Introduction: Why Track Trump?
Issues (an outline of categories in weekly compilations)
Week 1 -- November 9-15, 2016
Week 2 -- November 16-22, 2016
Week 3 -- November 23-29, 2016
Week 4 -- November 30-December 6, 2016
Week 5 -- December 7-December 13, 2016
Week 6 -- December 14-December 20, 2016
Week 7 -- December 21-December 27, 2016
Week 8 -- December 28-January 3, 2017
Week 9 -- January 4-January 10, 2017
Week 10 -- January 11-January 17, 2017
Explanatory Note
Highlights and Trends
This project is designed to make available a daily update and a repository of the news and comment regarding President-Elect Donald Trump, from the time of the election to the time of the inauguration. It is organized both by weeks (this page will contain material from weeks 7 and 8) and by topics (click on "Issues," above, to see the annotated outline).
The outline of topics will mostly remain constant throughout all weeks (even if there are no entries for a given topic). (Of course, the text for any given week can also be approached with a "find" or "search" request by an individual's name or other search term.) Because of the volume of material, it is organized by two-week segments. The links, above, to "Week 1" and "Week 2," and subsequent pages of two weeks each, will take you to the material chronologically.
You may draw different conclusions from the first five or six weeks' of President-Elect Trump's statements and decisions, but here are some of mine:
- Having won with the support of the white working class, Trump has, so far, done nothing (of which I'm aware), with his appointments or post-election proposals, speech, or actions, to serve the interests of consumers and working class Americans -- let alone appointees or proposals that would be opposed by Wall Street, corporate America, or the wealthiest 1%. (I discount the Carrier deal for reasons explained on this page.)
- Trump has, however, demonstrated an ability and inclination to flip-flop from some of his campaign rhetoric in directions that are (to me) desirable (e.g., waterboarding).
- What is becoming increasingly "huge" with every passing week is Trump's inevitable conflicts of interest (as a president engaged in negotiations with other countries in which decisions will affect the profits of his global businesses) are becoming more obvious and serious as he and his children are already blending the roles while he is President-Elect. Presidential ethics lawyers for both Bush and Obama believe the only adequate solution is for him to sell off all his properties, and turn over the proceeds to an independent trustee/wealth manager, who will invest and manage them for Trump's benefit but without his knowledge. Just turning over the management of his hotels and other properties, while he (or his children) retain the ownership and profits is not enough. Unlike shares of stock, so long as his name/brand remains on buildings around the world he will know -- and those wishing to gain favor by sending money his way will know -- what he (and/or his family) owns. Not incidentally, terrorists will also know -- raising questions of who will pay for the expensive additional security for those buildings. The seriousness of these problems is only made worse by his other major resistance to the traditions of presidential financial transparency: his refusal to make his tax returns public -- essential information even if one were inclined to undertake the futile task of assuring the absence of his personal enrichment, favoritism and financial conflicts while serving as president.
- Most appointees, so far, however bright or not, appear to have had little education, training, or experience to qualify them for the jobs they will hold; Trump's total lack of government or military administrative experience results in his lack of a network of experienced ("trustworthy and loyal") former associates that, say, a former governor might have.
- Some of his appointees appear to have been chosen, not only in spite of, but perhaps because of, a single ideological focus (often contrary to the mission of the agency they're appointed to run); and for a nation that prides itself on "civilian control of the military," his Administration is becoming a little top heavy with generals in those "civilian" positions.
- There is a residual from Trump's use of hate as a motivating force in his campaign that continues to spike the numbers of hate crimes, is dangerous, counter to any goal of "bringing America together," and that Trump has done little to discourage.
If you would like a little lighthearted relief from politics, an effort to put America's silliness into perspective, I predict the following will provide you some laughs: Dave Barry, "Dave Barry’s Year in Review: Trump and the ‘hideous monstrosity’ that was 2016," Washington Post, January 2, 2017.
Transition.
Leaders.
