Trump 21: Tweeting Us Into the Apocalypse

[Penny]

@JMarie   I love Linda Ronstadt !  

I have decided that Orange Slime has gone crazy. He is in over his head and is making all these distractions to take away the fact that he cannot do the job. I think the tweet about the Transgender military to to try to keep the Republicans on his side.  I wake up every morning and wonder what shit storm we are in for today.

[GreyhoundFan]

This. So much this. "The White House isn’t at war with leaks. It’s at war with basic transparency."

Spoiler

Two incidents over the past 24 hours have made glaringly obvious what has been hinted at for the past two years: President Trump and his loyalists potentially find the release of nearly any information about what they’re doing to be offensive, no matter how mundane.

Often this is couched in the use of the word “leaks.” There are real leaks in the White House, and information has been provided to the news media that is unusually sensitive in nature. There are also more anodyne leaks of the palace-intrigue variety. And then there are things that are called leaks but which aren’t.

Anthony Scaramucci has been in the West Wing for less than a week, assuming the role of communications director on Friday. But he’s already made a place for himself in the history books with a remarkable phone-in interview Thursday morning on CNN, reaching out to the network’s “New Day” program to dispute claims made by an on-air guest. He then stayed on the phone for half an hour, peppering CNN’s hosts with a number of remarkable comments.

Leaking was one of the main subjects, though, since Scaramucci on Wednesday night lashed out on Twitter after Politico published details from his personal financial disclosure. This he dubbed a “leak” on Twitter, hinting that he believed White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was behind it. (The tweet has been deleted.) He also tagged the FBI in the tweet, and Ryan Lizza — the New Yorker writer who was on “New Day” when Scaramucci called in — confirmed that Scaramucci’s intent was to launch a federal investigation that would look at any role Priebus played.

...

But here’s the thing: Those forms are publicly available from the Export-Import Bank where Scaramucci served as an officer, as the Politico reporter noted Thursday morning. It’s public information — just information that Scaramucci apparently didn’t want released.

Earlier in the day on Wednesday, a different version of the same impulse. After President Trump announced a major policy change to the military on Twitter, the subject — quite expectedly — came up during the White House press briefing. Incoming White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked repeatedly for more details about the policy, not yielding much in response. Eventually, she made an unusual announcement — if the press was going to keep asking questions on the subject in lieu of anything else, she’d just go ahead and end the press briefing.

Sanders has proven adept at offering very little information even for other questions, of course, often defaulting to a “I’ll have to check on that” response to reporters’ inquiries. That’s when the White House has a press briefing; often, in the past few months, the briefing has been skipped or held off-camera.

Trump himself has been broadly averse to unsolicited questions from the press. He’s held only one full news conference as president and went for more than a month without conducting a sit-down interview. After he invited the press to cover a photo shoot with outgoing White House interns, he expressed frustration that the assembled reporters had the gall to actually ask him questions.

This is the same person who broke with decades of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns. It’s the president whose administration has chosen to hide its visitor logs, to stop reporting troop deployments, to meet with foreign officials in the Oval Office or at major summits without notifying the press or, in the latter case, without another American present. The president whose secretary of state included only one reporter on his first overseas jaunt. It’s a president who scoots off to his personal golf course nearly every weekend but won’t admit to the press he’s playing golf.

Trump has bashed “leakers” on his official communications channel (i.e., Twitter) dozens of times since taking office, using the term broadly to refer to anyone releasing information that he’s not happy about. That’s how Scaramucci used it, too. Trump, like Scaramucci, has also used the threat of access to federal prosecution as a means of impugning critics. Trump suggested that former FBI director James B. Comey violated the law by giving a memo to a friend to give to the press, though there’s no indication that doing so was illegal. To keep people in line, Trump’s team looks for the biggest cudgel available; as president, that’s the Justice Department.

What Trump wants isn’t solely an end to unauthorized information dripping out the White House windows (though he certainly wants that). He wants, more broadly, for no negative information about him or anyone he likes to be released at all, regardless of past practice and expectations. His frustration with the media isn’t really that the media makes things up, it’s that the media has the gall to tell the truth. He loves “Fox and Friends” (praising it yet again on Twitter on Thursday morning) and he loves Sean Hannity because neither has shown any interest in critical, objective coverage of his presidency. That’s the sort of information-sharing Trump supports.

...

President Trump and his core allies want you to know only what President Trump wants you to know. Everything else is leaks or “fake news.” Or, somehow, both.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I think this is one of Jennifer Rubin's best: "The frightful state of the GOP"

Spoiler

A large segment of Republican voters should try turning off Fox News and allowing reality to permeate the shell they’ve constructed to keep out ideas that interfere with their prejudices and abject ignorance. Unfair? Take a look at the latest poll to suggest that Trump voters like their cult hero feel compelled to label inconvenient facts “fake news.” Morning Consult reporters: “A plurality of Republicans say President Donald Trump received more of the popular vote in 2016 than his Democratic rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to a new Morning Consult/POLITICO poll, 47 percent of Republican voters said Trump outpaced Clinton — despite her nearly 2.9 million-vote advantage after all the states certified their election results.”

