Bombs Away

*********** Dear Readers, Sorry for the late post, I fell asleep while proof reading ***********



In the past seven days, trump has laid out his foreign policy stance.  I'm not saying that the two targets and the third target that is now in trump's cross hairs are worthy of respect, they're not.  But, trump is continuing to demonstrate to all of the nations on our small globe, that he is erratic and reactionary.  trump can say whatever he wants this or that, about showing America's resolve, about sending a message that America means business, but the the people of the world are seeing him on the same scale as Assad, Putin and Kim Jong-un.

As we all know, trump ordered the firing of 59 Tomahawk missiles at the military airbase that allegedly launched the aircraft that allegedly dropped chemical weapons on a civilian population last week (trump is really good a 'firing').  trump had the Tomahawks launched less than three days after the incident.  Both the incident and the trump reaction are known facts without dispute, not alleged.  "According to US officials [ ] [t]rump acted from his gut after seeing horrific pictures of child victims in Idlib."  Yes, the videos were extremely difficult to watch, but the president is hired by the American people to keep his cool under pressure.By the way, I did not just refer to trump as the 'pr' word.  he has not proven himself to be cool under pressure and I still maintain that he is an administrator at best.  Again, I am in no way supporting Assad.  I am, however, supporting hard nosed diplomacy as a new administration's foreign policy takes shape, with the option of 'pulling the trigger' as a later option that is made clear as an option during that diplomatic process.

Fast forward to a few days later.  d.j[ackass] orders a strike in Afghanistan that has no direct provocation from its target.  Once again, I will note that ISIS, the target, is no friend of mine.  But, the worlds population is watching and that is important to how we are perceived in our world.  What the people of other nations see is a crazy guy dropping a bomb with no specific reason.  Not only is it a bomb, it is the most powerful bomb in the our arsenal, short of a nuclear weapon.  The alleged result, 36 ISIS fighters killed.  I say alleged, because this bomb has a one mile destructive radius (2 mile diameter), and the assessment of the results was reported one day later with out any verification process by humans at the site.  I'm not convinced that a bomb with this kind of destructive power didn't kill any civilians.  Just because the Pentagon says so, doesn't make it so.

Now, this Sunday is an important holiday in North Korea.  It is the 105th aniversary of the birth of North Koreas founder, Kim Il-sung.  The holiday is known as Founder's Day and is always accompanied by displays of military might.  There have been satellite observations of a good deal of activity at the site where North Korea performs nuclear tests.  The assumption being made is that Kim Jong-il will detonate a nuclear device on Sunday or shortly before or after.  And............again, North Korea is no friend of mine.  I am in no way defending North Korea.  But, and this is a big, big but, if trump launches a military action against North Korea due to the test of a nuclear device, there will surely be a war.  North Korea will have been guilty of saber rattling and violating U.N sanctions against nuclear tests.  America will be guilty of firing live weapons and striking North Korea.  We will have thrown the first punch while North Korea is shadow boxing Who will be involved in the war besides our country and North Korea, I do not know, but have  no doubts, there will be a war.

trump has positioned an aircraft carrier fleet off the Korean peninsula.  This of course ratchets up the tension, but in conjunction with the bombs used in the past seven days, the likelihood of trump launching a unilateral strike on North Korea carries the weight of a definite possibility.

trump is displaying definite signs of mental instability. After a meeting with first responders yesterday (Thursday) at the White House, trump said, "Everybody knows exactly what happened and what I do is I authorize my military. We have the greatest military in the world and they've done their job as usual. So, we have given them total authorization."  I had no idea our military is trump's military.  I had no idea that trump was royalty as evidenced by the use of the word 'we' to refer to himself.

So, like my brother taught me when I was a boy, 'don't  throw the first punch, but make sure to throw the last one'.  trump does not seem to know about this good advice.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/donald-trumps-tomahawk-strike-syria-unfolded/

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/trump-calls-afghanistan-operation-a-very-successful-mission.html

goebbels-bannon Losing His Grip

The headline in the New York Times, for this online story reads, "[t]rump Undercuts [b]annon, Whose Job May Be in Danger".  NPR's online headline reads "[t]rump Signals [s]teve [b]annon Could Be On His Way Out".  The Washington Post has two headlines worth noting, "Inside [b]annon’s struggle: From ‘shadow president’ to [t]rump’s marked man" and "[t]rump just made some very strange comments about [s]tephen [b]annon".

