Wednesday, September 9, 2020

DOJ moves to defend Trump in rape accuser E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit

https://www.axios.com/doj-trump-e-jean-carroll-rape-lawsuit-c23dfdb8-14b6-49d7-b3c9-6426e8f60603.html 

 The Department of Justice filed a motion notifying a New York State court Tuesday that it intends to replace President Trump's private lawyers to defend him in a defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.

Why it matters: It's highly unusual for the DOJ to intervene in such cases. The department said in its notice that it intervened because Trump was "acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States" when he said last year that Carroll was "totally lying" about claims that he raped her in the mid-1990s.

 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7204036-Carroll-2.html

Trump Suggests Pentagon Leaders Are War Profiteers | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Fallen Heroes

DOJ Files To Take Over Trump Defense In Rape Accuser’s Defamation Lawsuit | All In | MSNBC

Veterans Advocate Rieckhoff: Trump Has ‘Hit Every Guardrail In Our Democracy’ | Deadline | MSNBC

Retired general reacts to Trump's military comments

Cuomo: Trump's base supports the President despite him

Trump Is the Military Industrial Complex

 https://nationalsecurityaction.org/newsroom/trump-military-industrial-complex

  There’s only one problem with Trump’s latest defense: It’s pure fantasy. Trump has consistently prioritized the financial interests of America’s defense contractors -- and, in doing so, turned our values and long-term interests into collateral damage.  

Donald Trump accuses US military leadership of seeking to start wars to profit defence contractors

 https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trump-accuses-us-military-leadership-of-seeking-to-start-wars-to-profit-defence-contractors/news-story/66122eaccad484d3335de75be1e482ba

 But CNN national security reporter Ryan Brown called Mr Trump’s comments an “unprecedented public attack by a sitting US president on the leadership of the US military”, and said comparisons to Mr Eisenhower’s address were off the mark.

“Some folks really ought to read what President Eisenhower actually said,” he tweeted. “While they are both critical of the military industrial complex, nowhere does Eisenhower actually accuse military leaders of engaging in shooting wars to boost profits for firms

 Speaking on CNN, retired army lieutenant general Mark Hertling said it was interesting that Mr Trump had attempted to deny accusations he had insulted the military “by insulting the military”.

“It was insulting to me as a former general,” he said. “As a former soldier, going into combat the military-industrial complex was not even a portion of my thought process. All I wanted was the equipment and the resources to fight the battles.”

 Mr Hertling also pushed back on Mr Trump’s “endless wars” jab, which he took as a criticism of how US conflicts in the Middle East had been run by military leadership.

“We are told what to do by our elected officials, so if there’s bad strategy, bad involvement in foreign wars, it’s because the political masters have sent us there to do their bidding,” he said. “We attempt in every way possible to conduct the operations.”

Mr Hertling said Mr Trump was attempting to sow division. “This is kind of like fighting an insurgency – President Trump has already gone after the intelligence community by separating their leaders from those who are in the trenches,” he said.

“He has separated the FBI, claiming the leaders are terrible but everybody in the FBI is good, now he’s attempting to do the same thing with the military. ‘The generals are all bad, they’re all working for the military industrial complex, but all you soldiers still love me, right?’”

No, Trump Is Not Threatening the Military-Industrial Complex’s Profits

 https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trump-military-industrial-complex-eisenhower-pentagon-losers-suckers.html

 In short order, Mollie Hemingway, Glenn Greenwald (who was retweeted by Trump himself), and Russia Today — the holy trinity of pro-Trump trolling — scrambled to cast Trump’s remarks as merely echoing Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning about the military-industrial complex.

 One of the favorite gambits of Trump’s defenders is to insist that national security professionals only oppose him because he stands athwart the American empire. And it is certainly true that military leaders disagree with some of Trump’s policies: his opposition to NATO, his betrayal of the Kurds, admiration of Russia, and (in some cases) desire to accelerate removal of troops from Afghanistan. Some of the most intense military opposition has come from the conviction by military leaders that he threatens its culture by encouraging war crimes and using troops as a domestic propaganda weapon, including to attack peaceful protesters. (By the way, it’s not true that “the soldiers” are “in love” with Trump — a Military Times poll shows his approval rating underwater and him narrowly trailing Joe Biden among active-duty service members.)

