should get your hearing checked.
Oh and BTFW, we've discussing Max Boot's article and HIS opinion.
They have.
Oh but they have. There is this thingy called the Mueller report. You should check it out.
Again, no law need be broken for the rule of law to be assaulted. I know that it's an intellectually challenging subject but I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could do enough research to get the gist of it.
Why do you assume that someone doesn't understand something merely because they hold a different opinion?
Well Tex, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's not like there hasn't been tons of articles about this subject. Besides multiple WP articles recently, there has been plenty of opportunity to educate one self.
https://www.usatod
Of course there are a plethora of legal essays about the rule of law too but he gets bored easily.
R-I-g-h-t.
It’s called arrogant condescension.
So I should just do research you suggest while you lazily contribute nothing? No thanks.
You don't know how this works, I guess. But if you think we are communicating with sound, that could explain much about our fruitless exchanges.
Really? What has he been indicted for? Oh wait. He hasn't been indicted for a damned thing, has he.
Yes, I am aware. In it, on page 14 (IIRC) it says that "NO U.S. person" cooperated with Russians trying to interfere with our election. Not one. Maybe you should check it out before you start parroting nonsense about assaults on the law.
Only if logic doesn't matter to you.
For you? I'm sure it is. Apparently, it is especially challenging for you since you have had multiple chances to support your ridiculous assertions with evidence and have failed to do so each and every time. You just declare that it doesn't matter, so it must be so.
And yet you remain incapable of summarizing it into a simple sentence like "Trump has assaulted the rule of law by (for example) breaking specific statute X . . . or . . . refusing to comply with a legal court order issued on such-and-such date."
In case you haven't figured it out yet (you clearly haven't), I am not going to do random internet searches or sift through articles looking for evidence to support your claims. Do that shit yourself like everyone else does and then incorporate evidence into an actual argument.
Yes, it is.
You're still stuck on a law needing to be broken for an assault on the rule of law to occur.
I suggest you educate yourself on the PRINCIPAL of the rule of law.
As I said, it's an intellectually challenging subject and it just can't be dumbed down to a 'simple sentence'. The rule of law handbook for Judge advocates is over 300 pages. I have a couple of essays under 20 pages but since your so easily bored they wouldn't interest you either.
i like that arrogant condensation stuff Tex,
you have quite the way
of expressing
yourself
Tex,
but, if
you kind
good sirs had
the open mindedness
non-biased interpretation,
of what is actually currently
occurring in our nations latest Un
development, by peoples not open to
the reality, that our nation is in disarray,
and not just cause i just did say it isn't sew
,or sown in stone made of soil, as POTUS has
soiled us. Y, N how we haven't outgrown this child
By
Now,
leaves one
wasting chronological
increments, for the amount
of incrimination is substantial, to
one who should never be referred to
being compared to anything substantial,
though...
it could possibly be used, but i can't quite put my frckn
finger on it, probably though, due to the faux fact,
i forgot
.
i was all thumbs,
Dirty Fonzi's for everyone
Only the Democrats are in disarray, everyone else is doing fine.
You still can't explain it.
I'm not the one who is lazy since I have already done the research YEARS ago.
Well gee Tacos!, didn't you say:
Yep, that sure as fuck WAS YOU.
Yes really.
BTFW, there are COUNTLESS comments on this forum, some of them made by you, that still insist that Hillary Clinton broke that law even though YEARS have gone by without her being indicted. It would be less hypocritical if you recognized that Trump should be held to the same standards.
Yet you obfuscate on the content of Volume II.
Volume II.
Perhaps you can explain how the attack on a PRINCIPLE MUST be predicated by the violation of a law. After all, you claim to have worked this out logically. Please proceed.
Yes Tacos!, it was. Just like my studies of PRINCIPLES like liberty and equality have been intellectually challenging. Yet unlike you, I enjoy being intellectually challenged and have put in the time required to have at least layman's cogency on the subjects. I've used the knowledge I garnered politically and professionally so it's come in handy and been profitable.
You see, coming to a logical conclusion requires a diversity of input, some contradictory. Without a diversity of inpur, the reasoning behind the supposedly logical conclusion is invariably uninformed.
Here Tacos!, I'll give you a explanation that you can understand:
MURICA!
Link? Because I don't remember claiming that Hillary Clinton broke the law.
Everything else you wrote was - to use the technical term - gobbledygook.
That's what I have come to expect.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you think that my comment included 'abstruse technical terms', it explains why you're having issues with the principle of the rule of law.
OMG did you Google the definition of "gobbledygook" and then use it to try to argue with me? Dude! Perspective!
No, I knew the definition, didn't you?
No argument, just stating a fact.
GOPERS sticking with the Trump?
Follow the money. It all comes from the same place.
Maria Butina and the NRA. There is much more to this than just that.
Republicans have held a majority of offices across the country at every single level of government over the last 50 years and it is because they cover for each other in every lie, they stick together, and they are adept at fooling their base, and no ethics.
Every majority they have held, has produced terrible results. The last straw was Bush and the crash in 2008.
Right wing think tanks, big money PACS, Republican lobbyists, the Republican party went all in on the failed "Tea Party" in order to change the subject and deflect blame for the entire 8 year Bush/Cheney disaster.
We see it once again in Trump, it is the same process except now we see an even worse result when it comes to competent governing and competent foreign policy. It is an absolute disaster.
Republicans are now on the record for every law, failed policy and every failure in our country because they have held either the Senate, the Congress or the Presidency more often than any Democrat. Now every failed policy their right wing judges enact is on them too.
Republicans have over time, held state legislatures and governorships for years in most states. How is it they blame Dems for everything? They are in charge.
So when the "tea party" nut jobs yelled they want their country back and the country was going in the "wrong direction", they were the brainwashed base who cannot put 2 + 2 together and figure out that it is the very party they continually support and continually vote for that destroyed everything.
It has always taken a big pendulum swing to the left to get any fixes to Republican damage, whether it is repressive and regressive policies that hurt Americans or whether it is fixing the economy the way Clinton or Obama managed. They lie and take credit without sharing responsibility either way.