Donald Trump and his Coterie of the Craven (part 16)

[fraurosena]

17 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I swear, I wish someone would deactivate the toddler's Twitter account.

Personally, I think it's a good thing that he tweets so much. This way we have irrefutable evidence of what he's thinking, or doing, or thinking of doing. 

12 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I see fuckhead wants to break up the 9th circuit now;

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/330757-trump-says-hes-absolutely-considering-breaking-up-court-that-blocked

What a fuckhead. 

Is that even possible? I mean, can a president really do this? Or is he being even more of a fuckhead?

5 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Agent Orange and the GOP of Doom. 

@Destiny, it's early in this thread still, but I think this is too good not to propose as the title of the new one 

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

Yeah, I know Lord Dampnuts has less than 1/2 the attention span of a insect high on meth, but a law professor should sit him down and explain how the Federal court system works.  In terms that a first grader could understand since that's apparently the level that Lord Dampnuts  reads at.   

Sadly, that won't work either. In order to explain the Federal Court System, you'd have to reduce it to a 30 second ad on Fox or to a tweet. Those are the only two forms of communication Trump can understand. Even a first grade teacher's explanation would be too hard.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "Trump’s lies are working brilliantly. This new poll proves it."

Quote

As we stumble toward the 100-day mark of the Trump presidency, the president’s frequent assaults on the news media appear to have taken on a distinct purpose. With the White House visibly agitated by the possibility of brutally negative 100-day coverage of President Trump’s tenure so far, he has insisted that the press is misrepresenting his record, while also vastly inflating it himself — thus preparing his voters to dismiss everything they are being told about his historic lack of accomplishments.

A new Post-ABC News poll suggests that this may be working for Trump. It finds that enormous majorities of his voters believe the news media regularly publishes false stories. Even bigger majorities of them believe the news media’s falsehoods are a bigger problem than the Trump administration’s falsehoods are, while only small fractions think the administration tells falsehoods or that his lies are the greater problem. Just look at these findings, which I pulled from the crosstabs:

• 80 percent of Trump voters think it’s a bigger problem that news organizations produce false stories, while only 3 percent of them think it’s a bigger problem that the Trump administration makes false claims. (Among Republicans overall, this is 69-14.)
• Only 17 percent of Trump voters think the Trump administration regularly makes false claims, while 76 percent of Trump voters think it doesn’t. (Among Republicans overall, this is 31-65.)
• By contrast, 78 percent of Trump voters think that news organizations regularly produce false stories, while only 19 percent of them think otherwise. (Among Republicans overall, this is 70-27.)
• Meanwhile, 84 percent of Trump voters think he’s keeping most of his major campaign promises, while only 4 percent think he isn’t, and 89 percent of them think he’s honest and trustworthy.

The question is whether those things are related: Amid increased press scrutiny of Trump’s falsehoods and failings, do Trump’s assaults on the media — and the related widespread belief among Trump voters that the media regularly produces false stories — further bond them to Trump and make them more likely to believe he’s succeeding?

It’s possible. Note this finding from another new poll of Trump voters, this one from the University of Virginia Center for Politics Poll:

Nearly nine in 10 respondents (88%) said that media criticism of Trump reinforces that the president is on the right track, and the same percentage agreed with Trump’s assertion that the press is “the enemy of the American people.”

...

I'm just shaking my head.

[47of74]

Just now, GreyhoundFan said:

Sigh: "Trump’s lies are working brilliantly. This new poll proves it."

I'm just shaking my head.

In my book Lord Dampnuts voters are a lost cause.  They have nothing to say that I have the slightest interest in hearing.  And I am sick to death of people trying to say that we have to reach out and engage these idiots either.  Both Lord Dampnuts voters and the people saying we have to reach out to them can go fornicate themselves are far as I am concerned.

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

In my book Lord Dampnuts voters are a lost cause.  They have nothing to say that I have the slightest interest in hearing.  And I am sick to death of people trying to say that we have to reach out and engage these idiots either.  Both Lord Dampnuts voters and the people saying we have to reach out to them can go fornicate themselves are far as I am concerned.