Appointments and Recap:
As the Senate hearings on Trump's cabinet and other appointments begin this week [Jan. 9], media and public attention will shift a bit away from Trump and toward those nominees, the Republican senators backing them, and the efforts to approve them before they have gone through the traditional vetting process: Jennifer Steinhauer and Eric Lichtblau, "Senate Confirmation Hearings to Begin Without All Background Checks," New York Times, January 8, 2017, p. A1 ("[T]he leader of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter M. Shaub Jr., said on Friday [Jan. 6] that 'the announced hearing schedule for several nominees who have not completed the ethics review process is of great concern to me.' . . . [H]e knew of no other occasion in . . . four decades when the Senate had held a confirmation hearing before the review was completed.")
Karen Tumulty, "Priebus faces daunting task bringing order to White House that will feed off chaos," Washington Post, January 2, 2017 ("Reince Priebus says that one of his most important tasks as Donald Trump’s chief of staff will be to establish 'some level of order within the White House.' That . . . is certain to be a particularly daunting challenge with a president who regards chaos as a management tool. Trump’s Twitter feed is a daily, sometimes hourly, testament to his impulsive nature, his disregard for norms and protocol, his bottomless appetite for random information and misinformation. Adding to the potential for tension is the fact that Trump’s White House is being set up with rival centers of gravity.")
International.
The hacking and revelation of DNC and Clinton campaign emails during the campaign is destined to remain a story for awhile. Senators want an investigation; Trump does not. The 17 U.S. intelligence agencies are apparently in agreement that it was done by Russians with the knowledge of Putin. President Obama is being presented today [Jan. 5] with their evidence for that conclusion (classified well above the "Top Secret" level). Trump will receive that report, and a meeting with top officials at the Trump Tower in New York, tomorrow [Jan. 6].
Trump seems to be taking Putin's side of this disagreement -- at least to the extent of disparaging the intelligence agencies' report as insufficient proof. He's made a statement regarding his superior knowledge of hacking analogous to his campaign assertion that "I know more than the generals." Matt Flegenheimer and Scott Shane, "Countering Trump, Bipartisan Voices Strongly Affirm Findings on Russian Hacking," New York Times, January 6, 2017, p. A1 (“'There’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement,' James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said at the hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Russian hacks.")
Trump may be relying on Julian Assange's suggestion of a source other than Russia. And that raises the issues surrounding the unsolved murder of the DNC staffer whom Assange seems to be hinting was his source. Jeff Stein, "Seth Rich: Inside the Killing of the DNC Staffer," Newsweek, August 20, 2016 ("At 4:19 a.m. [July 10, 2016], police patrolling nearby responded to the sound of gunfire in Bloomingdale [area of Washington, D.C.] and found [DNC computer-voting specialist Seth] Rich lying mortally wounded [with] multiple gunshot wounds in his back. About an hour and 40 minutes later, he died at a local hospital. . . . The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery, . . .. Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. . . . Julian Assange . . . hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization's recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails.")
Greg Miller and Adam Entous, "Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump," Washington Post, January 7, 2017
As is so often the case, "there are three issues here" -- confused to some extent by the media and in the minds of the politically-divided American people.
One is whether the Russian intervention included a fraudulent manipulation of voting machines. A second is whether the Russian intervention caused Trump to win what would otherwise have been won by Clinton. A third is whether Russian activities included, amongst others, hacking into Democratic Party and Clinton campaign computers with the intention of helping Trump and hurting Clinton's chances. The consensus on these questions appears to be (1) No, (2) unknown because not investigated, and (3) Yes.
Trump's response to the U.S. intelligence community's report -- whether the result of his deliberate obfuscation or ignorance -- seems focused on defending the legitimacy of his election by arguing in effect that the answer to (1) precludes any necessity of addressing (3). Greg Miller and Adam Entous, "Declassified report says Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump," Washington Post, January 7, 2017. ("Russia carried out a comprehensive cyber campaign to sabotage the U.S. presidential election, an operation that was ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and ultimately sought to help elect Donald Trump, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in a remarkably blunt assessment released Friday [Jan. 6]. . . . Trump said 'there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election' [and that] 'there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.'”)