To use the goebbe-bannon (g-b) vernacular, there's a 'war' in the White House.  There are most likely conflicts in philosophies in all administrations, but this administration seems to relish and thrive on conflict being out in the open.  I also believe that all new administrations have 'growing pains' and learning curves, but this has been much more than that.  It has been chaos that should never have taken place.  If the people who were hired by trump, from the top down, were competent and functional people, there would not be chaos.  This has obviously not been the case.

With reference to g-b, trump is continuing with his usual B.S. by saying things like “I am my own strategist”.   In an interview published in the New York Post on Tuesday, trump is quoted as having said to the interviewer:

"I like Steve, but you have to remember, he was not involved in my campaign until very late,  I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."

Well I guess he can say that because g-b is not the 'chief trump strategist', he's the 'chief White House strategist'. I mean, trump makes g-b the chief strategist and then says he's his own strategist. Sounds to me like g-b isn't the strategist.  Well.......d.j[ackass] has to be something, I guess.  I would also note that 'even more crooked trumpy boy by a long shot', just doesn't know how to keep his foul thoughts to himself.  

So, trump is now claiming that he didn't know g-b until he became the CEO of the trump campaign in August of 2016. Again.......what a load of B.S. It is clear that these two have known each other for about six years. trump's deputy campaign manager, David Bossie was interviewed by the Associated Press (AP) after trump took office and said that he introduced trump and g-b at trump tower in 2011. Even if that's not true, trump was interviewed by g-b on g-b's breitbart radio show many times. Records show that g-b interviewed trump at least nine times in 2015 and 2016 as well as trump family members and campaign workers.

trump continues to reveal himself as a sociopath. he does not know the difference between right and wrong. he's a liar and he lies to suit his purposes. he could still be on a path to fire g-b and be honest and honorable. Instead, as he does the right thing, removing g-b from the mix, he lies about it rather than telling the truth. Having brought g-b on board at such a high level, without knowing him, is bad 'business'. Lying about how long he knew g-b just reinforces the fact that trump is d.j[ackass] that he is easily seen as. Either way he continues to show himself as one of the most immoral persons to ever sit in the White House. I believe he is much more 'crooked' then Nixon.

As I noted, there are polarized factions in this young administration.  In his interview with the New York Post reporter, trump further said that. "[s]teve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."  The "they" that trump refers to is g-b and kushner (trump's son in-law).  

jivanka may be counselling 'daddy' that he will not retain power with the extreme stances he takes and therefore needs to purge g-b and make it look like he is moving to the center. Anyone who is fooled by this ploy should be fully ashamed of themselves. trump is who he is and at the age of 70 can not, will not, and is incapable of that amount of change for the rest of his years, much less in 75 to 80 days. In fact, I dare say that no human is capable of that kind of change in that short of a period of time. trump is a narcissist, he is a sociopath, he is a demagogue, he is erratic, he is reactionary (as opposed to a person who thinks and considers). trump is a very dangerous person. In fact, this whole g-b debacle clearly shows how erratic d.j[ackass] is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-trump.html?_r=0


http://www.npr.org/2017/04/12/523569897/trump-signals-steve-bannon-could-be-on-his-way-out

http://time.com/4738016/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-jared-kushner/

Holocaust Alternative Facts from the IOD

There's so many people in trump's gang or in Congress that I could be writing about when I make the claim that the guy is just an idiot, but I won't keep you in suspense.  The IOD (idiot of the day, idiot on duty, your choice) is .............. (well maybe a little suspense, drum roll please).............spicey boy, puppet-spicer.

It must have been difficult for reporters to quote yesterday's horse shit (sorry, but this one is so bad, I could not refrain from profanity).  Not only because of the new level of crap he spewed from his mouth, but also because he stammered and stumbled all over himself, it must have been hard to piece together a coherent statement in writing.  What did the IOD say Bill?

“We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II.  You know, you had someone as despicable as [h]itler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.”

You just have to be kidding me!  Either the history that I learned about the Holocaust was 'fake' history or IOD is presenting alternative facts.  One way or the other I have obviously been misinformed my whole life.  