I so agree. I have no interest in reaching out. These are the people who have screwed up the world.

 

"Trump again overpromises, underdelivers on tax ‘plan’"

Quote

The White House had promised to roll out a “tax plan” Wednesday. Instead of a fully developed plan, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and senior adviser Gary Cohn put out a one-page sheet with bullet points, something you might see as a first draft of a campaign white paper. Worse yet, as we anticipated, Mnuchin and Cohn wound up getting grilled on whether President Trump, who stands to save millions (via, among other things, elimination of the alternative minimum tax), would release his tax returns. Mnuchin was emphatic: “The president has no intention.” He falsely asserted, “The president has released plenty of information and I think has given more financial disclosure than anybody else. I think the American population has plenty of information.” He and Cohn had no specifics about the savings for voters by tax bracket or about the expected increase in the debt.

The Post reported, “The proposal is a one-page outline — key details are left incomplete — but it presents an initial offer to begin negotiations with lawmakers, as White House officials think reworking the tax code is one of their biggest priorities to boost economic growth.” The plan appears to be more of a pipe dream than a viable plan. (“Many budget experts say they believe the White House’s plan would reduce federal revenue by so much that it would grow the debt by trillions of dollars in the next decade, growing interest costs and slowing the economy.”)

On its face, it seems to offer massive tax cuts for rich individuals who can use pass-through companies to pay a 15 percent corporate rate. The plan would eliminate all individual deductions except the charitable and mortgage interest deductions. It was not clear whether the plan would keep the exclusion for employer-provided health-care plans, which, if taxed, could substantially raise taxes for middle- and working-class workers. In addition, the proposal would eliminate the estate tax, benefiting only a tiny number of super-rich heirs because estates up to $5.49 million are already excluded.

...

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) slammed the proposal. “At a time when income distribution is getting even worse in America, the President’s outline clearly makes life easier for the wealthy and special interests and makes life harder for middle class and lower income Americans,” he said in a written statement. “It couldn’t come at a worse time. Clearly, the President and those at his level of wealth would benefit while tens of millions of American families are hurt.” House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) blasted it as well. “True to form, President Trump’s tax plan is short on details and long on giveaways to big corporations and billionaires,” she said in a written statement. “Instead of focusing on hard-working families as he promised, President Trump’s tax outline is a wish list for billionaires.” She added, “What few details are here overwhelmingly cut taxes for the richest and do little for middle class Americans and those trying to get there.  Besides which, nowhere does President Trump indicate how his deficit-exploding tax plan will actually be paid for.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave it the back of the hand in a written statement, which read in part: “Unfortunately, it seems the Administration is using economic growth like magic beans — the cheap solution to all our problems. But there is no golden goose at the top of the tax cut beanstalk, just mountains of debt. Here is some real math: Debt is twice its historical average; higher as a share of the economy than any time outside of the World War II era; and growing faster than the economy with no end in sight.”

...

This is classic Trump — all flash and big talk, with very little substance. His economic team plainly was not prepared to provide anything approaching a detailed “plan,” but now Republicans’ actual tax plan, if they ever come up with one, will be judged in comparison with a cotton-candy plan that could never become law. Trump did “accomplish” one thing — he reminded us he has concealed his taxes and may stand to reap enormous tax savings as a result of his plan. This hardly seems like populism.

Par for the freaking course.

[sawasdee]

19 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Sadly, that won't work either. In order to explain the Federal Court System, you'd have to reduce it to a 30 second ad on Fox or to a tweet. Those are the only two forms of communication Trump can understand. Even a first grade teacher's explanation would be too hard.

@Audrey2 And that is what is so fucking terrifying! That he can't comprehend at even 1st grade level seems to be a given - and that he DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO UNDERSTAND - is a situation never before encountered at executive level.