Perhaps they believe President Trump’s fallacious assertion that 3 million to 5 million illegal voters put Clinton over the top in the popular vote. Maybe they never grasped that Trump lost the popular vote. But this is embarrassing, shocking even. The report continues:

Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American, said in an email Tuesday that Trump has “perfected the technique of the Big Lie” — which, as he wrote in an op-ed last fall, is to “repeat a lie loudly, over and over until people come to believe it.”

“These results show that again that like ‘Birtherism,’ which launched Trump’s political career, the Big Lie continues to work, at least among those who want to believe it,” noted Lichtman, a professor who won professional acclaim last year after correctly predicting Trump’s victory.

If these voters do not know or cannot accept something as simple as vote totals, do we really expect they will be amenable to reason on immigration (sorry, but illegal immigrants aren’t causing a crime wave), global warning (sorry, it’s not a hoax) or uncontroverted evidence of Russian meddling in the election? I’m sure all this makes the Trump staff and surrogates laugh uproariously as they admire their handiwork in bamboozling the angry mob. But they and the network of right-wing enablers have done real damage to our society and politics, making differences impossible to bridge and reasoned debate nearly impossible.

Trump, as Kellyanne Conway tells us, does not think he is lying when he tells us demonstrably false things. What does that say of his mental fitness and the lack of responsibility of those around him in encouraging him to operate in a parallel reality?

And here’s where the executives at Fox News, the “serious” conservative media, elected GOP officials and even self-identified conservative pundits need to be held to account. They know much of the rubric of the Trump cult is absolutely false, yet they repeat, propagate or just tolerate it. It’s a game in which the only rule is to beat “liberal elites” or run a successful money-making operation where gullible donors can be fleeced with an appeal to stop perceived enemies (i.e., those who won’t drink the Kool-Aid).

Democracy presupposes a minimally informed, responsible adult electorate. Right now it is clear the GOP is dominated by fact-deniers and willfully ignorant folk. Whether they got that way because sleazy politicians conned them and Fox News lulled them into a stupor or whether spineless pols are simply filling a niche remains a matter of debate. But here’s the thing: The rest of the country should empathize with their economic plight and sense of alienation, but that does not mean we should coddle them in their ignorance nor defer to judgments based on fabrication. They feel “disrespected” when fellow Americans point to reality? Trumpkins think elites are condescending when they call them “low information” voters? (It should be non-information voters.) Sorry, economic hardship does not bestow moral authority to lie, invent facts, smear opponents, blame foreigners or support lawlessness. And for elected Republicans to defer to the ignorant, beguiled voters is an abdication of their role and oaths.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) bellowed at his colleagues to “stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet.” Here’s a better idea: Stop deferring to a horde of know-nothings.

YES

[moodygirl86]

On 26.07.2017 at 2:10 PM, wotdancer said:

OMFG.

 

 

What the fuck did I just read?

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin: "The GOP’s cowardice invites Trump to fire Sessions"

Spoiler

If you thought that President Trump was testing the waters, probing for a backlash, as he contemplated firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions and, further, that it might be a really good idea for Republicans to signal strongly that this action (presumably a steppingstone to firing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III) would spell the beginning of the end of his presidency, you’d have been distressed by the GOP reaction.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), in what is now his familiar cowardly crouch, declared, “The president gets to decide what his personnel is.” In case that wasn’t sufficiently obsequious, he added: “It’s up to the president to decide what his personnel decision is and any possible fallout that comes from that.” Sessions could hardly have gotten a worse signal, nor Trump a more encouraging one. (Incidentally, the president does not get to decide his Cabinet personnel all by himself. The Senate votes to confirm.) Ryan seems not in the least concerned about the president’s apparent aim to halt Mueller’s investigation.

Frankly, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) did not do much better, if at all. In a written statement (he actually had time to think this through!), he said: “Jeff Sessions is a good man and a fine Attorney General. Jeff is working to keep our streets safe, secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, and protect our nation. The American people are fortunate to have him as the Attorney General.” Not a peep about firing him. No reminder about the apolitical nature of the Justice Department. No argument against Trump’s ridiculous notion that by following ethical standards, Sessions had harmed the presidency (a specious claim from Trump on Tuesday). Another profile in no courage.

Trump sees everything in terms of personal loyalty, so no rule, no ethical norm can justify what he sees as a failure to defend him (from federal investigators!). Not doing his bidding amounts to betrayal, in Trump’s mind. Moreover, because Trump is not loyal to anyone, he assumes that no one else is motivated by loyalty either. Sessions decided to endorse him, in Trump’s telling, because of the size of Trump’s crowds in Alabama. (There’s that crowd size fixation again!)