I checked in with a few of my colleagues at work this morning and they were aghast.  But, there was one person (who happens to be Jewish) that said he knew that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.  I had to ask him if he was being serious, and he was.  Now why would anyone think that?  His thinking was that the last time chemical weapons were used, was mustard gas during Word War One.  That was the end of our conversation.

Ohhhhhhhhhh!  I got it.  hitler didn't use chemical weapons on the battle field or in open areas with civilian populations.  That must be it.  If it's 'sanitized' it's not a weapon.  

Of course, IOD was asked to clarify his comment, so he did:

“I think when you come to sarin gas, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”

And then said: “Holocaust centers.”  He stopped right there.  I guess one could assume that he realized that there were nazi death camps, at that point.

IOD tried to wiggle out of the massive hole he dug for himself one more time with a written statement after the press briefing, as follows:

“I was trying to draw a distinction of the tactic of using airplanes to drop chemical weapons on population centers.  Any attack on innocent people is reprehensible and inexcusable.”

Okay, enough of this crap.  I've examined IOD's ineptness more than was necessary.  I'm now at a loss for words to express my complete and total disgust with this particular idiot.

Last question is about jivanka.  Here it is, Passover, and this 'colleague' of theirs displays vast disregard for Jews.  First of all, what was said at their family Sedar (the traditional Passover meal)?  Secondly, if they are such good Jews, did they go to a Sedar?  Third, if they have the influence that they advertise, how does IOD still have a job in the White House, with this administration?  Maybe IOD's comments were coincidental to the Passover holiday, maybe they weren't.  Either way they were unbelievably insensitive at any time, but on the holiday that remembers the mistreatment of Jews when they were enslaved .......... well, there just aren't any words that can use to define the outrage that this brings up in any Jewish person, whether they are observant or not!  

I guess the recent cover of Time Magazine. Is Truth Dead?,  is a rhetorical question with the answer being yes (at least for now).


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/us/politics/sean-spicer-hitler-gas-holocaust-center.html?_r=0

goebbels-bannon Gets the Boot

goebbels-bannon (g-b) hasn't gotten the complete boot, but the writing is on the wall.  Not surprisingly, g-b and his supporters are putting some horse crap out for public consumption.  What are you talking about Bill?

I'm talking about g-b's removal from the national Security Council (NSC)!  This occurred last Wednesday, April 5th.  Unfortunately, I have had other issues to discuss.  There's always something.  Now what is happening is that various voices from the White House are stumbling all over themselves to 'explain' what this particular trump debacle has been all about.

It all started one dark weekend night when g-b wrote an executive order and plopped it down in front of d.j[ackass] for his signature.  Just like a scene out of M.A.S.H. , trump signed it without knowing what he was signing (supposedly).  Bing!  g-b is on the NCS, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is off and even more disturbing is that g-b heads up the inner circle of the NCS, the Principals Committee.  The calls for his removal have been persistent since that point in time.  It seems that these ongoing calls for his removal may have worked.  I believe that at the very least our voices played a part in his removal.

So..........who's saying what?

I'll start with General H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser (head of the NSC).  He is down playing g-b's removal.  First of all, it is noteworthy that g-b was removed because that's what McMaster wanted .......... apparently.  On FOX News Sunday (using FOX as a source for information is making me gag), McMaster responded to questioning on why he "pushed" for g-b to be removed from the NSC.  He answered

"This is not as significant as it appears, I think.  I think what the president was doing was making clear that he is going — in terms of permanent membership on the National Security Council — to have those permanent members who are there for every meeting ... to be those who will give him their advice on the long-term interests of the American people."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328026-mcmaster-downplays-removal-of-bannon-from-role-on-nsc

What a bunch of gobbley goop.  Did he really say anything?  Next is g-b's take on his dismissal along with what his minions in the White House are saying.  I found the following in a New York Times article.  In a statement put out by g-b, himself, g-b said:

“Susan Rice operationalized the N.S.C. during the last administration. I was put on the N.S.C. with General Flynn to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the N.S.C. to its proper function.”