It means that either the Cabinet appointees run the Government, with little or no input from the tangerine toddler, - which means that nonelected officials are pushing their own agendas, regardless of the electorate, - or the Government devolves into a non executive mess.

I can't decide which is worse - but I am leaning towards the former.

[GreyhoundFan]

"So far, Trump is really struggling as a chief executive"

Quote

As President Trump’s administration reaches its 100-day mark, many will comment on whether his presidency has been successful legislatively. But comparatively few will examine how well Trump has handled an equally important presidential responsibility: managing the executive branch.

New presidents take charge of governing by appointing capable managers who are simpatico ideologically. Indeed, Trump campaigned in no small part on his skill as a business executive. So how has he done as the nation’s chief executive?

...

Running government like a business requires managers

Further, leaving key positions vacant makes it impossible to run government like a business, one of Trump’s stated goals. Generally, we teach that managers should state clear goals and define bedrock organizational functions. They should then work to refocus structure, process and human capital around those core missions and goals.

The president has begun an ambitious program to reorganize government — but with no appointees in place to define the goals by which that reorganization should be guided. Even if the president wishes to eliminate agencies and programs, he still needs people in place to direct orderly shutdowns. Poorly run shutdowns or reorganizations can cost more than they save.

The president cannot steer the entire federal bureaucracy without intermediaries to put his agenda into action 

Finally, if the president wants to control the bureaucracy, he needs appointees. Career executives are obligated by law to do what the law requires. They will do that the best they know how — which is usually defined as the way they have done it in the past.

Without Trump’s appointees in place to control the levers of action — communications, budgeting, personnel and legal affairs — agencies will keep doing what they have always done. If they don’t respond to Trump’s public statements, the result will look like a bureaucracy that is working against the president.

The president claims that he has few appointees in place because of Democrats’ obstructionism. It’s true that Senate Democrats have tried to delay approval of Trump’s executive and judicial nominees. But their power is limited. They are in the minority — and are no longer able to indefinitely filibuster executive nominees.

But there’s another, more persuasive explanation, for why Trump’s nominations have come so slowly. Filling thousands of positions is an immense and complicated job. The president got a late start — because he decided to disregard much of the work done by his own transition team.

It takes 40 to 60 days for a potential nominee to clear the ethics and FBI background check reviews required before being considered by the Senate. The office that does this, the Office of Presidential Personnel (or OPP) currently employs 36 to 38 people — and Trump has it staffed with campaign and political operatives.

According to the White House Transition Project, Democratic and Republican presidents since the Reagan administration have had an OPP staffed by close to 100 people by the president’s 100-day mark, including professional executive recruiters practiced at precisely this task. Two weeks ago, Politico reported that the reason few nominees are coming out of the OPP is because:

… of micromanaging by the president and senior staff, turf wars between the West Wing and Cabinet secretaries and a largely inexperienced and overworked staff, say more than a dozen sources including administration insiders, lobbyists, lawyers and Republican strategists.

Trump personally oversees the hiring process for agency staff by insisting on combing through a binder full of names each week and likes to sign off on each one. … Also weighing in on the names — and not always agreeing on final picks — are leaders of sometimes warring factions, including chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior strategist Steve Bannon, Cabinet secretaries and, sometimes, the White House’s top lawyer, Don McGahn.

...

I hope he continues to grind along and not appoint too many sycophants, that will help us try to reverse things once we can get him (and Pence) out of office.

[Howl]

35 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Sadly, that won't work either. In order to explain the Federal Court System, you'd have to reduce it to a 30 second ad on Fox or to a tweet. Those are the only two forms of communication Trump can understand. Even a first grade teacher's explanation would be too hard.

John Oliver knows how to do this; the Catheter Cowboy tells you how it is: 

 

[47of74]

 

kcrg.com/content/news/DA-declines-to-charge-woman-who-cast-vote-in-dead-moms-name-420609923.html

Quote

A state prosecutor in North Carolina has declined to bring voter-fraud charges against a woman who cast a vote for Donald Trump in her recently deceased mother's name.