 Trump is not a threat to the Pentagon budget. He has lavished as much money on defense as he can get from Congress, and boasts constantly that he “rebuilt” it after Barack Obama supposedly exhausted its entire supply of ammunition. If Trump is concerned about the influence of defense lobbyists on the Pentagon’s decision-making, it’s odd that he picked a top corporate lobbyist for Raytheon to serve as his current Defense secretary.

 Trump has frequently cited the profits from arms sales as the main reason for the United States to continue supporting Saudi Arabia. Asked in 2018 about cutting off sales to the kingdom after its brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, he replied, “Well, I think that would be hurting us. We have jobs, we have a lot of things happening in this country. We have a country that’s doing probably better economically than it’s ever done before. Part of that is what we’re doing with our defense systems, and everybody’s wanting ’em, and frankly I think that that would be a very, very tough pill to swallow for our country.”

 Later that day he reiterated, “I don’t like stopping massive amounts of money that’s being poured into our country … they are spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs for this country.”

 Trump probably assumed that having bought off the military brass with lavish spending, he could count on them to stay discreet about his occasional sociopathic remark. It is very believable that he would be unable to imagine a motive for their unease with his leadership other than venality. But nobody else needs to cooperate with the preposterous ruse that Trump poses a threat to the income stream of American military leaders.

Trump is blasting the military-industrial complex. But he's one of its biggest boosters.

 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-military-defense-industry-booster-410396

 Since becoming president, Donald Trump has overseen historic increases in defense budgets, fawned over military equipment, installed a number of defense industry insiders in top Pentagon positions and made a major push to sell weapons overseas.

But on Monday, Trump said leaders at the Pentagon “want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

 Yet Trump's record tells a different story. All three of his hand-picked defense secretaries had ties to the defense industry: Jim Mattis was a member of the General Dynamics board of directors, Pat Shanahan was an executive with Boeing, and Mark Esper was Raytheon's top lobbyist. Mattis also returned to his board position shortly after leaving the Pentagon, showing the revolving door between industry and the Defense Department.

 The idea that Trump is taking on the defense industrial base is “pure fantasy,” National Security Action, a liberal advocacy group composed of former Obama administration staffers, said on Tuesday. "Trump has consistently prioritized the financial interests of America’s defense contractors — and, in doing so, turned our values and long-term interests into collateral damage."

 Trump has also made an aggressive push to sell weapons overseas. In 2017, he took credit for a deal to sell arms worth $110 billion to the Saudis, although many of the deals were negotiated under Obama. Trump touted the jobs created by the deal, which will specifically benefit major primes such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, former White House spokesperson Sean Spicer said in a 2017 briefing.

 

Top General Pushes Back on Trump’s Claim of Defense Contractors’ Influence in War

 https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-09-08/top-general-pushes-back-on-trumps-claim-of-defense-contractors-influence-in-war

 The Army's most senior officer pushed back Tuesday on President Donald Trump's assertions that Defense Department leaders choose to continue fighting wars abroad in an attempt to keep private defense firms "happy."

 "Senior leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat when it's required as a national security, or as a last resort," Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said Tuesday morning in a virtual event with media outlet Defense One. "I feel strongly about that."

 

Trump says Pentagon leaders are under defense industry’s influence

 https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/09/08/trump-says-pentagon-leaders-are-under-defense-industrys-influence/

 Throughout the Trump administration, the president has proudly supported the U.S. defense industry and the jobs it creates, both at home and through overseas deals. Trump, in December 2018, called U.S. defense spending levels “crazy,” but he’s also boasted that he’s responsible for $2.5 trillion in spending on military equipment. (The figure is reportedly much lower.)

 

 

Trump’s False Military Equipment Claim

 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trumps-false-military-equipment-claim/

 President Donald Trump has falsely claimed his administration invested “$2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world” for the military. That’s approximately the total for defense budgets from 2017 to 2020, but the cost of purchasing new military equipment was 20% of that.