My, it would have been grand had some Republican warned Trump that treating the Justice Department as his personal law firm is dangerous and wrong and invites grave legal/political consequences. Justice Department lawyers are the people’s lawyers, not Trump’s personal protection racket. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) came the closest to slapping down the president when he put out a statement reminding the White House, “Prosecutorial decisions should be based on applying facts to the law without hint of political motivation. To do otherwise is to run away from the long-standing American tradition of separating the law from politics regardless of party.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was right to remind his colleagues on Tuesday, “Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the president’s subordinates. We are his equal!” Ryan, Cotton and the vast majority of GOP House and Senate members do not get that. They are afraid of Trump and his cultist followers, afraid of falling out of favor with a Trumpified party that they imagine can be a vehicle for their policies. (How’s that working out so far?) If they cannot bring themselves to forcefully defend a conservative darling, a former Senate colleague and an advocate of many of their policies (which I may vehemently disagree with, but that’s neither here nor there), does anyone imagine that they’ll go to war with Trump if he fired Sessions and then Mueller? I fear that we may find out the disappointing answer as we drift toward a constitutional crisis brought about by weak-kneed Republicans who think they are Trump employees.

She's right. It seems that the Repugs think they are employees of Agent Orange, not the American people.

[JMarie]

Statement from Michael Surbaugh, Chief Scout Executive for the Boy Scouts of America

Quote

Scouting Family,In the last two weeks, we have celebrated the best of Scouting at our 20th National Jamboree with nearly 40,000 participants, volunteers, staff and visitors. The 2017 National Jamboree has showcased and furthered the Scouting mission by combining adventure and leadership development to give youth life-changing experiences. Scouts from Alaska met Scouts from Alabama; Scouts from New Mexico met those from New York, and American youth met youth from 59 other countries.Over the course of ten days, Scouts have taken part in adventures, learned new skills, made new and lasting friendships and completed over 200 community service projects that offered 100,000 hours of service to the community by young men and women eager to do the right thing for the right reasons.These character-building experiences have not diminished in recent days at the jamboree – Scouts have continued to trade patches, climb rock walls, and share stories about the day’s adventures. But for our Scouting family at home not able to see these real moments of Scouting, we know the past few days have been overshadowed by the remarks offered by the President of the United States.I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree. That was never our intent. The invitation for the sitting U.S. President to visit the National Jamboree is a long-standing tradition that has been extended to the leader of our nation that has had a Jamboree during his term since 1937. It is in no way an endorsement of any person, party or policies. For years, people have called upon us to take a position on political issues, and we have steadfastly remained non-partisan and refused to comment on political matters. We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program.While we live in a challenging time in a country divided along political lines, the focus of Scouting remains the same today as every day.Trustworthiness, loyalty, kindness and bravery are just a few of the admirable traits Scouts aspire to develop – in fact, they make up the Scout Oath and Scout Law.As part of our program’s duty to country, we teach youth to become active citizens, to participate in their government, respect the variety of perspectives and to stand up for individual rights.Few will argue the importance of teaching values and responsibility to our youth — not only right from wrong, but specific positive values such as fairness, courage, honor and respect for others.For all of the adventure we provide youth such as hiking, camping and zip-lining, those activities actually serve as proven pathways and opportunities to develop leadership skills and become people of character.In a time when differences seem to separate our country, we hope the true spirit of Scouting will empower our next generation of leaders to bring people together to do good in the world.Yours in Scouting,Mike

 

[GrumpyGran]

7 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Statement from Michael Surbaugh, Chief Scout Executive for the Boy Scouts of America

 

Hmm, well... In all fairness, they do sort of have to extend the invitation and I won't defend the Boy Scouts in everything they have done, but they we're victims of bad timing. Trump was primed for a whiny blowout and does not understand appropriateness. I wouldn't be surprised if someone finds him standing at the glass in a hospital nursery, complaining to the babies about Hillary and Fake News.

I bet this Scout guy wishes he could take Trump out into the woods, give him a pocket knife and leave him.

[GreyhoundFan]

"How Trump’s delusions of voter fraud will turn election results into fake news"

Spoiler

On Monday, a federal judge cleared the way for President Trump’s commission on voter fraud to begin collecting data on the nation’s voters, purportedly to assess how widespread voter fraud is in the United States. It’s worth asking what the president might hope to accomplish by undermining public confidence in the results of an election he won. Allegations of electoral fraud might be expected from a losing candidate. But from the victor?

It is tempting, given Trump’s personality, to attribute his repeated claims of widespread voter fraud to the need of a fragile ego to explain away his 3 million vote shortfall in the popular vote, or to chalk it all up to a desire to curtail voting rights for populations who generally don’t vote Republican. But there are further and bigger reasons Trump might pursue the narrative that American voting is hopelessly broken. Trump’s insistence that American elections are beset by voter fraud also contributes to a larger effort to erode what little confidence remains among Americans in the institutions of government. When citizens have no confidence in the government, the party whose central ideological message is “government is bad” benefits.

Last week, Trump’s panel, officially titled the Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity (CEI), held its first meeting and news conference. Although Vice President Pence described the CEI in his opening comments as “a bipartisan group that will perform a nonpartisan service to the American people,” Trump’s description of the commission as his “Voter Fraud Panel” makes explicit its mandate.