The Charlotte Observer reports that District Attorney David Learner said in a statement Wednesday that it wasn't in the public's interest to charge the unidentified 67-year-old Catawba County woman with the felony offense.

And Learner said this wasn't a partisan decision on his part.  Riiiiiiiigggghhhhhhtttt.

If anyone believes that I have the following for sale....

I can do cash or PayPal.

I mean if she casted a vote for Mrs. Clinton on behalf of her deceased mother Learner would probably have nailed her up to a cross.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Funeral directors book Trump hotel — along with Trump ally Newt Gingrich – for PAC fundraiser"

Quote

Funeral directors from across the country have flocked to Washington for their annual advocacy summit — an event that includes a visit to Capitol Hill, a trip to Arlington Cemetery and lobbying on issues related to burials.

But this year’s gathering comes with a new, high-profile ticket: an evening at the Trump International Hotel alongside one of President Trump’s most steadfast allies, former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

A happy-hour reception, a formal dinner and a keynote address from Gingrich are on the agenda for the gathering Thursday, which will benefit the PAC of the National Funeral Directors Association. Two tiers of tickets are for sale: $99 for the reception or $200 for the entire event.

The invitation, titled, “An Evening with Newt Gingrich,” promotes the Trump International Hotel as a place where “history meets luxury,” which has been restored beyond its “original grandeur.”

“Explore the magnificent space and experience an exclusive evening with the Honorable Newt Gingrich for an inside perspective of politics in Washington, D.C.,” the invitation states.

During the conference this week, the funeral directors aim to lobby lawmakers for passage of the Burial Rights for America’s Veterans’ Efforts Act of 2017, which would increase the financial benefits related to burials and funerals of veterans.

In booking the president’s luxury hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, just a few blocks away from the White House, the funeral directors have joined a growing list of special interest groups bringing their business to Trump properties. Ethical experts have said that the trend raises concerns about efforts to lobby the Trump administration commingled with potentially lucrative business transactions with Trump’s company.

...

“NFDA selected the Trump Hotel because of its historic appeal and because we knew it would be a venue of interest to our members,” said Jessica Koth, spokeswoman for the National Funeral Directors Association. “Former Speaker of the House Mr. Gingrich, similarly, is a historic figure in our country’s recent political history; NFDA felt he may be able to offer a unique perspective on how the political challenges he faced during his time in office compare with recent events and what we might be expect in the future.”

...

The PAC of the National Funeral Directors Association has contributed to primarily Republican candidates, including Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R- Calif.), former congressman Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), who now heads the Department of the Interior, and the “Team Ryan” PAC for Speaker of the House Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), according to Federal Election Commission filings.

A previous iteration of the act introduced by Hunter in 2015 failed to pass, largely due to its estimated cost of nearly $1 billion over a 10-year period, according to documents posted on the funeral directors’ website.

...

Gingrich’s spokesman did not respond to an attempt for comment for this story. The spokeswoman for the funeral directors’ association said that Gingrich’s speech on Thursday is strictly off-limits to the press, as stipulated by a clause in Gingrich’s contract.

Last summer, when Gingrich’s name was floated as a possibility for Trump’s vice presidential candidate, he quipped that he would not take the gig if it involved a certain ceremonial duty — attending funerals.

“I have a very simple test question: If it’s about funerals, I’m not interested,” he said in July.

I guess we should be happy this isn't a violation of the emoluments clause, since it's US-based, but I'm sick of groups kissing up to the tangerine toddler and putting money in his pocket.

[JMarie]

If I could understand this as an eight year old, I have confidence that Trump can, too.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"This failure may doom Trump’s presidency before it really begins"

Quote

For nearly a century, American presidents have played an important, if informal, role in our politics as the leader of their parties. But nearly 100 days into his term, President Trump not only has failed to provide Republicans with skilled leadership, but also seems unaware that he’s even supposed to do so. This failure could doom his presidency before it even really begins.