And, David Nakamura, "Investigation of Russian hacking is a ‘witch hunt,’ Trump says," Washington Post, January 7, 2017 ("As U.S. intelligence officials have raised increasing alarm this week over Russia’s meddling in the presidential election, Donald Trump has sought to recast the investigation as a matter of old-fashioned politics rather than national security. The president-elect has reacted to mounting pressure to take stronger steps against Russia not only by trying to discredit the intelligence community but also by suggesting that the intense Washington focus on the issue is being driven by political rivals still stung by his electoral victory. '“This is a political witch hunt,'” Trump said Friday [Jan. 6] . . ..")
Conflicts.
Temperament.
Karen Tumulty, "Priebus faces daunting task bringing order to White House that will feed off chaos," Washington Post, January 2, 2017 ("Reince Priebus says that one of his most important tasks as Donald Trump’s chief of staff will be to establish 'some level of order within the White House.' That . . . is certain to be a particularly daunting challenge with a president who regards chaos as a management tool. Trump’s Twitter feed is a daily, sometimes hourly, testament to his impulsive nature, his disregard for norms and protocol, his bottomless appetite for random information and misinformation. Adding to the potential for tension is the fact that Trump’s White House is being set up with rival centers of gravity.")
David Nakamura, "Investigation of Russian hacking is a ‘witch hunt,’ Trump says," Washington Post, January 7, 2017 ("As U.S. intelligence officials have raised increasing alarm this week over Russia’s meddling in the presidential election, Donald Trump has sought to recast the investigation as a matter of old-fashioned politics rather than national security. The president-elect has reacted to mounting pressure to take stronger steps against Russia not only by trying to discredit the intelligence community but also by suggesting that the intense Washington focus on the issue is being driven by political rivals still stung by his electoral victory. 'This is a political witch hunt,'” Trump said Friday [Jan. 6] . . ..")
Media.
"When a conservative newspaper in a conservative town in northwestern Oklahoma endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in October, the backlash was swift, sizable and local: 162 canceled subscriptions from Republicans and independents. The backlash to the backlash has been just as swift and sizable but far from local: slightly more than 200 new subscriptions and donations, a majority of which appear to come from out-of-state Democrats." Manny Fernandez, "One Backlash Spawns Another for Oklahoma Paper That Backed Clinton," New York Times, January 4, 2017, p. A12. (For earlier story see Week 8/Media: Manny Fernandez, "An Oklahoma Newspaper Endorsed Clinton. It Hasn't Been Forgiven." New York Times, December 27, 2016, p. A11.)
Divisions.
Policy.
Immigration.
Healthcare.
Infrastructure.
Energy.
Education.
The evolving story of the Trump-Russia Dossier is so huge -- something that could possibly even lead to Trump's impeachment -- that I felt it warranted this special treatment.
Opposition research is common in political campaigns. Indeed, most smartly run campaigns even do in-depth research on their own candidate. They want to avoid, or at a minimum prepare for, whatever surprise events they will either utilize against their opponent or defend against if leveled against them.
So it was that Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C., firm, was engaged by a Clinton supporter to do opposition research on Trump. When reports of Russian hacking of the DNC emerged, Fusion GPS contracted with Orbis Business Intelligence in Great Britain, established by the former head of the Russian desk for MI7 -- a gentleman who is extremely highly regarded by not only British intelligence, but by our own CIA and FBI as well. Nick Hopkins and Luke Harding, "Donald Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for author's crediability," The Guardinan, January 13, 2017 ("The former Foreign Office official, who has known Steele for 25 years and considers him a friend, said . . . [He] is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.' That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too.")
