Integrity Has No Place In The Trump Administration

 

The following post is by Robert Reich:

There’s been a lot of discussion this past week about the meaning of integrity.

 

You didn’t hear the word used directly; it was alluded to indirectly — in wondering whether Lindsey Graham was an immoral opportunist or clever pragmatist; in suspecting Todd Blanche of being more loyal to Trump than to the nation; in distrusting Erica Schwartz, Trump’s latest pick to lead the CDC, when she said she’ll never compromise on the science; in doubting that Jay Clayton, his pick for director of national intelligence, will tell Trump anything he doesn’t want to hear.

The word integrity is rooted in the Latin word integer, meaning “whole” or “complete” — living by your principles, choosing honesty over opportunism, making ethical choices that may be inconvenient or unpopular, maintaining your moral compass.

Graham’s public record of denouncing Trump on the Senate floor after January 6, 2021, and then becoming Trump’s most loyal Senate apologist revealed someone who traded honesty for influence — a person with little or no integrity.

 

Blanche, in his hearing to be attorney general, said he wanted to bring trust back to the Justice Department but then accidentally referred to himself as Trump’s lawyer —before clarifying that he “was” — had been —Trump’s lawyer. Blanche’s momentary lapse revealed a deeper conflict, as evidenced by his unswerving loyalty to Trump. He lacks integrity.

Schwartz, in her confirmation hearing, undercut her pledge to be guided by science in saying she believed Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would “never” implement policies that aren’t scientifically sound. That’s enough to cast doubt on her integrity. 

Clayton, in his confirmation hearing, repeatedly refused to say Biden won the 2020 election, causing Senator Jon Ossoff to ask Clayton: “You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election? But you ask to lead America’s intelligence community? Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question? To have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question, why can you not give it?”

It is not possible to have integrity and be loyal to Trump. The two are in direct conflict. 

No one can be honest in a regime based on big lies. As the poet, philosopher, and statesman Václav Havel put it, “If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living in truth.”

So a choice must be made — personal integrity or loyalty to Trump. 

In his book The Art of the Deal, Trump wrote that he preferred loyalty to integrity — as epitomized by his mentor, Roy Cohn.

 

History remembers Cohn for his ruthless bullying, profane braggadocio, opportunistic bigotry, lying, and more lying. Like Trump, Cohn was utterly without principle and prioritized personal power that could be leveraged for wealth, influence, and celebrity. In 1986, Cohn was disbarred by the New York State Bar for unethical conduct after attempting to defraud a dying client by forcing him to sign a will amendment leaving Cohn his fortune. 

Yet in his book Trump praised Cohn for his loyalty, contrasting him with “all the hundreds of ‘respectable’ guys who make careers out of boasting about their uncompromising integrity but have absolutely no loyalty …. What I liked most about Roy Cohn was that he would do just the opposite.”

It is not possible for Blanche or Schwartz or Clayton or anyone else in Trump’s orbit — nor was it possible for Lindsey Graham — to be loyal to Trump and simultaneously maintain their own integrity. It must be one or the other.

 

Yet integrity is more important than loyalty. As Trump demonstrates time and again, someone lacking integrity is inherently untrustworthy. Such a person cannot serve the people of the United States.

Trump Doesn't Want Loyalty - He Demands Subservience

The following post is by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

The media has it all wrong about Trump’s picks for his administration. The conventional view is they’re “Trump loyalists” whom Trump “recruited.”

Rubbish.

First, they’re not loyalists; they’re subservient hacks. 

There’s a crucial difference.

All politicians want their underlings to be loyal, but Trump wants them to be more loyal to him than to the nation, and he demands total subservience without regard to right or wrong.

For the FBI, Trump has picked Kash Patel, who has pledged to prosecute Trump’s political opponents and “come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig the presidential election.”

Trump’s selection for attorney general, Pam Bondi, has said that when Trump returns to power, “the prosecutors will be prosecuted.”

Moreover, Trump didn’t recruit these people or anybody else. They recruited him.

Every one of his nominees campaigned for these jobs by engaging in conspicuous displays of submission and flattery directed toward Trump.

Elise Stefanik, whom Trump has nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, repeatedly boasted that she was the first lawmaker to endorse Trump’s reelection bid.

Before Trump tapped Kristi Noem to head the Department of Homeland Security, she sent him a four-foot replica of Mt. Rushmore with Trump’s face next to those of Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lincoln.

Mike Waltz, who Trump has picked for national security adviser, supported a move in Congress to rename Washington Dulles International Airport the “Donald J. Trump International Airport.”