Franklin D. Roosevelt led the way in defining this role. By setting forth a clear thematic and legislative agenda, Roosevelt gave congressional Democrats direction as they set forth to combat the Great Depression. Their successes established the “100 days” benchmark that has now become the standard by which new presidents are judged.

By contrast, Trump has provided neither clear direction nor a firm legislative agenda for his party. Congressional Republicans and neutral observers alike ask: “What does the president really want?” No one should expect modern presidents to meet Roosevelt’s level of achievement, but Trump isn’t even close. We don’t know what form health-care reform will take; we have only a hastily prepared outline of tax reform; and his pronouncements on other policy issues seem to change as often as the Washington weather.

This lack of leadership was on full display as the Obamacare-repeal debacle played out in March. The president allowed House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to offer up a bill without his apparent direct involvement. Trump provided no clear direction as to which provisions of the bill he was committed to and which he was willing to discard or amend. This, predictably, meant that every faction of Republicans was encouraged to ask for more, which predictably led to different factions asking for incompatible things. Moderates in swing states and Freedom Caucus members in tea party strongholds inevitably have different no-fly zones. Only clear, principled leadership from the Oval Office could have brought these odd bedfellows into accord. A week or two of lobbying was not enough to accomplish this, and even the White House’s current efforts seem to focus only on the House Freedom Caucus to the exclusion of House moderates or senators.

Absence of political leadership is particularly damaging to the modern Republican Party because of the intense and deep fissures running through it. The GOP was bitterly divided into at least four factions prior to Trump’s emergence, and their civil war had waged since at least the 2010 primaries. None of the existing party leaders has the stature, power or credibility to unite this group into a cohesive majority. The president’s failure to step into this fray simply makes the divisions harder to heal.

This state of affairs is compounded by the way Trump won the White House. He mobilized millions of non-Republicans, mainly whites without college degrees, and brought them behind him in historically high numbers. These voters tend to be more economically liberal than any faction of GOP conservatives and less interested in historic Republican unifying themes such as traditional morality or activism overseas. Their priorities — jobs and rising wages, immigration restriction and focusing our military on fighting terrorism — are all out of step with at least one powerful GOP faction. Unless they are integrated into a new Republican majority, the votes that elected Trump and gave the GOP control of the Senate, House and many big state governorships will vanish as quickly as they arrived.

...

Trump was elected to change Washington and “drain the swamp.” Our modern system won’t allow him to do that without first wading deep into the murky waters himself to corral the alligators. If the president does that by the summer months, he might yet begin to fulfill his promises and move the nation in a new direction. But if he doesn’t, he may find the swamp will have drained his power and authority by the time Congress reconvenes in the fall.

"None of the existing party leaders has the stature, power or credibility to unite this group into a cohesive majority. " -- I think that's one of the truest statements I've read about the Republican party.

[bashfulpixie]

On 4/26/2017 at 4:01 PM, Cartmann99 said:

Looks like those with student loans will also get shafted. No longer being able to deduct the interest, or at least part of the interest paid each year, is going to hurt a lot of average people.  

This absolutely infuriates me.  The one kind of debt that is almost impossible to get rid of, that we pay huge amounts of interest on, especially in comparison to other kinds of debt (like the percentage that fucking banks pay when they borrow from the government), and this fuck face is going to eliminate what little help people trying to pay back their loans get. Our generation is having a hard enough time 'launching' due to the crushing amounts of student loan debt, and he wants to make it worse.  Awesome.  

22 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"All the times Trump personally attacked judges — and why his tirades are ‘worse than wrong’"

I swear, I wish someone would deactivate the toddler's Twitter account.

At least we know what batshit direction that piece of shit wants to take us next based on his toddler-esque melt downs.

I swear, he makes me feel like I have tourettes with the amount of swear words that fly out of my mouth practically involuntarily when I talk about him.