Three days ago [Jan. 10] BuzzFeed reported about the 35-page Trump-Russia Dossier. Ken Bensinger, Miriam Elder and Mark Schoofs, "These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia," BuzzFeed.com, January 10, 2017. By 3:30 this morning [Jan. 13] that story had 5.2 million hits.
I have read those 35 pages. They are, in fact, a collection of 17 memos dated between June and December of 2016. (One is undated; three are dated September 14; they are occasionally out of chronological order: June 20, July 26, undated, July 19 and 30, August 5 and 10 (two), Oct. 20, Aug. 22, Sept. 14 (3), Oct. 12, 18 and 19, Dec. 13.)
Like any intelligence reports, many to most sources of information must be left unidentified by name. In this instance, moreover, the author of the memos was not physically in Russia (and had not been for some years) and had to communicate with his sources through secure channels. On the other hand, many to most of the principals are identified by name. For those items that involve travel from the U.S. to meetings in Russia, there may be airline or other records to confirm or dispute sources' reports.
Scott Shane, "What We Know and Don't Know About the Trump-Russia Dossier," New York Times, January 12, 2017, p. A21; Luke Harding, "What we know -- and what's true in the Trump-Russia dossier," The Guardian, January 12, 2017
What appears to me a very balanced report of the document, while itemizing some faults, concludes that the main assertions ring true. Andrei Soldatov, "The leaked Trump-Russia dossier rings frighteningly true," The Guardian, January 13, 2017 ("Though many of the report’s elements appear hastily compiled, overall it reflects accurately the way decision-making in the Kremlin looks to close observers. . . . The leaked document paints a picture of groups of hackers all over the world hired to attack western targets. And that sounds about right. . . . The dossier suggests that Putin personally supervised the operation, with the Foreign Ministry playing only a minor role. This is exactly what has been observed since the annexation of Crimea – that the Foreign Ministry is no longer in charge of defining policy for Ukraine or Syria, so decision-making is likely to be more capricious. . . . Finally, the dossier states that the Kremlin extensively borrowed its methods for dealing with Trump from the KGB playbook. [T]he idea looks entirely plausible – after all, the KGB even had a special terminology for this kind of operation: it was called razvedka s territorii or 'gathering intelligence from the territory', meaning recruiting foreigners once they come to Russia. . . . Unverifiable sensational details aside, the Trump dossier is a good reflection of how things are run in the Kremlin – the mess at the level of decision-making and increasingly the outsourcing of operations, combined with methods borrowed from the KGB and the secret services of the lawless 1990s. . . . And that, whatever the truth of Putin’s connections with Trump, makes it all pretty scary.")
Nick Hopkins and Luke Harding, "Donald Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for author's crediability," The Guardinan, January 13, 2017 ("The former Foreign Office official, who has known Steele for 25 years and considers him a friend, said: 'The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false – completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip. . . . If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.' That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too. It’s not hard to see why. A Cambridge graduate, Steele was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).")
Skepticism is everywhere regarding this story. Many are skeptical of any explanations from Trump or Putin that attempt to minimize whatever actually happened. But others (at least some of whom are no natural fans of Trump or Putin) are equally skeptical of the intelligence community's representations and the media's willingness to repeat them. David Corn, "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump; Has the bureau investigated this material?"> Mother Jones, October 31, 2016; Matt Taibbi, "Something About This Russia Story Stinks; Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment," Rolling Stone, December 30, 2016; Glenn Greenwald, "The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer," The Intercept, January 11, 2017; Matt Taibbi, "The Russia Story Reaches a Crisis Point; If Donald Trump really is compromised, we need immediate action, not media overreach," Rolling Stone, January 12, 2017.
With both the FBI and CIA apparently intending to investigate, substantiate, or refute the documents' assertions, and congressional committees set on conducting their own investigations, I suspect we will be hearing more about these documents, and the issues they raise, over the weeks and months to come.
Transition.
Leaders.
