The Daly Weekly (12/19)
Letitia James, Trump's presidential address, Mark Zuckerberg, and more!
Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
John, With most all the “irons in the fire” as of late globally, which scenario will become most detrimental to America, and which will become President Trump’s biggest blunder? -- Sharon H
Hi Sharon. Since you said “globally,” I’m assuming you’re talking about foreign policy. If so, I think our terrible treatment of Ukraine (and our insane capitulations to Putin) has been Trump’s biggest blunder (for reasons I’ve stated before). And I have no confidence that he’ll ever get around to doing the obviously right thing: strongly support Ukraine. Ukraine is on the front-line of what could easily become a far broader global conflict. It is absolutely in America’s (and the rest of the free world’s) deep interest to help shut Putin down. But Trump seems unwilling to do that.
Another big, global screw-up has been the trade war. It’s not only made life needlessly hard for millions of Americans, but has deeply strained relationships with a number of our key allies.
A second Grand Jury has declined to re-indict Letitia James, yet I get the impression they will just keep trying until they get one, but then James will have an even better defense on the grounds of vindictive prosecution. How far do you think the Trump DOJ will take this, as well as the Comey case? Keep fighting until they win, or lose, at trial, or until another judge dismisses at least one or even both cases again? After all, if they win they can bask in the victory, and if they lose, they can whine that The System Is Rigged and it’s So Unfair that Comey and James escaped punishment, but then again, so did Trump. —Aylene Wright
Hi Aylene. I think the administration will probably exhaust every legal option at their disposal, wasting government resources and taxpayer money, and putting Comey and James through as much hassle and financial strain as possible, for no other reason than to pacify President Trump’s ego. In the end, I think the administration will come up completely empty. But as you said, Trump will then — as he often does — proclaim the system was rigged, and blame “far-left judges,” or whatever.
I believe the “ Trump Fatigue Syndrome “ has now evolved into “The Trump Exhaustion Disorder” and will have a significant impact on next year’s election. What say you? — Benn H.
I think “exhaustion” is a good word for it, Benn. Voters were exhausted by Trump in his first term, which is why Republicans lost the House, Senate, and presidency (the party’s worst losses in almost 70 years). Then, voters were exhausted by Biden, which is why Republicans now have all of those things back. All signs point to the pendulum swinging back in the other direction next year.
Sadly, our two major political parties are a joke. They’ve purged nearly every competent leader from public office, and the jokers we have left offer little more than performative nonsense. They’re creating far more problems than they even attempt to solve. And yes, a lot of the blame belongs on voters.
So, Trump held a prime-time presidential address just to yell about how great everything is, and announce a Christmas bonus for our troops? Couldn’t he have just tweeted that stuff? What was even the point? — Alex D.
Hi Alex. Part of me wonders if there was originally supposed to be an announcement of something far more significant (like Venezuela), and that there was a last-minute change. I really don’t know.
I do, however, think there was a point, at least in Trump’s mind, to announcing the “military bonus” the way he did. He said the bonuses would be paid using tariff revenue. That was significant, because most analysts believe the Supreme Court will overturn Trump’s emergency-tariff actions in a few weeks, and I suspect Trump was trying to make that decision harder on them by attaching military benefits to it.
The reality is that Trump’s trade war has been an absolute disaster by just about every metric. The Supreme Court overruling it would be a great thing for the country (both legally and economically). Trump bragged during the speech about his tariffs bringing in $18 trillion in revenue. That’s just utter nonsense. The real number is $200 billion — money that was, again, taken from Americans. If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, all of that money will have to be refunded back to those who paid it — which would require the U.S. to borrow even more money… at a time when we’re already $38 trillion in debt. So, promising to fund anything with tariff revenue, at this point, is especially irresponsible.
Perhaps, in what may have come as a surprise to Trump, his administration announced the very next day that the “bonus” would not be coming from tariff revenue, but rather from congressionally-allocated funds intended for housing allowances for service members. In other words, Trump will be taking money from military service members to pay military service members.
John: I have often wondered why the titans of technology over the last 40 years (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.) were so heavily leftist and collectivist. Why are they so willing to cede their hard-earned money they built in a free market, capitalist system? I learned recently that the expansion of executive agencies that started 100 years ago were the efforts of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt to create an Expert Class to oversee large swaths of American enterprise; thus, the rise of an Expert Class of untouchable federal bureaucrats. These new techies see themselves as part of that Expert Class. It’s like they’re telling our democracy, “Just let us handle things, and you in flyover country will be the better for it.” Why do you think 21st century aristocrats been so reliably liberal? — Steve R.
That’s a complex question, Steve. I’m going to answer it in very simple terms, in which I will probably unfairly generalize these types of folks…
I think there’s a point, when someone reaches an extraordinary amount of capitalistic wealth and success, that they begin to feel guilty about that success (and their own exceptionalism), convince themselves that everyday Americans can never achieve what they have, and take on an almost parental view of us poor, disadvantaged mortals who purportedly need their help. Do I think this mindset is true of everyone who’s as successful and consequential as the people you mentioned? No. But I think it’s prevalent.
Sir John, with so much to discuss this week, I’ll ask your thoughts on the foiled terror plot by the leftists who wanted to bomb targets on New Year’s Eve. Kudos to the FBI for stopping this wickedness! But I will ask you this: what are your thoughts on this entire thing and why do you think some of these people thought that they were going to get away with this nonsense!? Even if they had succeeded, what made them believe that Tom Homan would get scared, turn tail and run away? —“Turtle Island” regards from The Emperor
I haven’t followed this story closely, Emperor, but my thoughts, of course, are that I’m glad the plot was foiled! I have no idea why (or even if) these extremists thought they were going to get away with it. I also have no idea if they even know who Tom Homan is, let alone whether they considered or cared what he might do in response.
Like I said, I haven’t paid much attention to the story, so maybe there are parts of it that I’m missing. All I know for sure is that this mug-shot, of one of the defendants, is just ridiculous:
President Trump alleges Venezuela “stole” oil from the US but has yet to provide proof. And now the UN is involved in mediating this unlawful action of blockading the countries oil exports. Is this just another proxy war without congressional approval? Russia called the annexation of Ukraine a “Special Operation.” How is this any different sans a “boots on the ground” invasion, which is the next logical escalation. — FDM
From what I understand, Trump is referring to lost U.S. revenue and investment dollars from when Venezuela, several years ago, nationalized its oil industry, and stopped doing oil-business with the U.S. It’s a weird argument to be making (or at least the phrasing of it is), and I’m not even sure Trump fully understands it himself.
As for your second question/point, I don't think what the Trump administration is doing is morally or strategically comparable to what Putin has done to Ukraine, but I do think Putin’s invasion of Ukraine plays a role in it — one that you alluded to.
Trump, since returning to office, has been obsessed with the idea of annexing foreign territory. That’s what all of that weird talk about Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal was about. I think that particular mindset (which we didn’t see in his first term) was inspired by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Trump has long romanticized over strong-man leaders, and when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump publicly called the move “genius” and “savvy.” He admired it, similarly to how he’s praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for “controlling” his citizens with an "iron fist.”
By and large, Trump seems to genuinely respect (and even envy) strong-man leaders exerting their will and control over the weak, and I think he wants to pull off a vaguely similar, unilateral power-move of his own… to kind of ‘show off’ to the rest of the world (as best he can within the confines of the U.S. presidency). And with Venezuela under Maduro’s corrupt control, I think he’s found a better precursor than with Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal… despite the lack of a coherent and consistent rationale.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.