Trump's Disparagement of the Military

I. Trump's Disparagement of the Military 

Donald Trump's disparagement of the military goes back a long way, probably at least to Donald's threat to disinherit his son, Donald Jr. for his interest in enlisting in one of the military services. This incident has been mentioned by family members. Yet the most compelling indicator of Trump's complex attitude about military service came when he said he doesn't regard John McCain's captivity in North Korea to be heroic, since he likes those service members who aren't captured, not those who have been captured. 

When President Trump was standing with then-Homeland Secretary John Kelly beside the grave of Kelly's son in Arlington National Cemetery,  he was reported to have said: "I don't get it. What was in it for them?" This has been interpreted as Trump favoring individuals like his son going into a productive enterprise, rather than serving in the military. This may relate to Trump Sr. wanting to have Donald Jr. to be involved in the family business. Of particular note here is that John Kelly has not denied this incident took place.

Trump has also been reported to have nixed the idea of having wounded veterans in the military parade patterned after the one he witnessed on Bastille Day in France. He is reported to have said that this would not be a "good look" for the public. Trump has also been reported to regard searching for MIAs to be a waste of time and money.

Fox News national security reporter Jennifer Griffen says her sources are "unimpeachable" regarding the support she gave to the Atlantic magazine article citing four sources for breaking the story of Trump's disdain for the military. She doesn't confirm the Atlantic magazine's claim that Trump called those going into the military "suckers," and those being wounded, captured or killed, "losers," but she is particularly certain that Trump didn't want to attend an event at a U.S. military cemetery in Europe because the rain would mess up his hair, and he didn't see any reason to view a bunch of graves.

Griffen has drawn a large reservoir of support for the reliability of her reporting, coming both from journalists outside Fox News and colleagues within. 

About the only one of any standing in the Trump administration, who has extensive contact with Trump, is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who came forth to say he has not experienced any distain for the military from Trump. Pompeo is not a very reliable source, as he was the one who told Trump that he must fire the inspector general for the State Department for a vague claim that the IG  was exceeding his authority. The inspector general was investigating Pompeo for misusing State Department funding. Pompeo also hid his participation in the July 25th call to Ukraine's president, until others on the call broke the story. What I remember very vividly is that shortly after the telephone call story broke, Pompeo was photographed walking down a hallway in Italy. He was walking straight toward a reporter poised to question him about the call, when he made a sharp left turn to greet a man standing there.

II. "Anarchist Jurisdictions"

A presidential memo directs the Office of Management and Budget to specifically review federal funding that goes to Portland, Oregon, New York City, and Washington, D.C. As usual in these kinds of instances of Trump trying to countervene Congress's constitutional power of the purse, speculation immediately started about whether what Trump is trying to do is illegal. This speculation need not take place,as every time Trump tries to strip funding authorized by Congress, or tries to redirect funding appropriated for one purpose by Congress to another purpose his own, he is violating both the Constitution and federal statues. He has coined the term "anarchist jurisdictions" to spread a thin veneer of legitimacy to his thievery. 

Besides his assault on Constitution-created checks and balances,which give the power of the purse to Congress, what is remarkable about President Trump's seizures of power is that they are often solely designed to damage Democratic Party interests and power.