Huh?  They must have a gobbley goop dispenser in the White House.  This article points out that trump is the person that removed g-b, but that the dismissal was "orchestrated" by McMaster who "insisted on purging a political adviser from the Situation Room where decisions about war and peace are made."  This is in line with previous history when  George W. Bush’s last chief of staff, Josh Bolten, barred Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political adviser, from the NSC.  trump did not make this decision.  He wasn't smart enough to understand that he was swimming against the tide of history and simply allowing a dangerous person to help make life and death decisions.  He needed someone of reasonable character to figure it out for him.

A White House official who insisted on anonymity reported to the New York Times that g-b "resisted the move [and] even threaten[ed] at one point to quit if it went forward"  The article further points out that g-b's "camp denied that he had threatened to resign and spent the day spreading the word that the shift was a natural evolution, not a signal of any diminution of his [ ]  influence."

The article also reports that "[g-b's] allies said privately that [g-b] had been put on the principals committee to keep an eye on [ ] [t]rump’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn".

Lastly, I want to point out that the Times article threw this tidbit in:

"..... behind the scenes, White House officials said, the ideologist who enjoyed [tump's] confidence became increasingly embattled as other advisers, including [ ] [t]rump’s daughter and son-in-law, complained about setbacks on health care and immigration. Lately, [g-b] has been conspicuously absent from some meetings."

Notice that the sources do not say that jivanka had anything to say about g-b's kkk & nazi support.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0

There you have it;  a tale of two twits (trump and g-b, not McMaster).  

Continue reading the main story

Non-Violent Change

Last night, while driving home from a meeting, I heard a report on NPR regarding non violence and how powerful and successful it is when measured by results achieved.  If I recall correctly the person being interviewed reported that in the 20th century, non violence yielded the desired results 54 % of the time, whereas violent action only obtained the desired results 23 % of the time.

Of course, I don't fully trust my memory, so I searched for corroborating evidence.  In a Forbes Magazine I found it.  The article presented findings from a study conducted  by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan that was in a publication titled Foreign Affairs.  The study looked at 323 violent and non violent movements between 1900 and 2006 that involved over 1,000 participants in each instance.  The findings were clear, "nonviolent movements were twice as likely to succeed as violent movements, and that nonviolent movements often significantly increased the chances of a more peaceful and democratic government emerging in the aftermath."  

Chenoweth and Stephan concluded that non-violent activities are "more likely than armed struggle to attract a larger and more diverse base of participants and impose unsustainable costs on a regime."  I'm not sure that the author's are referring to monetary costs alone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven-superiority-of-nonviolent-resistance/#377e143668f0


Another point made on this NPR show was that non violent techniques were not developed and used only in the 20th century.  A reference was made to a group of non-violent actions taken by colonists before the revolutionary war in our country, from 1765 to 1775.  These actions included non-consumption of British  goods already in the colonies, non-importation of British goods and non-exportation of raw materials for Britain to make goods with.

So what's the point Bill?  Well I believe we are in an extended fight for our country's heart and soul.  I do not believe that any one of us would consider violence as a way to place pressure on our elected officials to make the changes that are necessary for our country to move forward in our constant quest for the best democracy we can create.  Our democracy is always a work in progress.  Sometimes it's hard to see the forest your in because the trees get in the way, but I feel certain that we are at a critical point in our democracy.  I believe that our constitution is facing the largest challenge it has ever faced.  The War Between the States was our biggest challenge to our union as the United States, but that was a different concern, it was not about our constitution (at least not directly).

We have elected officials in place that have complete disregard for our Constitution, who believe they can do as they wish in spite of what our Constitution reads.  These officials could very well attempt to change our Constitution in fundamental ways, I don't know.

But, this is what I do know.  We have the power and an  obligation to those that came before us and built our country and to our progeny, to preserve our constitution and amend it so that our democracy will work for all of us.

I found a great site, while researching today's post, from Swarthmore College.  It is a titled the Global Nonviolent Action Database.  I'm including a link to the site that goes to a page that discusses the colonist's nonviolent actions and methods that can be used.

http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/american-colonials-struggle-against-british-empire-1765-1775

As an inspiration, I read up on Mahatma Gandhi's great act of nonviolent protest, his form of civil disobedience.  From March to April of 1930, Gandhi led a 240 mile march, followed by tens of thousands to the town of Dandi on the Arabian Sea.  In defiance of heavily taxed salt, Gandhi took some sea water, boiled it down and made salt.  This was 'illegal' per British law because, of course, the British trading companies wanted Indians to buy their salt and Britain wanted the revenues that taxing this ubiquitous ingredient would generate.  Gandhi, with this simple act, taught Indians how to resist and ultimately break the British Empire's hold on India.  