Lee Zeldin, whom Trump has picked for EPA administrator, said publicly that the criminal prosecutions of Trump were akin to Putin’s persecution of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

Stephen Miller, who will be a Trump White House adviser, said during a Fox News interview that Trump is the “most stylish president” in our lifetimes. “Donald Trump is a style icon!”

Ten of Trump’s picks so far were Fox News hosts or contributors who repeatedly mouthed Trump’s lies about the 2020 election being stolen, about January 6 being a “peaceful protest,” and Biden being the force behind Trump’s prosecutions.

Some of Trump’s picks showed up at his criminal trial in Manhattan, where they verbally attacked members of the presiding judge’s family on behalf of Trump, who was under a rule of silence.

Some picks appeared at his campaign rallies, expanding on Trump’s lies and lavishing him with praise.

Many made large donations to Trump’s campaign. Five of his picks so far are billionaires.

All knew that Trump wanted people who would do whatever he asked of them. So they prostrated themselves to show their deference to him.

All knew that Trump liked to be fawned over. So they debased themselves by giving him gushing compliments.

They knew that Trump wanted people lacking an independent moral compass. So they went out of their way to demonstrate they have no integrity by retelling Trump’s lies in public with even more verve and intensity than he displayed when telling them.

Time and again they have performed acts of cringeworthy subservience toward Trump, proving themselves reliable conduits for his scheming vindictiveness.

This is a rare bunch. How many Americans would eagerly repeat to national audiences bald-faced lies spouted by an authoritarian — lies that undermine our democracy? How many Americans would publicly grovel before Trump, making it clear they’ll do whatever he asks of them regardless of consequence?

To be a member of this unique group, one needs to be both colossally ambitious and profoundly insecure, willing to demean oneself to gain Trump’s favor.

Trump didn’t find these people; these people found Trump. And to get in his good graces, they saw to it that he noticed their servile deference, fawning adulation, and total submission.

But these people will also bring about Trump’s downfall, and possibly the downfall of America.

That’s because one of the most important things a president needs is accurate and useful feedback. These are in short supply even in the best of administrations.

People who work for a president are often reluctant to be bearers of bad news. Presidents are typically surrounded by “yes” men and women afraid to say anything that will ruffle powerful feathers.

As a result, presidents can make huge mistakes — invading Iraq and Afghanistan, deregulating Wall Street and then bailing it out when its gambling gets out of hand, pardoning Richard Nixon, waging war in Vietnam.

Trump’s toadies are even less likely to cross him. To the contrary, they’ll egg him on.

The years ahead would be dangerous enough if Trump sought out unprincipled enablers.

The coming years will be even more perilous because unprincipled enablers have sought out Trump. 

Another Learns Trump Won't Return Loyalty He Demands

For most people, loyalty is a two-way street. When we give loyalty to another person, we expect it to be returned. But that's not the way Donald Trump sees it. He demands loyalty from his associates, but when they get into trouble (usually for doing something he wanted them to do), he is quick to toss them under the bus. The latest to learn this is corrupt Trump attorney Sidney Powell.

The following post is from Steve Been at MSNBC.com:

It's clearly been a tough year for Sidney Powell and her bizarre anti-election conspiracy theories. She was fired from Team Trump; one of her big lawsuits became a fiasco; and federal prosecutors are demanding financial records from her operation as part of a reported criminal investigation.

Powell's position didn't improve when The Washington Post reported this week that her non-profit, Defending the Republic, raised more than $14 million by spreading obvious election falsehoods — and questions about where the money was going led many members of the group's staff and board to resign.

It was against this backdrop that Donald Trump sat down with conservative media figure Hugh Hewitt this week, and the host asked about the controversial lawyer's recent troubles. As the transcriptshows, the former president responded as if he barely knew Powell.

"No, she was, she didn't work for me. She was a lawyer that was representing General [Mike] Flynn and some others, and she never officially — now she was on our side from the standpoint, I guess, you know, from the standpoint of what she was doing, but she didn't work for me as per se. She worked for General Flynn and others. And I disagree with some of the things that she's doing, and some of the statements that she made, as you know."

The Republican didn't literally say, "Sidney who?" but that appeared to be the subtext.

There are, of course, a couple of problems with this. The first is the mountain of evidence that makes clear that Powell was very much a part of Trump's team.

Indeed, she was a high-profile member of the then-president's legal team — described at the time as one of Trump's "senior lawyers" — whom he identified by name as one of his attorneys.