[fraurosena]

Keith Olbermann. Poignant and to the point.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump is about to be 0-4 on his legislative promises for his first 100 days"

Quote

Unless he can summon a miracle, President Trump is going to reach 100 days in office without getting anything on his wish list through Congress. And the fact we're measuring his failures by this timetable is largely his fault.

First, what he promised to get done but hasn't:

The biggest tax cut since Ronald Reagan? The one page that the White House released on Wednesday, Day 97, certainly has a lot of tax cuts in it. But it's a sketch of a plan.

Repeal and replace Obamacare? Their first attempt to revise health care blew up in their faces. House Republicans are trying again, but there's no guarantee it can get through Congress — this week or any time. Also, nothing they're considering actually repeals Obamacare like Trump had promised to do.
And, irony alert: Trump will likely have to fund Obamacare subsidies that keep Obamacare alive.

A big, beautiful wall on the U.S.-Mexico border? Trump hasn't gotten a dime budgeted for it — from Mexico or from Congress. And the longer he goes without money for it, the less likely he is to actually get it.

Massive cuts in domestic programs to fund massive increases in military spending? Neither of those things will be reflected in this month's spending bill to keep the government open, and experts aren't sure these changes will ever pass Congress.

A $1 trillion infrastructure reform package: What infrastructure reform? This isn't even on Congress's radar right now.

Finally, Trump won't even sign a four-month spending bill to keep the government open for the rest of the fiscal year in his first 100 days. Congress looks likely to put off negotiations for another week by passing a one-week spending bill before the deadline Friday, Trump's 99th day in office.

"The things where he himself put timetables — tax reform, infrastructure, a real budget, repeal and replace — he's 0 for 4," said Steve Bell, a former GOP Senate budget aide now with the Bipartisan Policy Institute.

Trump's biggest only 100-day legislative victories aren't game plans he can follow to get anything above done, even in his first 1,000 days. He has signed more than a dozen laws rolling back Obama-era regulations on everything from guns to coal dumping to education. But the obscure law he and Republicans used to do it is only good for another month.

...

Even the stuff Trump can do on his own — executive orders — have hit quicksand. His most significant executive orders, a travel ban and pressure on sanctuary cities, are stuck in the courts.

Trump has about exhausted his unilateral power. The rest of his agenda needs Congress to get done.

No president — no matter how much of a dealmaker  — can force Congress to pass bills. But Trump set himself up for failure in a way past presidents never have. He promised to get his priorities through Congress in a matter of months.

...

Congress has always been tricky for presidents to navigate, but this Congress is especially so. Republicans have a majority in both the House and the Senate, but it's an ideologically divided majority. (Trump couldn't close that divide to get health-care reform through in March.) Making his life harder, Democrats are almost entirely unified behind one goal: to give Trump as many losses as they can.

"If you don't understand the legislative process really seriously, you're going to make mistakes," Bell said.

...

Congress was always going to be a headache for Trump. No one expected him to get tax reform, health care, a border wall and infrastructure reform done in his first four months. No one except Trump.

And that's why we're writing a story pointing out that Trump is nearly 100 days in, and he has zero of his legislative promises to tweet about.

If he keeps hearing things like this, maybe he'll get more and more frustrated and quit.

[Howl]

41 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Keith Olbermann. Poignant and to the point.

 

Mind completely blown. 

[fraurosena]

I know this is Sky News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, of Faux news fame, but I want to share this with you nevertheless. 

Who is KT McFarland? Well, she worked for Nixon and Reagan, and now for Trump. The things she says in this interview (she's sticking up for Misha Flynn, for one) makes me think she bears watching in the Russian Connection.

[onekidanddone]

6 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Sadly, that won't work either. In order to explain the Federal Court System, you'd have to reduce it to a 30 second ad on Fox or to a tweet. Those are the only two forms of communication Trump can understand. Even a first grade teacher's explanation would be too hard.

