The Washington Post - 19.09.2019

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A25

THURSDAY Opinion

I

s President Trump losing his mar-

bles?

(Or did he not have a full bag to

begin with?)

On Tuesday, with characteristic inhu-

manity, he insulted journalist Cokie

Roberts on the occasion of her death: “I

never met her. She never treated me

nicely. But I would like to wish her fam-

ily well.”

On Monday, he declared that he

“didn’t say that” he thought Iran was

responsible for the attack on Saudi oil

refineries.

On Sunday, he denied that he had said

he would meet with Iran with no condi-

tions.

Last month, he said, of the ongoing

trade war, that he “never said China was

going to be easy.” And, responding to the

Te xas and Ohio massacres, he said he

wanted “meaningful Background

Checks” for firearms sales — something

he “never said” before.

There are just a few asterisks to attach

to the above statements:

He did meet Roberts. At Trump To w-

er. In a nationally televised interview.

(“Thanks for having us here at your pal-

ace,” s aid she. He replied: “It’s been a

great honor.”)

He did suggest he thought Iran was

responsible for the attacks, hours before

denying he said it.

He did say at least twice, on TV, that

he would meet with Iran with “no pre-

conditions.”

He also had previously said a trade

war with China would be “really easy to

win” and that he wanted “powerful,

strong” background checks.

This is the guy who claimed he has

“one of the best memories in the world”?

Actually, he forgot that, too. “I don’t

remember saying that,” he once declared

in a deposition.

Maybe the president’s mind isn’t what

it once was. Maybe he misrepresents

past statements to get out of trouble. Ei-

ther way, while the political world focus-

es on the lapses of 76-year-old Joe Biden,

73-year-old Trump acts as if his frontal

lobe is made of Swiss cheese.

Ta ke just a few others from this year.

He said of the de-nuclearization of

North Korea: “I never said speed.” But

asked seven months earlier about the

pace of North Korea’s denuclearization,

he replied: “Very quickly. Very, very

quickly, absolutely.”

At a rally in Greenville, N.C., he said:

“I never said we were going to get, as an

example with our vets, that we were go-

ing to get choice.” But in October 2016,

he promised: “We’re going to give our

veterans the right to see their doctor of

their choice.”

He said of his border wall: “I never

said, ‘I’m going to build a concrete.’ I

said, ‘I’m going to build a wall.’ ” But

10 months earlier, he stood in front of a

(concrete) wall prototype in San Diego

and said: “We’re looking very much at

the wall with some see-through capabili-

ty... and then solid concrete on top, or

steel and concrete on top.”

He said of his oft-repeated claim that

Mexico would pay for the wall: “Obvi-

ously, I never said this and I never meant

they’re going to write out a check.”

But in 2016, Trump proposed to stop

some immigrants’ wire transfers to Mex-

ico unless “the Mexican government will

contribute the funds needed to the Unit-

ed States to pay for the wall.”

The misfires, like Biden’s, are not nec-

essarily a new phenomenon. In 2016,

Politifact found Trump claiming he nev-

er said what he actually had said about

wind farms, Jon Stewart, calling John

McCain a “loser,” c alling women ani-

mals, Marco Rubio, the Trans-Pacific

Partnership, Megyn Kelly, Te d Cruz, Te d

Cruz’s wife, Lee Harvey Oswald, David

Duke, Bill Kristol, violent supporters,

nuking the Islamic State, arming Japan

with nukes, guns and those with disabil-

ities.

But the lapses have become more

serious.

Of Obamacare, he said, “I never said

repeal it and replace it within 64 days. I

have a long time.” Actually, he said, “we

have to immediately repeal and replace

Obamacare — so important.”

He claimed that “I never said Russia

did not meddle in the election.” But,

standing at Vladimir Putin’s side, he fa-

mously said: “President Putin says it’s

not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it

would be.”

And now he “never met” Roberts?

Then who was that talking with her in

Trump To wer on ABC’s “ This Week” on

Dec. 5, 1999?

Twenty years is too long ago? How

about 10 hours?

At 5:15 a.m. Monday, Trump tweeted

that Iran stuck to “a very big lie” about a

previous attack. “Now they say that they

had nothing to do with the attack on

Saudi Arabia. We’ll see?” His meaning

was unmistakable. But when a reporter

asked him that afternoon to clarify why

he thinks “Iran is responsible for the at-

tack,” Trump replied: “I didn’t say that.”