Even after she was ousted, Powell remained a member of Trump's inner circle. As he grew desperate to keep power after his defeat, Powell made multiple visits to the White House, and Axios reportedthat among Trump aides, there was a "consensus" that the then-president was "listening to Sidney Powell more than just about anyone who is on his payroll, certainly more than his own White House Counsel."

The Washington Post noted this week that Powell and Flynn even tried to convince Trump to appoint her as some kind of special counsel, which would've granted her wild goose chase "the imprimatur and resources of the federal government."

Powell "didn't work for" Trump? Please.

But just as amazing is the larger pattern. As we discussed last summer, after Steve Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury — the first time, not to be confused with his more recent indictment — the then-president acted as if he barely knew Bannon, saying he'd merely worked "for a small part of the administration."

He was hardly alone. In late 2019, Trump described then-U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland — part of "a small cadre of ambassadors who enjoy direct and frequent access to Trump" — as "a really good man" and a "great American." Soon after, when Sondland got caught up in the Ukraine scandal that led to the then-president's impeachment, Trump said, "Let me just tell you, I hardly know the gentleman."

A month earlier, Trump said he didn't know Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas after their arrests, despite his previous interactions with them.

What's more, after his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was indicted, the then-president argued, in reference to the former vice president of the Trump Organization, "Michael Cohen was a PR person who did small legal work, very small legal work."

Around the same time, in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's murder, Trump reportedly told associates he "barely knows" Mohammed bin Salman.

When Paul Manafort was indicted, Trump's former campaign chairman became some random staffer "who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time." When White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign in disgrace, Team Trump decided he was "a former Obama administration official" who did some "volunteer" work for the president.

Carter Page was described as someone Trump "does not know." George Papadopoulos was dismissed as a "coffee boy." Trump World even tried to downplay its association with Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign's data firm.

Let this be a lesson to Trump's associates: If you run into trouble or become inconvenient, your loyalty will not be rewarded.

Trump Shouldn't Demand Loyalty From FBI Or Fire Mueller

Donald Trump has been furious that he can't demand loyalty from federal government law enforcement agencies. He fired James Comey, who wouldn't swear loyalty to him. Now, he has pressured the FBI to fire their Deputy Director after asking him who he voted for in the presidential election (and berating him because his wife ran for state government as a Democrat). Trump believes the Justice Department and the FBI should act to protect him, instead of investigating him for wrongdoing.

Trump's efforts to block the investigation of his own wrongdoing is not winning him any new friends in the American public though (even though it may makes his followers happy). Americans don't want their law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, to be politicized. By a 42 point margin, they say FBI officials do NOT have to be "loyal" supporters of the sitting president.

They don't believe who a law enforcement official voted for (or didn't vote for) should have anything to do with how they do their job. By even larger margins, Americans say it is inappropriate for an employer (even the president) to ask who a person voted for -- and it is inappropriate for an employer (even the president) to fire a person because of who they voted for.

Trump was out of line in his actions against FBI officials, and now it is believed by some that Trump wants to go further and actually try to fire Robert Mueller (the special prosecutor investigating him). He tried to do that last June, but was talked out of it by the White House counselor. If he does try that, he will just make the public angry (and convince them he's trying to obstruct justice. By a 34 point margin, the public says he should NOT fire Mueller, and all three political groups agree (including Republicans by a 5 point margin, Independents by a 33 point margin, and Democrats by a 62 point margin).

Trump is already a very unpopular president, and his attempts to influence the FBI and obstruct justice will just make that worse.

The charts above are from a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between January 28th and 30th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points.

Loyalty Is A One-Way Street For Donald Trump

(These caricatures of Donald Trump and his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, are by DonkeyHotey.)

There is no person outside of his immediate family that is more loyal to Donald Trump than Jeff Sessions.

Sessions was the first Washington politician to jump on the Trump bandwagon due the primary campaign, and he still supports all of Trump's policies -- even those viewed as ludicrous by most other people (like building a wall between the United States and Mexico). One would think that Trump appreciated someone as loyal to him as Sessions, since Trump has made it known that he values loyalty above all other attributes (more important than truth or ethics).

But that doesn't seem to be the case. Trump is currently engaged in a campaign to denigrate and drive from office the man he appointed as Attorney General. He has repeatedly tweeted his displeasure with Sessions, and even repeated that to the press in interviews and press conferences. Why would he do this to someone who has offered him nothing but complete loyalty?