Although I do not believe, in my heart of hearts that we will ever come to this, I want to share a famous Gandhi quote with you:

"For this cause I am willing to die.  But, my friends, there is no cause for which I am willing to kill."

Georgia's Upcoming Special Election

The special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional district is nine days away.  This election is to elect a representative to replace Tom Price the new Secretary of Health and Human Services.  This blog has noted before that this is a republican strong hold and has been since 1979.  This district was once represented by Newt Gingrich.

Many have made this election a referendum on trump.  Others are looking for it to be a model for how Democrats can move forward in future elections to change the balance of power in Congress.  In reality, what this election will be is either a new seat for Democrats in the House or a retained seat for Republicans.  If Jon Ossoff, The Democratic front runner does win this seat, Democrats will make much of it and Republicans will diminish its meaning.  I suggest that Democrats keep a low profile, if the seat is won. Certainly we can be glad, but let's not gloat.  Gloating energizes your opponent.

I would also point out that this election is abnormal in many ways and therefore may be somewhat informative, but should not be seen as the be all and end all of strategy formulation for the 2018 mid term elections.  This election may not have a large portion of the districts electorate show up at the polls.  After all, it is an out of the ordinary date.  But if there is a large outpouring of voters and if Ossoff wins on the first ballot, that would certainly indicate the mood of the electorate in this reliably republican district.

Another factor in this election is that there is a large number of college students registered to vote in this district.  That may or may not be a factor.

Something that has been happening during this campaign process has been the amount of money that Ossoff and Democratic organizations have been able to raise in this short period of time.  I am solicited many times per day.  I'm okay with this, although I can easily see how some people would feel guilty if they could not respond to each email with a donation.  I am clear about what I can contribute, and when.  There are some emails that are worded in such a way as to try to make the reader feel guilty if the do not donate.  I believe this is counter productive and will ultimately backfire on Democrats if they continue to use this method.

This morning, while reading about this upcoming election, I saw the following in an NBC article on the net:


SANDY SPRINGS, Georgia — Amy King, an accountant in this Atlanta suburb, said she's always been a Republican.

But when a Republican, Judson Hill — the first candidate to enter the first competitive congressional race of Donald Trump's presidency — knocked on her door Tuesday evening, King told him she was considering voting Democrat or just skipping the upcoming special congressional election.

"I've been thinking about how no one in the Republican Party is standing up to what is crazy," she said while standing her driveway, mentioning some of Trump's controversial Cabinet appointments and statements.

"It's immensely shaken my confidence in the Republican Party," added King, who declined to say who she voted for in the presidential election.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/trump-s-shadow-looming-over-special-election-n744231

Now this is anecdotal, but it may be very telling.  Ms. King may represent  an important demographic throughout the south, I don't know.  But, if she does, than here will be something that Democrats can tie their boat to;  educated conservative republican women in suburban metropolitan areas.  It seems that King has a conscience and follows it.  

This election is worth watching.  The seat may be claimed or it may go to a June run off.  There is information to be gained, but whatever information is gained is not written in stone.  There is a book that was written in the 1990s for management training entitled Who Moved My Cheese  and this is the concept that Democrats need to embrace.  Things change.  

The (Crab) Apple Doesn't Fall Too Far From the Tree

I've visited this subject before and I'm going to discuss it again.  Legally speaking, ivanka trump has no business in the White House.  There is a law that was passed in the late 1960's making nepotism illegal.  I have presented the particulars of the law in my post, Nepotism on 12/19/16, and here they are again:

1. U.S. Code › Title 5 › Part III › Subpart B › Chapter 31 › Subchapter I › § 3110

(a)For the purpose of this section—

(1)“agency” means—

(A)

an Executive agency;

(2)

“public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress)

(3)

“relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b)

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.
assistant to the president 

As I said in that post,"[y]ou know......I really do not need to write another word here, but I will anyway."