As documented here over the past 10 weeks, something between some-to-many of Trump's appointees appear to be: (a) uninformed about the work of the agencies they've been nominated to head, or (b) lacking in experience working within the federal government or military administration, or (c) without experience at running any really huge organization, or (d) identified with efforts to curtail major programs of their agency, or abolish it all together -- whether driven by unexamined ideology, campaign contributions, or other reasons to favor the regulated, over the regulators and the citizens' interests the agency was created to represent -- or, of course, in some instances, seemingly "all of the above." This morning's [Jan. 15] news brings us an example of (d). As disturbing as such appointments may be, the truly concerning consequences will only come once they start making decisions. Eric Lipton and Coral Davenport, "Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators," New York Times, January 15, 2017, p. A1 (In "a legal fight to clean up tons of chicken manure fouling the waters . . . rather than push for . . . perhaps tens of millions of dollars in damages [EPA-appointee Pruitt] quietly negotiated a deal to simply study the problem further. The move came after he had taken tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from . . . the poultry industry. It was one of a series of instances . . .. [H]e sued the [EPA] 14 times . . ..")
Jared Kushner Named Senior White House Adviser to Donald Trump," New York Times, January 10, 2017, p. A1
Eric Lichtblau and Matt Apuzzo, "Jeff Sessions Says He Would Be Independent and Stand Up to Trump," New York Times, January 10, 2017, p. A1 ("Mr. Sessions [Attorney General nominee] has questioned whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States, has said courts have interpreted the separation of church and state too broadly and has declared same-sex marriage a threat to American culture.")
Editorial, "Donald Trump's Cabinet Choices Stumble By," New York Times, January 19, 2017, p. A26
Maggie Haberman, "After Plagiarism Reports, Monica Crowley Won't Take White House Job," New York Times, January 17, 2017, p. A13 ("Monica Crowley, who was selected . . . to serve [on Trump's] National Security Council . . . has been dogged by accusations of plagiarism [having] copied several passages in a book [and] her doctoral dissertation.")
Robert Pear and Thomas Kaplan, "Choice for Health Secretary Is Vague on Replacing Affordable Care Act," New York Times, January 19, 2017, p. A15 ("Tom Price [Trump's nominee for Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services] provided only vague reassurance [regarding] specific policies [in the Republican replacement for the Affordable Care Act, and ]. . . . also denied impropriety in his trading of stocks . . . more than $300,000 worth . . . while promoting legislation that could have affected the companies he owned stock in.")
Alan Rappeport, "Steven Mnuchin, Treasury Nominee, Failed to Disclose $100 Million in Assets," New York Times, January 19, 2017 ("Mnuchin . . . failed to disclose nearly $100 million of his assets . . . and forgot tyo mention his role as a director of an investment fun d located in a tax haven. . . . 'Never before has the Senate considered such an ethically challenged slate of nominees for key cabinet positions,' Senator Chuck Schumer . . . said . . .. 'Mr. Mnuchin's failure to disclose his Cayman Islands holdings just reeks of the swamp that the president-elect promised to drain on the campaign trail.'"
Alan Rappeport, Coral Davenport and John Schwartz, "Rick Perry Says He Is No Longer a Climatre Change Denialist," New York Times, January 19, 2017 ("[T]he Trump transition team . . . would not only return funding for nuclear physics and advanced computing research to 2008 levels, but would also eliminate the . . . [Department's Offices of] Electricity, . . . Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and . . . Fossil Energy . . . that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. . . . Mr. Perry's newfound appreciation for the science of climate change echoes the statements of other [Trump nominees]. As for his campaign pledge to do away with the Department of Energy (though he could not remember its name), he said, "My past statements . . . about abolishing the Department . . . do not reflect my current thinking. . . . I regret recommending its elimination.")
Appointments and Recap:
International.
Scott Shane, Adam Goldman and Matthew Rosenberg, "Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him," New York Times, January 10, 2017, p. A1 ("The chiefs of America's intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and [Trump] with . . . unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about [Trump] . . ..")
Conflicts.