He's doing it because Sessions did one honest thing -- he recused himself from participation in the investigation of whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. He had to do that, because Justice Department regulations would not permit him to head an investigation which could be investigating his own behavior (since Sessions had meetings with Russians during the campaign).

It doesn't matter to Trump that government regulations demanded that Sessions recuse himself. For the narcissist in the White House, true loyalty means a person should be willing to defy government rules and regulations to defend Trump, and maybe even to break the law by obstructing a government investigation into wrong-doing. And Trump is willing to throw anyone under the bus who can't meet that unreasonable standard -- even those who have demonstrated their loyalty to Trump and his policies.

One has to wonder about the chilling effect this has on those working in the White House, those other members of Trump's cabinet, and Republicans in Congress. Are they going to be the next one to be tossed under the bus by Trump for some perceived slight? Is their loyalty going to be questioned in spite of their best efforts?

Obviously, for Donald Trump, loyalty is a one-way street. He demands it of others, but feels no obligation to return that loyalty. Frankly, I am shocked that someone as old a Trump doesn't realize that loyalty (like respect) is a two-way street -- it cannot be demanded unless it is also offered.

NOTE -- I am not a fan of Attorney General Sessions. I believe his support of and implementation of Trump policies will seriously damage this country. But I hope he doesn't resign. I fear that a replacement chosen by Trump would not just support those same odious policies, but would also be willing to ignore government rules and regulations and would be willing to obstruct justice on Trump's behalf.

Was Comey Fired For Not Pledging Loyalty To Trump ?

Trump evidently thought he could get away with firing FBI director James Comey, because Democrats weren't happy with him either. He was wrong though. The reason he was wrong is not because everyone thought Comey was a great FBI director, but because of the timing of the firing. It came as the investigation into Trump's Russian scandal was starting to pick up steam -- and many see Trump's action as an attempt to stop, or at least slow that investigation.

Trump pretty much admitted that himself, as he told NBC on Thursday:

"When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.' " 

It's not Trump's place to say whether the investigation is wrong, or that it should be stopped. He is the one being investigated, and any attempt to involve himself in the investigation in any way approaches an impeachable offense.

Trump also tried to impede the investigation in another way also. After inviting Comey to have dinner with him, Trump demanded that Comey pledge his loyalty to him -- and he asked for that several times. When Comey refused, as he should have done, I think his job was as good as gone -- and indeed, it was just a few days later that he was fired.

This is extremely troubling. It may be acceptable in an authoritarian regime to demand loyalty to a person. Most dictators (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc) have demanded that government employees and citizens swear loyalty to them. But things don't work that way in a democracy. In a democracy, loyalty is sworn to the country and the Constitution -- not the government or any particular leader in that government.

Trump has shown once again that he really doesn't understand (or care about) our democracy. He wants to be an authoritarian leader who can do anything he wants to do -- and it frustrates him that our democracy won't allow that.

No Party Loyalty Among The GOP Presidential Candidates

(Caricatures of the GOP presidential candidates is by DonkeyHotey.)

If you still harbored any doubts about the growing division in the Republican Party, the recent Republican Town Hall meetings (which involved all three Republican presidential candidates individually) should settle those doubts.

Last September, all the Republican candidates pledged to support the party's eventual nominee (and to not run an independent campaign against that nominee). All of that is out the window now. In the Town Hall interviews, all three Republican candidates refused to say they would support the party's eventual nominee.

This is not a surprise that Trump wouldn't support the nominee (and might even run against that nominee as an independent). When Trump made his pledge, it came with a condition -- that he believe he had been treated fairly by the Republican Party's leaders. Recently, those party leaders have initiated a "Stop Trump" movement, with plans being made to try and snatch the nomination away from him in an open (brokered) convention. It's easy to see why he would feel he's not being treated fairly.

It conceivable that Trump will launch an independent bid for the White House if denied the convention's nomination. That would be disastrous for the GOP, since a recent Rasmussen Poll showed that 24% of Republicans say they would be very likely to vote for Trump if he did. Even if he didn't run as an independent, those voters might vote for a third party (feeling they were cheated), or even worse just stay home on election day -- which would hurt the down-ballot Republican candidates.

It could be just as bad if Trump does get the nomination. There are a lot of Republicans who say they simply could not vote for Trump, and a party with Trump heading the ticket could also hurt down-ballot Republicans. And both Cruz and Kasich refused to say they would support Trump as the nominee of their party. If they can't get on board, why should other Republicans?

I don't think it's an overstatement to say the Republicans have a real electoral mess brewing. The party is seriously divided, and I'm not at all sure that division can be healed by November.