The commission is certain to operate off data that is well-known to be inaccurate. Commission chairman Kris Kobach has lauded the use of the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck system to identify multiple registrations for an individual voter. The flawed and widely discredited system has been shown to produce more than 200 false positives for every instance of multiple registration. As Kansas secretary of state, Kobach used the system and was fined by a federal magistrate for his “patently misleading representations” of the data. Furthermore, multiple registration proves neither fraud nor intent to commit fraud; it represents an administrative error that occurs when a voter moves, updates his or her registration, and the previous jurisdiction fails to immediately purge the previous one. Using Crosscheck, then, is relying on a flawed system that is effective only at disenfranchising legitimately registered voters.

Trump’s insistence that voter fraud is widespread derives not merely from this faulty data but also largely from conjecture, rumors and anecdotes. For Trump, evidence always boils down to tales of “something” seen by “someone,” specifics unnecessary. In January he created an “exceedingly awkward moment” with Republican lawmakers by revealing that his claims of widespread fraud originate with a third-hand anecdote from golfer Bernhard Langer. (Langer, a noncitizen who cannot vote, has disavowed the rumor.)

Thus, it is widely recognized that Trump’s voter fraud paranoia is based on a combination of bad data and hearsay of the type usually found in Facebook comments. What, then, helps account for the president’s insistence on pushing this narrative?

The delusion that there must be widespread voter fraud is best understood as a cousin of the “fake news” allegation that Trump and his supporters apply to any piece of information that is incompatible with their existing worldview. While allegations of lying in the media allow Trump and his allies to eliminate trust in any media outlets whose reporting might threaten him, allegations of voter fraud discredit the political process as a whole. This lays the groundwork for future close elections (or any in which Republicans are unsuccessful) to be denounced as illegitimate. Trump is casting the very mechanism by which Americans do politics as hopelessly corrupt and broken.

In their 2015 book “Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis,” political scientists Marc Hetherington and Thomas Rudolph demonstrate in an extensive data analysis that levels of political trust in the United States have eroded dramatically over time. Accordingly, political efficacy — a combination of trust and citizens’ belief that they are able by their actions to influence government and politics — has plummeted. Mediocre voter turnout is a measurable manifestation of the belief among many Americans that voting simply doesn’t matter. Trump’s campaign against imaginary voter fraud is a campaign against the last bit of confidence Americans may have in their political system — that the results of American elections are real and fair.

The idea that the government cannot competently conduct an election dovetails nicely with conservative messaging. If citizens internalize this belief, then the argument that government should be downsized, restrained, neutered or otherwise vastly reduced will resonate more with the public. Moreover, if election results become another thing classified as “fake news,” any elected official and every act of government can be depicted as illegitimate, unjust and wrong. If the electoral system is presumed guilty, then no government it produces can have a mandate of popular support. For the party that longs to reduce the role of the government, this kind of vitiation of public authority is very useful.

Of course, if there is a real threat to the integrity of American elections, it is the sustained effort by Republicans to suppress voter registration and turnout — disenfranchising ex-felons, instituting discriminatory requirements for voting, making more difficult the process of voter registration, and limiting the availability of absentee ballots and early voting. But don’t expect the CEI to address these problems anytime soon — they will be busy hunting down phantom illegal voters the president hears about on the golf course.

This is so very true.

[kpmom]

ITA with not worrying about Sessions getting his itty bitty feelings hurt.  Hey, you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.

However, maybe Jeffy will serve as a cautionary tale to Republicans thinking they will get any loyalty from  asshole Trump.

Piss him off and this can happen to any of them.

Maybe he'll turn on enough of them that they'll happily start impeachment procedures soon.

[apple1]

5 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Hmm, well... In all fairness, they do sort of have to extend the invitation...

They could have had a sudden mysterious failure of their PA system. :-(

Edited to add: "I'm sorry you were offended" is not an apology.

[nvmbr02]

6 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Hmm, well... In all fairness, they do sort of have to extend the invitation and I won't defend the Boy Scouts in everything they have done, but they we're victims of bad timing.

True, they are in a position where they sort of have to invite the president. However, they are 100% responsible for the actions of their toop leaders, boy scout employees and boy scouts present. The fact they had leaders clapping and booing a former president absolutely deserves an apology as well as some retraining on the values that scouting is supposed to be teaching.

1 hour ago, apple1 said:

They could have had a sudden mysterious failure of their PA system. :-(

Edited to add: "I'm sorry you were offended" is not an apology.

And I agree, it is a non- apology apology at best. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting: "A trifecta of criticism for President Trump with this message: Change your behavior"

Spoiler

President Trump recorded a remarkable trifecta on Thursday. In fewer than 24 hours, he was rebuked by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the chief scout executive for the Boy Scouts of America.

On a day when so many eyes and ears in Washington were riveted on the escalating feud between White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, no one should lose sight of the incoming fire that arrived at the White House.

It didn’t come from the hard left or the Democratic resistance. Instead, it came from people who represent communities or constituencies considered friendly to the president: the Republican Party, the military, and a civic organization known for its promotion of patriotism and traditional values.

The rebukes were carefully worded so as not to be true rebukes, but they were unmistakable in their intent. In their own ways, the messages to the president carried a common theme: They were asking him to stop behaving as he has been behaving. Trump has crossed so many lines, as a candidate and as president, that the public often is numbed to what he says and does. Not this time. Perhaps that’s because each of the rebukes was about a different transgression, all of them coming in the period of only a few days.

It’s far too early to know whether they mark a turning point in how people who have been at least nominally supportive of the president will approach him in the future, but Trump ought not to be dismissive of their significance. The critiques may not change the president’s behavior, but as a marker of the rising concern about the president even from allies, they couldn’t have been more obvious.

The first of the three came from Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the generally even-tempered chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It was in response to the president’s repeated tweets and statements brutalizing Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The president will not forgive Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation, and as his blood pressure has risen week by week, he decided to lash out.

The tweets attacking Sessions and the president’s comments — “Time will tell,” Trump said when asked about the attorney general’s future — sparked fears that the president was looking to fire Sessions or force him to resign, with the obvious next step of appointing someone who in one way or another could contain or get rid of the Russia investigation now in the hands of special counsel Robert Mueller.

In terse language, Grassley made clear that he would not consider holding confirmation hearings for a replacement any time this year. That would leave the Justice Department in the hands of Rod J. Rosenstein, the career prosecutor who is now deputy attorney general and someone who also has earned Trump’s disrespect for having appointed Mueller.

Grassley’s stamp of disapproval was an extension of the chorus of support for Sessions from his former colleagues in the Senate, particularly those in the Republican Party. They responded to the president’s public humiliation of the attorney general and the implied threat to Mueller with varying degrees of alarm. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said there would be “hell to pay” if Trump decides to force Sessions out and rein in Mueller’s operation.

For the most part, Republicans on Capitol Hill have sought to avert their gaze whenever the president’s tweets or actions spark controversy. So there has been nothing like this so far in Trump’s presidency. Whether that’s because it involves a former member of the Capitol Hill club or because of the potential implications for a constitutional crisis if the president tries to scuttle the Mueller investigation, the response to this has been different.

Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was responding to a different controversy, the president’s sudden and unexpected announcement — through Twitter — that transgender individuals would be banned from military service.

Amid confusion within the ranks, Dunford issued a statement saying there would be “no modification” to current policy until the Pentagon receives an actual directive from the president and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has had adequate time to evaluate it and decides how to implement it. In other words, the Pentagon will not allow the president to change policy through a tweet.

As was reported in the hours after Trump’s tweet, Pentagon officials were caught by surprise by the proposed ban. The reaction to the ban was immediate, starting with the LGBT community and transgender members of the military and extending to Democratic and Republican lawmakers and many citizens. If Trump was simply playing to the culturally conservative part of his political base, he miscalculated the overall state of public opinion — and perhaps his own military.

The third rebuke came in two stages. It took the leaders of the Boy Scouts several days to issue a full criticism of the president’s appearance at the 20th National Jamboree, which is held every four years. Presidents are always invited to address scouts at the jamboree. Those who have done so in the past have stuck to obvious themes of service, civic virtue and pride in America.

Trump treated his appearance as just another raucous political rally. He was partisan, attacking rival Hillary Clinton and former president Barack Obama. He was offensive, talking to the young Americans about the “hottest” parties in New York and a rich friend who he said did things that he couldn’t reveal to such a young audience.

No doubt unwilling to directly criticize the president, the Scout association initially issued an anodyne statement reminding everyone that the Boy Scouts are open to all ideas and generally free of politics and partisanship.

On Thursday, Michael Surbaugh, the chief scout executive, went further, issuing a lengthy apology on the Boy Scouts website. The good works by scouts at the jamboree, he said, had been “overshadowed by the remarks offered by the president of the United States.” He extended “sincere apologies” to those offended and said injecting partisan politics into the event was “never our intent.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about the apology at her briefing. She said she hadn’t read it. She was there at the jamboree with the president and saw nothing inappropriate in his words. She noted as well that many of the scouts were cheering the president, which was correct. Older and more experienced members of the scouting family knew that the president crossed a line, and the reaction was swift and harsh.

The Pentagon will carry out the transgender directive (assuming it arrives from the White House) once it has been reviewed and evaluated. Trump is their commander in chief. The Boy Scouts will retreat quickly now that they have apologized to the president’s critics. They are not a combative or confrontational organization. Republican lawmakers will approach their battles with the president gingerly. They are risk averse about offending Trump’s loyalists.

Still, the triple criticism, on three separate issues, from the Trump-friendly side of the American electorate should be a signal to the president. But is he listening?

Nope, he's not listening.

[GreyhoundFan]

Great opinion piece; "The worst is yet to come"

Spoiler

The Court of Mad King Donald is not a presidency. It is an affliction, one that saps the life out of our democratic institutions, and it must be fiercely resisted if the nation as we know it is to survive.

I wish that were hyperbole. The problem is not just that President Trump is selfish, insecure, egotistical, ignorant and unserious. It is that he neither fully grasps nor minimally respects the concept of honor, without which our governing system falls apart. He believes “honorable” means “obsequious in the service of Trump.” He believes everyone else’s motives are as base as his.

The Trump administration is, indeed, like the court of some accidental monarch who is tragically unsuited for the duties of his throne. However long it persists, we must never allow ourselves to think of the Trump White House as anything but aberrant. We must fight for the norms of American governance lest we forget them in their absence.

It gets worse and worse. The past week has marked a succession of new lows.

Trump has started a sustained campaign to goad or humiliate Attorney General Jeff Sessions into resigning. Trump has blasted Sessions on Twitter, at a news conference, in newspaper interviews and at a campaign-style rally. He has called Sessions “beleaguered” and said repeatedly how “disappointed” he is in the attorney general.

Forget, for the moment, that Sessions was the first sitting U.S. senator to support Trump’s campaign, giving him credibility among conservatives. Forget also that Sessions is arguably having more success than any other Cabinet member in getting Trump’s agenda implemented. Those things aside, what kind of leader treats a lieutenant with such passive-aggressive obnoxiousness? Trump is too namby-pamby to look Sessions in the eye and say, “You’re fired.”

That’s what the president clearly is trying to summon the courage to do, however. The Post reported that Trump has been “musing” with his courtiers about the possibility of firing Sessions and naming a replacement during the August congressional recess.

Trump has no respect for the rule of law. He is enraged that Sessions recused himself from the investigation of Russia’s meddling in the election, and thus is not in a position to protect the House of Trump from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. According to the New York Times, “Sharing the president’s frustration have been people in his family, some of whom have come under scrutiny in the Russia investigation.” I’m guessing that means the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Who elected them , by the way?

Trump seeks to govern by whim and fiat. On Wednesday morning, he used Twitter to announce a ban on transgender people serving in the military, surprising his own top military leaders. A Pentagon spokesman told reporters to ask the White House for details; White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters to ask the Pentagon. Was Trump trying to reignite the culture wars? Would the thousands of transgender individuals now serving in the military be purged? Was this actual policy or just a fit of indigestion?

Inside the mad king’s court, the internecine battles are becoming ever more brutal. Members of Trump’s inner circle seek his favor by leaking negative information about their rivals. This administration is more hostile to the media than any in recent memory but is also more eager to whisper juicy dirt about the ambitious courtier down the hall.

Trump’s new favorite, Anthony Scaramucci, struts around more like a chief of staff than a communications director, which is his nominal role. Late Wednesday night — after dining with Trump and his head cheerleader, Sean Hannity — Scaramucci took a metaphorical rapier to the actual chief of staff, Reince Priebus, by strongly hinting on Twitter that Priebus leaks to reporters. The next morning, Scaramucci told CNN that “if Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that.” And in a profanity-laden phone call to the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, Scaramucci called Priebus “a f---ing paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac.”

Why bring in Scaramucci? Because, I fear, the mad king is girding for war. Trump is reckless enough to fire Mueller if he digs too deeply into the business dealings of the Trump Organization and the Kushner Companies.

What then? Will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) draft and push through a new special-prosecutor statute so that Mueller can quickly be reappointed? Will House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately open debate on articles of impeachment? Will we, the people, defend our democracy?

Do not become numb to the mad king’s outrages. The worst is yet to come.

It does seem like "Mooch" is gunning for the chief of staff position. What a scary thought.

[nvmbr02]

Any bets on when the TT twitter tantrum will begin now that the GOP has failed yet again on healthcare? I'm guessing it is going to be a good one. Unfortunately, I'll be asleep when it starts.

[nvmbr02]

I was wrong! It is starting! I figured he would need to stew for a couple of hours first.

What an asshat. 

 

[fraurosena]

America, your presidunce is delusional.

Donald Trump says White House staff are fighting over who loves him the most

Quote

President Donald Trump has cast aside stories about White House infighting, describing the leaks as employees bickering over “who loves me the most”.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr Trump said his Justice Department should start cracking down on federal employees who leak to the media – except those who have positive things to say about him.

“Number one, they should go after the leakers in intelligence,” he said. “I don’t mean the White House stuff where they’re fighting over who loves me the most, OK? It’s just stupid people doing that.”

It’s unclear which stories Mr Trump was referencing in his comments, which elicited laughter from the room. But the press has been replete with stories about White House intrigue in recent days, as the Trump administration has undergone a dramatic staffing shakeup.

Last week, the President appointed former Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci to lead his communications team, despite protest from his top advisers. Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced his resignation, saying, “Organisationally, they need to get a fresh start”.

Correction, he is a delusional laughingstock.

[nvmbr02]

3 hours ago, nvmbr02 said:

I was wrong! It is starting! I figured he would need to stew for a couple of hours first.

What an asshat. 

 

Bummer,  False alarm and now I'm headed to bed shortly. Oh well. At least I can sleep tonight. 

[fraurosena]

Oh. Presiduncial tweets aren't legal edicts. Who knew?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Pentagon takes no steps to enforce Trump's transgender ban

Spoiler

The Pentagon is bracing for White House guidance on enforcing President Donald Trump's decision to ban transgender people from the armed forces — orders that military and legal experts say could kick out thousands of troops who just a year ago were told they could serve openly.

The White House indicated Thursday that the president intends to carry out the decision he announced in a series of tweets that, taken at face value, would mean drumming out all service members who identify as transgender.

“The White House will work with the Department of Defense and all of the relevant parties to make sure that we fully implement this policy moving forward and do so in a lawful manner," press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters.

"They are going to have to work out the details," she added.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Pentagon to begin updating its guidelines. But it is unclear whether the troops in question — as many as 15,000 by some estimates — would face honorable or dishonorable discharges if the military indeed forces them out.

A dishonorable discharge would strip them of access to a number of veterans’ benefits, including mental health and educational help.

But even an honorable discharge could be problematic, said Kristofer Goldsmith, president and founder of High Ground Veterans Advocacy, a civic group for military veterans.

When troops were discharged under the so-called "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy — which permitted gays and lesbians to serve only if they kept their sexual orientation secret — the reason for discharge was listed as “homosexual admission” or “homosexual conduct” on the official forms, essentially outing the veterans to potential employers.

Congress and then-President Barack Obama lifted the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in late 2010.

Goldsmith said it’s unclear if the Trump administration will create a “transgender” separation code that could reveal veterans’ gender identities to future employers and potentially create problems.

“I think that’s very possible,” he said. “Until we receive further guidance from the White House, I’m just going to assume the worst.”

The president said Wednesday in a series of three tweets that transgender troops would no longer be allowed to serve "in any capacity." The announcement sparked fierce criticism from lawmakers in both parties, while advocacy groups immediately threatened to take the president to court to overturn any ban.

In the most dramatic sign of confusion, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs wrote in a message to top military officers on Thursday that there will be “no modifications” to the military’s transgender policy, until the White House drafts a formal request for a policy change.

Marine Gen. Joe Dunford also told the chiefs of the military branches and senior enlisted leaders that the military will continue to “treat all of our personnel with respect.”

“I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President,” Dunford wrote in the internal communication. “There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.”

Dunford's message was seconded later in the day by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' chief spokeswoman.

"The Department of Defense is awaiting formal guidance from the White House as a follow-up to the Commander-in-Chief's announcement on military service by transgender personnel," Dana White said. "We will provide detailed guidance to the Department in the near future for how this policy change will be implemented.

"The Department will continue to focus on our mission of defending our nation and on-going operations against our foes, while ensuring all servicemembers are treated with respect," she added.

The Pentagon's position underscored how the military, like legal experts, does not consider the president's social media pronouncements to be policy.

In an appearance at the National Press Club, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, said later Thursday that Dunford is “exactly right” and that the military will work through new guidance when it gets a formal directive from the White House through normal channels.

“We grow up and learn to obey the chain of command, and my chain of command is secretary of the Army, secretary of Defense and the president,” Milley said. “We will work through the implementation guidance when we get it. …To my knowledge, the Department of Defense, Secretary Mattis has not received written directives yet.”

Milley also doubled down on Dunford’s message that every service member — “bar none” — should and will always be treated with dignity and respect.

Under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the military faced criticism for its efforts to find gay and lesbian troops and kick them out of the military. In one example, the Navy tried to kick out a sailor for identifying himself as gay in an AOL directory associated with his personal email account. The sailor sued the military and was ultimately allowed to retire with his full benefits.

Goldsmith also said advocacy groups are worried about a similar effort to locate and remove transgender service members.

“Without any court hearings, without any opportunity to defend themselves, they’re administratively separated. Their entire life could be turned upside down,” Goldsmith said. “The lack of humanity of those tweets makes it seem like the president would not protect people from that type of inquisition. That is extremely disturbing.”

Matt Thorn, the executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an advocacy group for sexual minorities in the military, said that because of the vagueness of Trump’s tweets, the policy could be anything from searching for and kicking out transgender troops to merely blocking new transgender recruits from entering the military.

“There are so many questions,” Thorn said. “It’s unprecedented. DoD has never reversed itself on a major policy like this.”

But Thorn said he believed that Mattis would protect troops from the harshest fate. He cited the secretary’s remarks at his confirmation hearing about not rolling back protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender military members, as well as his criticism of an amendment from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) that would have stopped the military from paying for gender reassignment surgery.

“I just don’t see him being vicious on this,” Thorn said. “If he’s forced by the president do to this, I think he’ll be as methodical as possible and will tread very carefully.”

Only a formal directive through the chain of command would lead to a real policy change, said Tobias Wolff, a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School.

He said Dunford’s statement makes it clear that the Pentagon does not make major changes to its policy because of a tweet — “and he was right to do so.”

“The chairman of the joint chiefs is respecting the rule of law and the role of the secretary of Defense, and he is protecting commanders in the field from having good order and discipline undermined,” Wolff said. “General Dunford should never have been put in this position. It is a reflection of the crisis we now face with this increasingly unstable and reckless individual occupying the presidency.”

Dru Brenner-Beck, a retired Army judge advocate general and president of the National Institute for Military Justice, told POLITICO that under normal procedure the president would issue an executive order instructing the Pentagon to go about changing the department’s personnel policy. But that would occur only after Defense Department officials coordinated with various parts of the military and weighed in on the proposed changes in the draft order.

Brenner-Beck said it’s legally questionable whether a declaration from the president’s personal social media account is enough to launch the process of rewriting Pentagon regulations.

“How do you implement a tweet?” she said. “Usually you would have some kind of an actual policy document that comes down.”

A Defense Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Thursday that the Pentagon is scrambling to coordinate with the White House for guidance, noting the urgent need to explain to the troops what it means.

Transgender troops — who by some estimates number as much as 15,000 and as few as 1,300 — have been allowed to serve openly since June 2016. The Pentagon has been studying ways to implement the decision for new recruits, including questions about housing and medical care.

Mattis last month ordered that review to be extended another six months.

The Pentagon's policy changes have not been without controversy. House Republicans, as part of defense spending legislation now under consideration, have sought to prohibit the Pentagon from paying for troops' gender transition surgery.

But virtually no one has suggested drumming them out of the military altogether.

"Everyone was confused and I think there are still confused," said Radha Iyengar, a senior economist at the government-funded RAND Corp., who wrote a recent study for the Pentagon on the medical costs associated with transgender service members. "I think the Joint Chiefs statement helps that but we are waiting to see what the actual policy is."

 

[AnywhereButHere]

Mika on Morning Joe just opened up the segment by saying "Welcome to the President's Failure Friday".  You know how he's got to love that word being associated with him. 

Skinny Repeal fails and the sharks are eating each other. Happy Friday, Caligula.

[Curious]

Why does everything happen on a Friday?  I know traditionally people try to kind of hide bad news on Friday hoping no one will pay attention and over the weekend forget about whatever it was that was going on.

This administration seems to have some kind of incident that happens every damn friday and they talk about it all weekend and into Monday.

I know DJT is super crazy, but it seems like someone with some political experience would realize that news on a Friday is not chum in the water for them.

[GreyhoundFan]

@Curious -- I'm not sure about Friday mornings, but on Friday evenings, Ivanka and Jared go out of pocket as part of their religious observances. Many have speculated that's why some of the dumbest crap has come down on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. I'm thinking of the initial travel ban and the idiotic tweets about Obama 'wiretapping' the TT.

[fraurosena]

I'm sorry @Curiousand @GreyhoundFan, but I'm going to have to disagree a little. Because let's be honest, every time the presidunce whips out his phone to tweet, and every time he speaks to a crowd, a breaking news incident occurs. Every.single.time. No matter the day of the week.

Remember...

On Monday

• he held a campaign speech at the Boy Scout Jamboree.
• he tweeted this: 

           inadvertently exposing secret security tactics in Syria

On Tuesday,

• he renewed his attacks on Clinton and Sessions in a series of tweets:

 

On Wednesday, 

• he tweeted his controversial statement about transgenders in the military
• kept up his attack on Sessions and Clinton
• tweeted that weird statement about not worshipping government

On Thursday,

• he picked up his witch hunt mantra again 

And today,

• he has vented is resentment at not winning on the repeal and replace
• has aired his confused views on how the Senate should operate with regards to healthcare, although nobody knows what the hell he means...

 

 

And that is only this week...

[AmazonGrace]

So now Tweetledum is tweeting about wanting to change Senate rules from 60 votes to 51.

 

Does he even know that Trumpcare couldn't get 50 votes? 

[Curious]

@GreyhoundFan That's true about Jared/Ivanka.  That slipped my mind when I posted.  I think there is probably some truth in that.  Though you'd think they could leave instructions with Melania and have her keep him out of trouble for a couple days.

@fraurosena Sorry, I thought "super crazy" covered his normal weekly antics.  This week he's been completely unhinged.  I suspect the closer the Russian investigation gets to his financials and personal dealings the more paranoid he will become.  He will start throwing crazy at the wall to see what sticks, which already seems to be starting.

As more and more republicans start expressing displeasure and possibly working in a bipartisan manner, the more he will ramp up the crazy, I suspect.  "The Mooch" seems to be a horrendously bad choice and I can see why Bannon and Priebus formed an alliance over keeping him out of the west wing.

Today he was talking about changing votes to 51 vs 60 on major legislation.  I guess no one told him he couldn't even get 50 on the "skinny repeal"

[GreyhoundFan]

3 minutes ago, Curious said:

@GreyhoundFan That's true about Jared/Ivanka.  That slipped my mind when I posted.  I think there is probably some truth in that.  Though you'd think they could leave instructions with Melania and have her keep him out of trouble for a couple days.

...

Today he was talking about changing votes to 51 vs 60 on major legislation.  I guess no one told him he couldn't even get 50 on the "skinny repeal"

During that AC360 interview after the pussy grabbing tape, Melania said something to the effect of she doesn't tell him what to do. Of course, I doubt he'd listen, even if she did speak up. Some people are painting her as a Jackie Kennedy type, but Jackie definitely made her thoughts known behind the scenes. I can't see Melania doing that. She seems to just want to have her quiet and luxurious life.