I would like to see him try. Just add it to the pile to use for impeachment. 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

I know this is Sky News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, of Faux news fame, but I want to share this with you nevertheless. 

Who is KT McFarland? Well, she worked for Nixon and Reagan, and now for Trump. The things she says in this interview (she's sticking up for Misha Flynn, for one) makes me think she bears watching in the Russian Connection.

She was brought in by Flynn. She used to be a commentator for..,wait for it...Faux News. Not a fan. Since she was/is close to Flynn, yes, I would think she'd be examined for Russian connections.

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

I know this is Sky News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, of Faux news fame, but I want to share this with you nevertheless. 

Who is KT McFarland? Well, she worked for Nixon and Reagan, and now for Trump. The things she says in this interview (she's sticking up for Misha Flynn, for one) makes me think she bears watching in the Russian Connection.

I am hoping against all hope they can get Flynn to flip. Not that I want to see him walk for is crimes, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts he knows stuff. 

[Howl]

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I am hoping against all hope they can get Flynn to flip. Not that I want to see him walk for is crimes, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts he knows stuff. 

Well, he generously offered to testify in exchange for immunity.  Nobody's fallen for his offer yet. 

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump is about to be 0-4 on his legislative promises for his first 100 days"

If he keeps hearing things like this, maybe he'll get more and more frustrated and quit.

Pence is a fuckwad, but we as a country can (I hope) come back from a conservative. Coming back from a fascist not so easy. I'm running it over in my mind how orange shit stain would sell the whole quitting thing. I'm not sure how he would spin it, but he would make it look as if he won. This is the first “job” he has ever had where he didn't get his way 100% of the time. New territory for him. You know having to follow the so called “Constitution”.

He might put the blame on the brown people, Democrats or God knows who else. His supporters scare the bloody fuck out of me. I shudder to think of what they would do.

Aaaaad here I go obsessing again.

[GreyhoundFan]

50 minutes ago, Howl said:

Well, he generously offered to testify in exchange for immunity.  Nobody's fallen for his offer yet. 

One commentator I heard (sorry, I can't remember where), said that he was very possibly just trying to get ahead of the game, and by offering to testify in exchange for immunity early on, he can avoid more questions later. Also, he may not know as much as is presumed, and the immunity clears the way for him to walk away.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied"

Quote

A watchdog group led by former Obama administration lawyers filed lawsuits Thursday against three federal agencies to force them to release communications the group suspects show the Trump administration is bullying civil servants.

The complaints, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, contend that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Energy Department are violating the law by refusing to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act for communications about career employees between top White House political aides and their counterparts at the agencies. The group also is appealing a State Department decision on a similar request for information.

The court actions — one of dozens of legal challenges the administration is facing on its immigration policies and conflicts related to President Trump’s business holdings, was filed by United to Protect Democracy, which formed in February.

One of the group’s top missions is to protect civil servants — whose jobs are by definition not political — from what it says are early, troubling signs of intimidation by the administration, particularly of scientists, attorneys and policy experts who may be being reassigned or fired because of a perception that they oppose the White House’s agenda.

“What we’re looking for is: Are civil servants being bullied or intimidated?” said Ben Berwick, a former Justice Department lawyer with Protect Democracy who filed the complaints. “Are they being hired or fired or reassigned because of their perceived political views?”

...

And after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that hundreds of State Department employees who had signed a dissent cable opposing the Trump administration’s travel ban on majority-Muslim nations should “either get with the program or go,” Protect Democracy sought communications among political aides about those employees too.

“What we’ve seen from the administration has people understandably nervous, so we want to get the facts,” Berwick said. “If [Spicer] is saying publicly that dissenters should quit, what are they saying and doing behind closed doors?”

The State Department informed the group that it would charge  “potentially exorbitant fees” to fulfill the information request, the complaint filed Thursday says. It appeals that ruling, arguing that the law requires fees to be waived if the request is in the public interest — which the plaintiffs claim it is.

...

Gee, how much do you want to bet that there is bullying going on?