Gayle King of CBS's morning show CBS This Morning Interviewed half of jivanka on April 5th.  I read the full transcript and I believe she (ivanka) is as out of touch and as as narcissistic as her father.  She has been appointed by her father as "assistant to the president".  Right there and then, her position becomes invalid and illegal!  Instead of recognizing this obvious disregard for the law, ivanka said:

"So to me the-- this particular title was about giving critics the comfort that I’m holding myself to that highest ethical standard."

Huh?  she and her father completely ignore the law, which is all about ethics and morality and she makes that kind of statement?  You've got to be kidding me, right?

Gayle King noted that there are critics that ask, where is ivanka's voice on issues like Planned parenthood, gay rights, women's rights, climate change, and then King noted, "it’s, like, you’re being held personally accountable for not speaking up. "  Well hell, it's her larynx and her thoughts and views; who the hell else is going to speak for her except for herself.

i. trumps's response?  "I would say not to conflate lack of public denouncement with silence. "  Conflate?  Ya know.........I'm a reasonably well read person.  I get the use of the word by its context in the sentence, but I'll admit, this is the first time in my 61 years that I've run into this word.  Its basic meaning is to blow or fuse together.  How many people that voted for her father know the meaning of this word, three?  I think that's even generous.  

"Where I disagree with my father, he knows it.  And I express myself with total candor. "  Again, I've said it many times in previous posts, if she has spoken bluntly and directly to her father (words used to define candor), steve goebbels-bannon would not have a place in the White House.  There is no Jew on this planet that thinks or feels goebbels-bannon is ok.  That would be the same as endorsing Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler.

Ms. King asked ivanka if she was the person that tells d. j[ackass] the "hard truths".  ivanka answered, "I do. And almost everyone he surrounds him with does."

Continuing on, King asked ms. trump to weigh in on "articles saying you are complicit [..........] in what is happening to the White House. Now before we look at i.trump's answer, let's define the word 'complicit'. Per Merriam-Webster, being complicit is not something that you want to be associated with; "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way". Now this is a word I've understood for, say 45 to 50 years. i. trump's answer?

"If being complicit is wanting to be a force for good and to make a positive impact, then I’m complicit."

Well, she bandies about words that a large number of people do not use or know and then turns around a butchers a relatively commonly used and known word.  But, I'lll give her this, she is complicit, as I pointed out in the beginning of this post.  She is also complicit in another way.  

Even if she had the legal right to be an employee in the White House, she is still running afoul of the law.  She has not divested herself of her business interests completely.  The trust that has been created for her businesses are run by her husbands brother-in-law and sister-in-law.  So she still has the ability to involve herself.  That would not be possible with a blind trust.  

Furthermore, despite what she says, below, it is a known fact that the wording of the trust gives her the ability to make high level decisions.  Her interchange when King approached her on this subject was:

i. trump: I have no involvement with any of that. … I felt like proximity to my father and to the White House and-- with my husband taking such an influential role in the administration (which is also illegal per the nepotism law), I didn’t wanna also be running a business. So I put it into trust. I have independent trustees. I have no involvement in its management, in this oversight and its strategic decision making.

King: But the trustees are family members, right? Your brother-in-law and your sister-in-law?

i. trump: They are.
                             
King: So from the--

i.trump: But they’re completely independent. And I’m transparent about that. (what.....because she says she's transparent, that makes it so?)

King: But you can you see from the public point of view, yes, you put it in trust but it’s family members. They’re thinking, “Well, is she really not involved? Do you really not get on the phone and say, ‘What’s going on?’” You have no involvement--
                 
i. trump: I take--
                 
King: --whatsoever?
                 
i. trump: --I take a legal document very seriously and I wouldn’t go through the pains of setting this up if I intended to violate it.

Ya know, I believe her, she probably does take a legal document "very seriously",  she probably did "go through the pains of setting [it] up", so she wouldn't have to violate it.  The way it is set up is so that she can have communication with the trust holders and that she does have the ability, per the document, to intervene about and make high level decisions.

So, as I have said many times in previous posts, ivanka trump is no saint, as she tries to paint herself as being.  This interview with Gayle King, at least to me, exposes ivanka trump as being just as duplicitous and narcissistic as her father.  The (crab) apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-interview-full-transcript/