Whether it’s deceit or memory mal-

function, the consequence is the same:

Friends and foes alike know that the pres-

ident’s word is not to be taken seriously.

Twitter: @Milbank

DANA MILBANK

WASHINGTON SKETCH

Correction:

Tr ump never

said that

T

he recent fiasco at the New

Yo rk Times, which last

weekend published the lat-

est uncorroborated sexual

assault accusation against Supreme

Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh,

was a monument to hearsay and a

travesty of journalistic ethics.

The story, since modified to in-

clude crucial information, was an

adapted excerpt from a book, “The

Education of Brett Kavanaugh,”

written by two Times staff writers,

Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. In

it, the authors reported allegations

by a Yale classmate that Kavanaugh

was at a “drunken dorm party”

where “friends pushed his penis

into the hand of a female student.”

Setting aside the logistics of such

a feat, more eye-popping was the

omission from the original Times

piece that the alleged victim re-

fused to be interviewed for the book

— and, according to friends, doesn’t

remember any such incident.

Such an oversight is inexcusable.

The Times added these details to

the story after they were flagged by

the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway,

who had an advance copy of the

book. The Times writers, who said

the details had been in the excerpt’s

initial draft, made media rounds

Monday and Tuesday to explain the

omission and essentially blamed

editors, who, they said, “in the

haste” of trying to close out produc-

tion, had deleted the reference.

The fact that the alleged victim

refused to be interviewed by the

authors, and apparently told

friends that she doesn’t recall any

such incident, amount to the very

definition of a non-story. For the

record, The Post learned of the

accusation last year but declined to

publish it because the alleged wit-

nesses weren’t identified and the

woman said to be involved refused

to comment.

Indeed, the authors’ only sources

for the claim were two unnamed

officials who spoke to Washington

attorney Max Stier, who last year

apparently told the FBI and various

senators that he witnessed the al-

leged incident. But Stier refused to

talk to the Times writers himself.

Some Democratic contenders for

the presidency immediately called

for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

They i nclude Sen. Elizabeth Warren

(Mass.), Sen. Kamala D. Harris

(Calif.), former representative Beto

O’Rourke (Tex.) and South Bend,

Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

But let’s rewind the reel a bit.

With apologies to my grandmoth-

ers, the reason the Times writers

likely included the penis-in-hand

accusation at all is because it added

context to the accusations by both

Deborah Ramirez, who alleged last

year that she experienced sexual

misconduct by Kavanaugh at an-

other boozy Yale party, and Chris-

tine Blasey Ford.

Ramirez, for her part, initially

wasn’t quite sure of events. She has

admitted to time lapses and also to

having been drunk, but told the

New Yorker and the Times writers

that she remembers brushing away

a penis thrust in her face, allegedly

by Kavanaugh.

If these stories are true, then

Kavanaugh could have been a

creepy, perhaps monstrous, drunk

in his youth. But all we have to go b y

are alleged victims who also were

drinking at t he time, and comments

from former classmates — who may

also have been inebriated — some

of whom corroborate the Ramirez

accusation and others who dispute

it. The Times writers reported find-

ing seven people who they say

corroborated Ramirez’s story, but

much of what they documented

were second- and third-hand re-

ports, things overheard and, yes,

Ramirez’s mother, to whom she

apparently said, “Something hap-

pened at Yale.”

Not exactly a wrap for justice.

The truth is, Kavanaugh has been

the target of a media siege since his

name was announced for consider-

ation for the high court. Ramirez’s

story was first reported by the New

Yorker just days before Ford’s con-

gressional testimony, which, frank-

ly, was flimsy at best. None of the

other four people Ford named as

attending the high school party

where she claimed Kavanaugh

groped her recalled any such gath-

ering. One of them, a close friend of

Ford and the only other female,

Leland Keyser, not only doesn’t

remember the party but also says

she’s never even met Kavanaugh.

What’s all too clear is that Ameri-

ca’s privileged youth had a serious

drinking problem in the early

1980s, and boozy memories from

high school and young adulthood

are unreliable. Far more troubling

is that several presidential candi-

dates seemingly would impeach a

Supreme Court justice on nothing

more than hearsay — and impeach-

able journalism.

[email protected]

KATHLEEN PARKER

Impeachable

journalism

Y

ou wake after a string of night-

mares. There’s darkness in the

window, then a glimmer at the

bottom of the frame. It could be

truck lights passing on a highway some-

where in the night. I t could be dawn.

You have to wait to see if the light

grows.

For an Israeli who has watched the

steady demolition of democratic norms

under the seemingly endless rule of

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,

this is how the preliminary outcome of

Tuesday’s elections looks. There is an

uncertain chance that voters have ended

the Netanyahu era. Rather than descend

further into illiberal democracy, Israel

may have begun a slow recovery. Some-

day, historians may even mark Sept. 17,

2019, as the turning point toward a two-

state agreement. I t will t ake time to know.

Part of the uncertainty is immediate:

Netanyahu d id poorly c ompared w ith his

showing in the previous e lection i n April.

But as I write, the vote tallies are incom-

plete. Only later will the votes of soldiers

be fully counted.

In c lose e lections, those can shift a seat

or two in parliament, with major impact.

After that comes the uncertainty of

coalition negotiations. It’s still conceiv-

able that Netanyahu c ould put t ogether a

government this time — or that another

deadlock will lead to the third national

election in less than a year.

Let’s review: In April, Netanyahu’s Li-

kud and the right-wing and clerical par-

ties normally aligned with him won

65 out of 120 seats in parliament. Then

came a surprise: The old a lliance of secu-

lar rightists and the ultra-Orthodox

cracked. Avigdor Lieberman, leader of

the I srael Is O ur Home party, rejected t he

conditions of the United Torah Judaism

party. Lieberman’s party had five seats;

Netanyahu’s m ajority evaporated.

For Netanyahu, leaving office would

have meant losing the levers of power he

has used in his bid to avoid b eing tried for

corruption. So rather than follow the

constitutional norm of letting another

party t ry t o form a government, h e called

a new election. During the campaign, he

tried unsuccessfully to pass a law aimed

at suppressing the Arab vote. The shrill-

ness of his fear-mongering increased. As

a finale, he blatantly violated laws

against broadcast interviews and pub-

lishing polling figures on Election Day.

None of it worked. His alliance shrank

from 60 to 55 seats. Lieberman nearly

doubled his strength, to nine seats, gain-

ing the votes o f rightists who were tired o f

Netanyahu, or of alliances with the u ltra-

Orthodox, or of both. If these numbers

hold in the final tally, Likud will be the

second-largest party in parliament, after

ex-general Benny Gantz’s opposition

Blue a nd White party.

A multiparty vote is complicated,

though. Look carefully, and you can see

three different majorities. There’s a defi-

nite majority against Netanyahu remain-

ing in power. There’s a clear majority f or a

secular coalition, without the clerical

parties.

And there’s also a right-wing majority.

That’s not just because of Lieberman, a

secular West B ank settler. Blue and White

ran on a platform of continued settle-

ment growth and of permanent Israeli

control of a large piece of the West Bank

along the Jordan River. In classic Israeli

terms, it’s a center-right party, accepting

of ongoing occupation while insisting on

democracy within pre-1967 Israel. Many

Israelis with positions to the left of this

voted strategically for Gantz to defeat

Netanyahu.

As i t looks now, the most realistic p ath

to a government is what Gantz and Lie-

berman say they want: a coalition of their

two parties with Likud — but a post-

Netanyahu Likud. This depends on Lie-

berman sticking to his promises, rather

than selling out for a major role in yet

another Netanyahu government. It de-

pends, as well, on Likud’s politicians

waking up from their trance of blind

loyalty to Netanyahu.

For the glimmer of light to grow, Blue

and White will have to insist that the

Likud abandon efforts to reduce the Su-

preme Court’s power. If Blue and White

can’t repeal Netanyahu-era laws meant

to suppress dissent, it will have to ensure

that they are treated as dead letters. The

post-Netanyahu L ikud will have to accept

that it is one party among many, not the

only legitimate voice of the nation. After

years of fealty to Netanyahu, it is entirely

uncertain that Likud is capable of such

change.

Such a coalition won’t c hange the most

glaringly undemocratic aspect of Israel

today: its rule over the disenfranchised

Palestinians of the West Bank and its

indirect control over Gaza. In a mix of

realism and optimism, the most that can

be expected is that the new government

will restore the s pace for an honest, open

debate about the occupation — without

the government trying to paint human

rights groups or veterans reporting on

their service in occupied territory as en-

emies of the state, without constant at-

tacks on the media and without a con-

stant effort by the nation’s leaders to

replace reason w ith fear.

It’s entirely too early to tell whether

the ray of light is an illusion or a sunrise.

But we might look back at this as the

moment when a democracy showed it is

capable of healing i tself.

Gershom Gorenberg, a Post Global Opinions

contributing columnist, is an Israeli historian

and journalist.

GERSHOM GORENBERG

Israel’s election results could be

the glimmer of dawn

MENAHEM KAHANA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a Likud party meeting in Jerusalem on Wednesday.

T

he events being staged this week by

D.C. officials ahead of Thursday’s

House hearing on D.C. statehood

are part of a campaign to raise

awareness about the injustice of D.C. dis-

enfranchisement. But the key to making

this week’s historic hearing possible had

little to do with the city’s statehood aspira-

tions. The 2018 midterm elections, when

Democrats took over the House, paved the

path forward for D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes

Norton’s Washington, D.C. Admission Act.

The January transfer of gavels from

Republicans to House Speaker Nancy Pelo-

si (D-Calif.) and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings

(D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight

and Reform Committee overseeing the

District, put the District’s fate in friendly

hands.

That Norton (D) has rounded up more

than 200 Democratic co-sponsors is a

testament both to her hard work and to the

critical importance of having the House led

by Democrats who are more attuned to the

District’s disenfranchisement. There’s

even a chance that Norton’s bill, appropri-

ately designated H.R. 51, will pass the

House before this session ends in 2021.

Statehood’s fate does not turn on the

display of flags with 51 stars lining Pennsyl-

vania Avenue or with citizen-packed pro-

statehood hearings on Capitol Hill. Achiev-

ing full self-government and equal repre-

sentation requires a majority in both hous-

es of Congress and a president who jointly

agree that it is a gross injustice to deny

700,000 D.C. residents and taxpayers the

same rights enjoyed by other Americans.

We are nowhere near achieving that goal.

But it is not out of reach.

An old-timer’s recollection:

Years of rallies, demonstrations, peti-

tions and pleas for home rule were always

met with fierce congressional resistance,

largely in the form of Rep. John L. Mc-

Millan (D-S.C.), who ruled over the District

for more than two decades as chairman of

the then-House District Committee.

The Senate District Committee (where I

worked) repeatedly steered home-rule leg-

islation through the Senate, only to see the

bills receive unceremonious burials in Mc-

Millan’s committee.

But McMillian (“Johnny Mac,” as he was

called) fell victim to South Carolina voters

in 1972 when he lost the Democratic

primary. He blamed black voters for his

defeat. “The colored people were bought

out,” McMillan declared.

McMillan’s complaint overlooked the

fact that the Voting Rights Act of 1965

enabled black voters in his district like

nothing else; that in 1970, because of black

voter enfranchisement, he had been forced

into a primary runoff against a black

Democratic opponent; and that many D.C.

residents journeyed down to South Caro-

lina to campaign against him. McMillan

won that primary and general election. But

justice caught up to him in 1972, when he

lost a runoff. M cMillan got about 17 p ercent

of the black vote. His opponent waltzed to

victory with about 47 percent of black

voters.

McMillan’s political demise laid the

groundwork for the real breakthrough for

home rule: when Rep. Charles C. Diggs Jr.

(D-Mich.) became the House District Com-

mittee’s chairman.

Which gets us back to this moment and

the quest for statehood.

Where the District goes from here will

not be determined by Thursday’s House

hearing, although Mayor Muriel E. Bowser

(D) and D.C. Council Chairman Phil Men-

delson (D) undoubtedly will make a con-

vincing case for statehood in their testimo-

ny.

An unpleasant truth envelops the day.

A Republican-controlled Senate and

White House are not the least bit upset

about the denial of D.C. voting representa-

tion in Congress. Once a bill clears the

House, it will run straight into Senate

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),

who in June called discussion of statehood

an example of “full-bore socialism on the

march in the House.”

As with home rule, the way to statehood

is not via rallies and parades but through

elections beyond the District’s borders.

Holding on to a Democratic House in

2020 while flipping the Senate and ridding

the White House of one of democracy’s

worst enemies are statehood’s only way

forward.

D.C. statehood adherents should find

ways to provide support to candidates in

key races against anti-D.C. incumbents in

the Senate and House. In collaboration

with state and local party leaders, they

should direct D.C. volunteers, contribu-

tions and other resources to those cam-

paigns, including the presidential contest.

To be sure, supportive rallies and dem-

onstrations in the District have their place.

But the path to statehood leads through

the states. Thursday’s hearing should be a

step toward that end.

[email protected]

COLBERT I. KING

This is D.C. statehood’s only way forward

UPLOADED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws