So is this how US politics will be from now on? Every president spends their lame duck period doing everything possible to sabotage the next guy (if they're the other party)? I seem to recall GWB having a bit more decorum than Obama here but maybe I'm wrong. Is the political climate really more poisonous than ever or does it just seem that way?
"The GAO concluded that ''damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.'' The report stated that some incidents, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voicemail messages ''clearly were intentional,'' and intentional damage would constitute a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, though."
Unless I'm mistaken GWB didn't have to deal with a foreign government interfering with our elections.
Besides, this sort of thing will only be relevant a few times in the President's career and the odds are pretty good that if it were to happen it would happen in their "lame duck" phase. So what?
Well there's this and the UN Israel resolution, both of which are things Trump would have been unlikely to do. Then there's the raft of executive orders..
It's almost like Trump's win was entirely unexpected and the outgoing administration is playing catch-up on things they thought Clinton would take care of...
Whether or not Trump would do those things is immaterial; he's not yet president, so what he would have done if he was already doesn't matter. Executive orders, that's pretty common.
He's starting something he won't be able to finish. Not very wise. At this point, the focus should be on an orderly transition of power instead of making waves and creating problems for the next guy to handle. Whether he likes it or not, Trump is the next guy, and Trump's going to have to handle it one way or the other. Trying to cast the die like this is just counterproductive.
> He's starting something he won't be able to finish.
Pretty much every Presidency has some things started late that are known to carry over into the next administration; quite often (especially when there is a change of parties) this something the incoming President would have handled differently.
That's sort of inherent in the nature of having a crisp point-in-time transfer of power.
It's the point-in-time transfer of power that makes this unwise. He has less than a month to go and his top priority is what exactly? It should be on the smooth transition of power. Starting a tit-for-tat with Russia should be left to the next guy.
> Taking action in response to foreign aggression is "sabotaging the next guy" now?
Abstractly speaking, and not suggesting any particular tie to the current situation (in this comment, at least): when the next guy is an agent of the foriegn aggressor, yes, it quite naturally would be.
"Barack Obama announces more sanctions against Russia, citing alleged Russian hacking during US election. However though the sanctions will annoy the Russians, they will not seriously affect them. Their true purpose is to create further embarrassment for Donald Trump by insinuating that he owes the Russians the Presidency."
Dershowitz has argued that Obama's Israel decision from just a few days ago constitutes just that. He went on a round of TV interviews to explain his view.
He asserted that, yes. He didn't really do much to explain his view, other than just repeating that it was "revenge" and "pique". Do you agree with his assessment, and can you provide reasoning for it?