This item is not included for its "truth" (no major media outlet has been able to confirm its assertions) but for the same reasons the intelligence community thought it something that Obama and Trump should know about and that the intelligence community should investigate further. If it is, in fact, a creation of Hillary campaign supporters that would also be significant. If it proves to be true, it is an example of another source of potential conflict for a public official -- blackmail that could influence official decisions. Scott Shane, Adam Goldman and Matthew Rosenberg, "Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him," New York Times, January 10, 2017, p. A1 ("The chiefs of America's intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and [Trump] with . . . unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about [Trump] . . ..")
Kushner appears to be making an effort to set a good example and take some economic losses to remove conflicts. But the snake pit created by his father-in-law's refusal to sell off his properties remains. It's not so much that Kushner would have conflicts resulting from Kushner's investments, but Kushner's contribution to Trump's conflicts. Kushner will have access to all of Trump's thoughts and plans, while married to Trump's daughter and a part of the family that includes Trump's two sons (Eric and Don) who will be managing Trump's properties. Jared Kushner Named Senior White House Adviser to Donald Trump," New York Times, January 10, 2017, p. A1, and see Matthew Dallek, "Jared Kushner's White House job may be legal. But history shows it's a bad idea," Washington Post, January 11, 2017 ("Naming family members to official administration jobs is not just fraught with ethical land mines and legal hurdles. History shows it’s also a recipe for unforeseen headaches and policy controversies, even a disaster waiting to strike an administration.")
Temperament.
There are comments and decisions that are inappropriate, and then there are those that are so mean and cruel that they indicate -- at best -- one's lack of sensitivity to the feelings of others, a lack of capacity for empathy. So it has been with Trump's saying "You're fired" to Charlie Brotman. Brotman, who has been the announcer for inaugural parades for 60 years, was counting on doing it again, for Trump. Rachel Maddow reports that he has very recently lost his wife of 65 years, and was dealing with his severe grief by preparing for his next assignment. Trump decided to peremptorily fire Brotman, and let him know by email. Jennifer Calfas, "Dumped inaugural parade announcer: 'I thought I was going to commit suicide,'" The Hill, January 10, 2017; Jennifer Calfas, "Trump Dumps Inaugural Parade Announcer of Past 60 Years," The Hill, January 9, 2017
Patrick Healy, "Donald Trump Says He's Not Surprised by Meryl Streep's Golden Globes Speech," New York Times, January 10, 2017, p. A1 (When Meryl Streep "denouced [Trump] as a bully who disrespected and humiliated others" in her Golden Globes award ceremony speech, Trump filled three tweets with, "Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn't know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a..... Hillary flunky who lost big. For the 100th time, I never 'mocked' a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him....... 'groveling" when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media!")
Yamiche Alcindor, "In Trump's Feud With John Lewis, Blacks Perceive a Callous Rival," New York Times, January 16, 2017, p. A1 (Trump tweeted about the revered Congressman John Lewis, "Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, withch is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk -- no action or results. Sad!" Trump's "high-profile feud [set] off anger in a constituency already wary of him after a contentious presidential campaign [and] prompted a number of Democratic lawmakers to say they will not attend his inauguration . . ..")
Media.
A basic requirement for any authoritarian leader is to figure out a way to control the media -- whether with intimidation or simply owning all of it outright. Democracies require strong and independent journalism, and the trust of the citizenry. Trump seems to be focused on destroying both. Here's one of many examples: Leonard Downie Jr., "Donald Trump's Dangerous Attacks on the Press," New York Times, January 14, 2017, p. A19 ("This led Mr. Trump on Wednesday [Jan. 11] to call BuzzFeed 'a failing pile of garbage' and denounce CNN as a 'terrible organization' and 'fake news.' This is a dangerous road that Mr. Trump is heading down, mashing together, in a sweeping complaint, CNN's conscientious approach with BuzzFeed's ill-considered action.")
Divisions.
Policy.
Immigration.
Healthcare.
Infrastructure.
Energy.
Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment