Trump 22: Not Even Poe Could Make This Shit Up

[GreyhoundFan]

"The pro-Trump news bubble hasn’t burst, but it is losing air"

Spoiler

If you prefer to keep bad news about President Trump invisible or believe it was invented by the “fake” media, you know what to do. Get your headlines from the Drudge Report. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Read Breitbart News.

One problem: The bubble that allows you to do that is a bit porous these days.

Here is a sampling of Trump-related headlines featured on the Drudge homepage Monday morning:

DOWD: Really Weak Week For Donald …

Can a president without a party govern?

REPUBLICAN FEARS MOUNT …

VERACITY A CASUALTY IN DAYS OF INFIGHTING …

DISTRACTIONS …

Recent Breitbart articles have slammed new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci's “week of blunders,” argued against Trump's suggestion that the Senate should eliminate the filibuster and called out the “hypocrisy” of the president's Twitter campaign against Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Trump complained last week that Sessions has not pursued a criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton, “but Trump himself was the one who flip-flopped on whether to prosecute Clinton,” Breitbart noted. After the FBI recommended no charges related to Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, Trump said his Democratic opponent would “be in jail" if he were president. Once he won, however, Trump abandoned the “lock her up" mantra that supporters chanted at campaign rallies.

Limbaugh also criticized Trump's attack on Sessions last week, calling it “unseemly.”

“I hate to see him being treated this way," Limbaugh said of the attorney general.

Limbaugh's remarks were widely noted in the press, which prompted an interesting response from the talk radio host:

They have their desires in the media. They are desperate for Trump's “loyalists” to begin to peel away. … And they are hoping that we have had enough and that we are ready to withdraw and we are ready to admit that we’ve seen the light, that Trump was a mistake, that Trump is this or that. That’s it, and so they present these comments: “If you’ve lost Rush Limbaugh … ” Trump hasn’t lost me. I don’t think he looks at it that way. I mean, I certainly haven’t signed up with the Democrats.

I'm not so sure about the “desires” Limbaugh assigned to the press, but he is right that journalists — including this one — are watching closely to see whether Trump's media boosters will stand by everything that he does, try to hold him accountable from the right or turn away altogether.

It is too strong to say that Trump has “lost” Limbaugh, Drudge or Breitbart — or others like Ann Coulter. But it is notable that those voices are increasingly willing to criticize the president they cheered to victory.

Yeah, they'll probably never give up on Agent Orange, but if they do criticize him, that's a good step.

[GreyhoundFan]

Jennifer Rubin is on a roll today: "Trump’s not really president — he just plays one on TV"

Spoiler

President Trump has discovered that the position is less powerful than he imagined. Actually, he has made the presidency less powerful not only because the other branches are pushing back but also because the executive branch itself often seems to be humoring him.

We’ve seen that courts — on the travel ban and on his attack on so-called sanctuary cities — have robustly checked the president when he has acted against the Constitution. Congress has also been legislatively uncooperative. The Senate (for now) has sunk his grandiose, amorphous plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with “a health care” that Trump promises will be wonderful. Meanwhile, Congress sent him a Russia sanctions bill he plainly did not want. Yes, Congress has rubber-stamped judicial nominees and virtually all Cabinet nominees (several dropped out) and failed to challenge him on conflicts of interest and possible emoluments-clause violations, but the Senate Intelligence Committee presses ahead with the Russia investigation, despite the president’s claim that it is a “witch hunt.” Congress has ignored his ludicrous budget proposals — refusing to fund his wall or to embrace his massive cuts to domestic programs. His threats fall on deaf ears.

More interesting is the degree to which the executive branch, including the military, has learned to shrug its shoulders, roll its eyes and simply ignore the president. Jack Goldsmith writes:

What is most remarkable is the extent to which his senior officials act as if Trump were not the chief executive.  Never has a president been so regularly ignored or contradicted by his own officials.  I’m not talking about so-called “deep state” bureaucrats.  I’m talking about senior officials in the Justice Department and the military and intelligence and foreign affairs agencies.  And they are not just ignoring or contradicting him in private.  They are doing so in public for all the world to see.

Cabinet secretaries, the intelligence community and the military openly disagree with Trump, emphatically so, on Russia’s responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee and meddling in our election. Executive branch appointees reject his claim that President Barack Obama “wiretapped” him. Both Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have regularly contradicted the president:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis seems to be running the Pentagon entirely on his own.  He also contradicted the president both on several matters related to NATO and when he said the United States was “not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil.” The Defense Department has also thus far ignored Trump’s transgender tweet.

Soon after Trump dismissed the possibility of a future Palestinian State, U.N. representative Nikki Haley said the administration “absolutely” supports a two-state solution.  Haley also crossed Trump on the Russia hack, disagreed with him on some U.N. programs and on Russia sanctions, has taken a different tack on human rights, and even endorsed Special Counsel Mueller’s  investigation.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his shell State Department have “repeatedly appeared out of sync with comments from Trump and the White House on critical matters.”

Trump’s orders to “Buy American and Hire American,” commence work on the wall, “reorganize the executive branch” and more are not self-executing. In most cases, the orders amount to mere directives to study a topic and create a report; without congressional action or determined leadership from the White House, many of the orders will come to nothing. This, in part, is the price to be paid for failing to fill the political slots throughout the executive branch. Without loyalists to push Trump’s initiatives ahead, inertia sets in.

The general chaos and incompetence in the White House also prevent development and implementation of policy positions; contradictory tweets and statements further paralyze political appointees as well as permanent civil service personnel. As with summer weather inside the Beltway, if you don’t like the latest Trump pronouncement, just wait a few hours for it to change.

Goldsmith observes:

The fractured executive branch is partly a result of terrible executive organization but mainly the product of an incompetent, mendacious president interacting with appointed or inherited executive branch officials who possess integrity.  The President says and does things that his senior officials, when asked, cannot abide.  And so they tell the truth, often with an awkward wince, or they ignore the President.  And in response to this overt disrespect, President Trump does … nothing.

Trump cannot even intimidate his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into quitting.

This does not mean that the president isn’t a danger to democratic norms. To the contrary, he’s quite effective at debasing our discourse, threatening the free press and undermining the impartial administration of justice. Moreover, under the tutelage of Sessions (ironically, the most determined implementer of the president’s policies), initiatives on civil asset forfeiture, immigration raids, mandatory sentencing and drug enforcement will adversely affect the lives of millions. But on the whole, getting others in his own administration to follow Trump’s lead turns out to be harder than he imagined. (Who knew governing could be so hard?)

It’s hard enough for a sane, competent and knowledgeable president to turn around the gigantic ship of state; for an unhinged, incompetent and ignorant one, it’s much tougher (at least we hope so). That’s the silver lining in the dark cloud of chaos that hovers over the White House.

I love the line about how people in the Executive Branch act like the TT is not president. Well, maybe that's because he doesn't act like a president.

[Destiny]

LOL. His “it’s a great day in the White House” tweet though. It sounds like a tween that broke up with her boyfriend trying to make it sound like she doesn’t care.

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Limbaugh also criticized Trump's attack on Sessions last week, calling it “unseemly.”

Hold the phone. Grab 'em by the pussy; bleeding from her 'whatever'; grabbing his own daughter by the ass is just fine, but criticizing Sessions is 'unseemly'? The world really is going to hell.

[GreyhoundFan]

24 minutes ago, Destiny said:

LOL. His “it’s a great day in the White House” tweet though. It sounds like a tween that broke up with her boyfriend trying to make it sound like she doesn’t care.

I wonder if he'll power-eat some Ben and Jerry's straight out of the pint tonight while watching Alanis Morrisette on YouTube.

"Trump is trying to govern by threats — and he’s failing"

Spoiler

Machiavelli advised leaders that while it would be nice to be both loved and feared, when one has to choose, it’s better to rely on fear. This is clearly the approach President Trump is trying to take. As his administration wallows in a crisis of policy, a crisis of politics and a crisis of management, he’s issuing threats left and right, to anyone who wins his displeasure. Governing by threats might work sometimes — if you can back them up. But no one is frightened of Trump right now, and all those impotent threats only demonstrate how little he understands about power.

Let’s begin with some of the people he’s threatening. While Trump has been eerily quiet on Twitter so far today, over the weekend he tweeted, “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” Briefly, the first “bailout” he seems to be referring to is the cost-sharing reductions that pay for things such as co-pays and deductibles for low-income people; if the administration cuts those off, insurers will exit the individual market, premiums will rise, and a “death spiral” could well take hold. The “bailout” for members of Congress is merely the fact that the government, like many employers, pays for part of their health coverage. So he’s saying that if they don’t pass a bill, he’ll make them pay more for their insurance (though it’s unclear whether he has the power to do so). The first threat is alarming; the second one is merely petty.

In another pair of tweets, Trump threatened China for not taking care of the North Korea problem: “I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!” Trump appears to have already forgotten how, over “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you’ve ever seen,” Chinese President Xi Jinping explained to him that, in Trump’s own words, it’s “Not that easy. In other words, not as simple as people would think. They’ve had tremendous conflict with Korea over the years.” What does he mean when he says “We will no longer allow this to continue”? Are the Chinese actually intimidated?

One more: Before the votes on Republicans’ health-care bill, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reportedly called both of Alaska’s senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, to tell them that if they didn’t vote for the bill, the administration would punish Alaska in some fashion or other. It’s unclear whether he did so on his own initiative or at the president’s behest, but either way, this “Nice state you’ve got here; it’d be a shame if something happened to it” approach was absurdly ham-handed, since Sullivan’s vote was never in doubt and Murkowski was more likely to react by being even more likely to stick to the opposition she had already publicly declared. The threat failed.

Meanwhile, the president pushed out his chief of staff and brought on a new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, who channels Trump’s style more fully than any aide before him. Scaramucci had barely moved into his office before he began threatening to fire people.

This all adds up to a president who is incredibly frustrated that no one is doing what he wants, yet has no idea how to change the situation because he still doesn’t understand Washington. In the business world, Trump utilized threats often, especially threats to sue people. Given that Trump is one of the most litigious people on the planet (he has sued other people more than 2,000 times, according to one count), this was a threat you might be scared by — particularly if you were someone with less money and influence than him. But when he made the same threat to those with a comparable level of resources, it wasn’t so frightening. Remember when he threatened in October to sue the New York Times because it reported that multiple women were accusing him of unwanted sexual advances? The paper was not afraid and didn’t change how it reported on him, and the suit never materialized.

When he was only a businessman, things were straightforward and easy for Trump to understand: He can intimidate little guys, but not big guys. But power in Washington is much more complicated. Power is diffuse, spread across many individuals and institutions. And it changes as circumstances change.

Just look at what happened during the health-care debate. Once Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Murkowski announced their opposition to the Republican bill and there were no more votes to spare, every other GOP senator had enormous power, if they chose to take it. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did, using his vote to command the spotlight and put a dagger in the heart of his party’s top legislative priority.

Power in Washington is also built on alliances, because in order to wield it you often need the cooperation of many others. Trump has been unable to build those alliances, not only because he came into office trumpeting his contempt for everyone who was already there but also because he can’t be bothered to understand what other people are really after. For all that he trumpets himself as a dealmaker, he has been utterly unable to persuade people to come along with him. He’s not selling anything they want to buy, and with Trump’s approval ratings in the 30s, the thought that he might criticize them or oppose them isn’t very frightening.

When he ran for president, Trump said over and over that any failures in Washington were the result of leaders who were stupid and weak, and that the force of his personality would be enough to achieve any goal. He was even naive enough to think that being president would be easier than running his brand-licensing firm, as he admitted in April. Now he’s discovering that Washington is more complicated than he thought, but instead of trying to learn from his mistakes and adapt, he’s just lashing out with threats. How long will it be before he realizes that it’s not working?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good op-ed from the NYT: "Trump Goes Rogue"

Spoiler

In Donald Trump’s White House, Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer were more than chief of staff and press secretary. They were the president’s connection to the Washington establishment: the donors, flacks and apparatchiks of both parties whose influence over politics and the economy many Trump supporters wish to upend.

By firing Mr. Priebus and Mr. Spicer and hiring John Kelly and Anthony Scaramucci, President Trump has sent a message: After six months of trying to behave like a conventional Republican president, he’s done. His opponents now include not only the Democrats, but the elites of both political parties.

Since the start of his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump has made no secret of his dislike of the capital. But his contempt for the city and the officials, lobbyists, consultants, strategists, lawyers, journalists, wonks, soldiers, bureaucrats, educators and physicians who populate it becomes more acute with each passing day.

He ignores pleas to ratchet back his Twitter feed, rails against the inability of Congress to advance his agenda, bashes the press, accuses the so-called deep state of bureaucratic setbacks, and struggles to hire staff. In Robert Mueller, the special counsel, he faces a paragon of D.C. officialdom, investigating not only his campaign but also perhaps his finances. For Trump, the Senate’s failure to repeal Obamacare was more evidence of Washington dysfunction, and a reason to declare independence from Priebus, the Republicans and political norms. The call to “drain the swamp” is now a declaration of war against all that threatens his presidency.

What we have been witnessing is a culture clash: a collision of two vastly different ways of life, personal conduct and doing business. The principles by which Mr. Trump lives are anathema to Washington. He abhors schedules. He wants to be unpredictable. He doesn’t tune out critics, but responds ferociously to every one. He values loyalty to the executive above all, and therefore sees family, who are tied together by blood, as essential to a well-managed enterprise.

Mr. Trump has no patience for consultants and experts, especially the consultants and experts in the Republican Party who were proven wrong about his election. Insecurity is a management tool: keeping people guessing where they stand, wondering what might happen next, strengthens his position.

Mr. Trump’s bombast, outsize personality, lack of restraint, flippancy and vulgarity could not be more out of place in Washington. His love of confrontation, his need always to define himself in relation to an enemy, then to brand and mock and belittle and undermine his opponent until nothing but Trump catchphrases remain, is the inverse of how Washingtonians believe politics should operate. The text that guides him is not a work of political thought. It’s “The Art of the Deal.”

The difference in style between Mr. Trump and Washingtonians is obvious. D.C. is a conventional, boring place. Washingtonians follow procedure. Presidents, senators, congressmen and judges are all expected to play to type, to intone the obligatory phrases and clichés, to nod their heads at the appropriate occasions, and, above all, to not disrupt the established order. We watch “Morning Joe” during breakfast, attend a round table on the liberal international order at lunch, and grab dinner after our summer kickball game. No glitz, no glam, no excitement.

Washingtonians avoid conflict. When someone is disruptive on the Metro we shuffle our feet, look another way, turn in the opposite direction. Residents of the “most literate city” in America, we do not shout, we read silently. We lament partisanship, and we pine for a lost age when Democrats and Republicans went out for drinks after a long day on Capitol Hill. The extent of our unanimity is apparent in the Politico poll of bipartisan “insiders,” the vast majority of which, regardless of party or ideology, tend to agree on who is up, who is down, who will win, who will lose.

To say that Donald Trump challenges this consensus is an understatement. Not only is he politically incorrect, but his manner, habits and language run against everything Washington professionals — in particular, people like Reince Priebus — have been taught to believe is right and good.

This is what distinguishes him from recent outsider presidents such as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan: Both had a long history of involvement in politics, and thought the Washington political class might play some role in reform. Mr. Trump does not.

In this respect, Mr. Trump has more in common with Jimmy Carter. Neither president had much governing experience before assuming office (Mr. Trump, of course, had none). Like Mr. Carter, Mr. Trump was carried to the White House on winds of change he did not fully understand. Members of their own parties viewed both men suspiciously, and both relied on their families. Neither president, nor their inner circles, meshed with the tastemakers of Washington. And each was reactive, hampered by events he did not control.

If President Trump wants to avoid Mr. Carter’s fate, he might start by recognizing that a war on every front is a war he is likely to lose, and that victory in war requires allies. Some even live in the swamp.

I don't like the comparison with Carter, since Carter was and is a good man, even though his presidency wasn't great.

[AmazonGrace]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.259db1eb581a

Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

By Ashley Parker, Carol D. Leonnig, Philip Rucker and Tom Hamburger July 31 at 7:46 PM 

Spoiler

 

On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany this month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril. 

The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged.

But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.

Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared a story, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”

The claims were later shown to be misleading.

President-elect Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. at a news conference at Trump Tower in New York on Jan. 11, 2017. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Over the next three days, multiple accounts of the meeting were provided to the media as public pressure mounted, with Trump Jr. ultimately acknowledging that he had accepted the meeting after receiving an emailpromising damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign.

The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

As Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III investigates potential obstruction of justice as part of his broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, these advisers worry that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup.

“This was . . . unnecessary,” said one of the president’s advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. “Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”

Trump has already come under criticism for steps he has taken to challenge and undercut the Russia probe.

He fired FBI Director James B. Comey on May 9 after a private meeting in which Comey said the president asked him if he could end the investigation of ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn. 

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats told associates that Trump asked him in March if he could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on Flynn. In addition, Trump has repeatedly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the FBI’s Russian investigation — a decision that was one factor leading to the appointment of Mueller. And he has privately discussed his power to issue pardons, including for himself, and explored potential avenues for undercutting Mueller’s work.

President Trump and first lady Melania Trump board Air Force One in Hamburg, Germany, after the Group of 20 summit on July 8, 2017. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

[Top intelligence official told associates Trump asked him if he could intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe]

Although misleading the public or the press is not a crime, advisers to Trump and his family told The Washington Post that they fear any indication that Trump was seeking to hide information about contacts between his campaign and Russians almost inevitably would draw additional scrutiny from Mueller.

Trump, they say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.

“He refuses to sit still,” the presidential adviser said. “He doesn’t think he’s in any legal jeopardy, so he really views this as a political problem he is going to solve by himself.”

Trump has said that the Russia probe is “the greatest witch hunt in political history,” calling it an elaborate hoax created by Democrats to explain Clinton losing an election she should have won.

Because Trump believes he is innocent, some advisers explained, he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a coverup. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal. 

[Trump’s legal team faces tensions — and a client who often takes his own counsel]

The White House directed all questions for this story to the president’s legal team.

One of Trump’s attorneys, Jay Sekulow, declined to discuss the specifics of the president’s actions and his role in crafting his son’s statement about the Russian contact. Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement in response to a list of detailed questions from The Post. 

“Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not pertinent,” Sekulow’s statement read.

Trump Jr. did not respond to requests for comment. His lawyer, Alan Futerfas, told The Post that he and his client “were fully prepared and absolutely prepared to make a fulsome statement” about the meeting, what led up to it and what was discussed.

Asked about Trump intervening, Futerfas said, “I have no evidence to support that theory.” He described the process of drafting a statement as “a communal situation that involved communications people and various lawyers.”

Peter Zeidenberg, the deputy special prosecutor who investigated the George W. Bush administration’s leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity, said Mueller will have to dig into the crafting of Trump Jr.’s statement aboard Air Force One.

Prosecutors typically assume that any misleading statement is an effort to throw investigators off the track, Zeidenberg said.

“The thing that really strikes me about this is the stupidity of involving the president,” Zeidenberg said. “They are still treating this like a family-run business and they have a PR problem. . . . What they don’t seem to understand is this is a criminal investigation involving all of them.”

Advocating for transparency

The debate about how to deal with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting began weeks before any news organizations began to ask questions about it.

Kushner’s legal team first learned about the meeting when doing research to respond to congressional requests for information. Congressional investigators wanted to know about any contacts the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser had with Russian officials or business people.

Kushner’s lawyers came across what they immediately recognized would eventually become a problematic story. A string of emails showed Kushner attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in the midst of the campaign — one he had failed to disclose. Trump Jr. had arranged it, and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had also attended.

To compound what was, at best, a public relations fiasco, the emails, which had not yet surfaced publicly, showed Trump Jr. responding to the prospect of negative information on Clinton from Russia: “I love it.” 

Lawyers and advisers for Trump, his son and son-in-law gamed out various strategies for disclosing the information to try to minimize the fallout of these new links between the Trump family and Russia, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

[Trump Jr.’s Russia meeting: What we know and when we learned it]

Hope Hicks, the White House director of strategic communications and one of the president’s most trusted and loyal aides, and Josh Raffel, a White House spokesman who works closely with Kushner and Ivanka Trump, huddled with Kushner’s lawyers, and they advocated for a more transparent approach, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.

In one scenario, these people said, Kushner’s team talked about sharing everything, including the contents of the emails, with a mainstream news organization.

Hicks and Raffel declined to comment. Kushner lawyer Abbe Lowell also declined to comment.

The president’s outside legal team, led by Marc Kasowitz, had suggested that the details be given to Circa, an online news organization the Kasowitz team thought would be friendly to Trump. Circa had inquired in previous days about the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions. 

The president’s legal team planned to cast the June 2016 meeting as a potential setup by Democratic operatives hoping to entrap Trump Jr. and, by extension, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to people familiar with discussions.

Kasowitz declined to comment for this article, as did a Circa spokesman.

Consensus overruled

Circumstances changed when the New York Times began asking about the Trump Tower meeting, though advisers believed the paper knew few of the details. While the president, Kushner and Ivanka Trump were attending the G-20 summit, the Times asked for White House comment on the impetus and reason for the meeting.

During breaks away from the summit, Kushner and Ivanka Trump gathered with Hicks and Raffel to discuss Kushner’s response to the inquiry, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Kushner’s legal team joined at times by phone.

Hicks also spoke by phone with Trump Jr. Again, say people familiar with the conversations, Kushner’s team concluded that the best strategy would be to err on the side of transparency, because they believed the complete story would eventually emerge.

The discussions among President Trump’s advisers consumed much of the day, and continued as they prepared to board Air Force One that evening for the flight home.

But before everyone boarded the plane, Trump had overruled the consensus, according to people with knowledge of the events.

It remains unclear exactly how much the president knew at the time of the flight about Trump Jr.’s meeting.

The president directed that Trump Jr.’s statement to the Times describe the meeting as unimportant. He wanted the statement to say that the meeting had been initiated by the Russian lawyer and primarily was about her pet issue — the adoption of Russian children.

Air Force One took off from Germany shortly after 6 p.m., about noon in Washington. In a forward cabin, Trump was busy working on his son’s statement, according to people with knowledge of events. The president dictated the statement to Hicks, who served as a go-between with Trump Jr., who was not on the plane, sharing edits between the two men, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

In the early afternoon, Eastern time, Trump Jr.’s team put out the statement to the Times. It was four sentences long, describing the encounter as a “short, introductory meeting.”

“We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up,” the statement read. 

Trump Jr. went on to say, “I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”

Over the next hour, word spread through emails and calls to other Trump family advisers and lawyers about the statement that Trump Jr. had sent to The Times.

The story must be told.

 

Some lawyers for the president and for Kushner were surprised and frustrated, advisers later learned. According to people briefed on the dispute, some lawyers tried to reach Futerfas and their clients and began asking why the president had been involved.

Also on the flight, Kushner worked with his team — including one of his lawyers, who called into the plane.

His lawyers have said that Kushner’s initial omission of the meeting was an error, but that in an effort to be fully transparent, he had updated his government filing to include “this meeting with a Russian person, which he briefly attended at the request of his brother-in-law Donald Trump Jr.” Kushner’s legal team referred all questions about the meeting itself to Trump Jr. 

The Times’ story revealing the existence of the June 2016 meeting went online around 4 p.m. Eastern time. Roughly four hours later, Air Force One touched down at Joint Base Andrews. Trump’s family members and advisers departed the plane, and they knew the problem they had once hoped to contain would soon grow bigger.

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

 

 

[nvmbr02]

@AmazonGrace

I *just* posted the same article over in the Russian Connection thread!

I really, really hope this is where things start to to come undone. Trump writing the statement screams direct involvement to me. 

[nvmbr02]

And the TT has slipped below a 40% approval rating in the Rasmussen poll of likely voters, he is at 39% approval and 61% disapproval.

Only 26% strongly approve compared to 49% who strongly disapprove. 

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

[Howl]

From the startling article linked by @AmazonGrace: “Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not pertinent,” Sekulow’s statement read.

Let me fix this for Mr. Sekulow: 

“Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not highly pertinent,” Sekulow’s statement *should* read.

[Cartmann99]

41 minutes ago, nvmbr02 said:

And the TT has slipped below a 40% approval rating in the Rasmussen poll of likely voters, he is at 39% approval and 61% disapproval.

Only 26% strongly approve compared to 49% who strongly disapprove. 

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The kicker is that Rasmussen leans Republican. When Rasmussen is saying a Republican has a 39% approval rating, things are very bad for Orange Foolius.

[GreyhoundFan]

Okay, we all need a laugh: "Trump Has Fired Enough Staffers for an All-Trump Season of Dancing with the Stars"

Spoiler

Oh, Mooch. We hardly knew ya. On Monday, news broke that newly appointed White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci is leaving his post—just 10 days after his appointment. As disappointing as the news may be to the man who sold his company to work for the White House, he’s probably taking comfort in the fact that he is far from alone. Tons of staffers have exited the Trump administration, and, before that, the now-president’s campaign—some because they were fired, others of their own volition. The turnover rate is enough to make one’s head spin, though at least there are plenty of options for follow-up jobs—like, say, a stint on Dancing with the Stars, which ousted press secretary Sean Spicer is reportedly considering.

In fact, now that we think of it, Dancing with the Stars could air an entire season populated solely with ex-Trump staffers looking for their second acts. Naturally, that raises one crucial question: who would win? Let’s consider the odds.

Anthony Scaramucci

The man of the hour! Listen, we’ve got a feeling this guy can make a hell of a Long Island iced tea—but could he become TV’s next great dancer? As Bruno Tonioli might tell you, one of the keys to being a compelling dancer—especially for TV—is to bring the passion. Based on his profanity-laden phone call with The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, the Mooch has fire to spare. The tango, we’re guessing, might be his specialty.

But to be a great dancer, one must also have some finesse—and it’s in this category that we’re not sure Scaramucci is up to par. Somehow, we’re just not convinced the guy who shouted into a phone that he thinks Steve Bannon likes to practice autofellatio has the self-control required to be America’s next dance sensation.

Reince Priebus

Another recent Trump dismissal. To be honest, we’re thinking poor ol’ Reince probably suffers from the opposite problem: unlike Scaramucci, who suffers from a surplus of passion and a lack of control, Reince might have trouble unclenching his Priebus enough to pull out a win.

Michael Flynn

Flynn—who clocks in at 58—would be among the season’s older entrance, but that doesn’t necessarily rule him out; Florence Henderson competed when she was 76, and she made it all the way to Week 5! Besides, Flynn has reportedly spent a fair amount of time with Russians; perhaps at some point, they took him to the ballet.

Paul Manafort

Honestly, we’d say that Manafort—one of Trump’s many former campaign managers—has about the same odds as Flynn. (He also has a similar relationship with Russia.) He may face questions about of whether he’s really eligible to compete, considering his current status as a foreign agent; perhaps he should have considered his Dancing with the Stars future before he registered.

Roger Stone

Stone would actually be the oldest contestant of the season, and—some might argue—the most evil. He does already feel comfortable in ridiculous outfits, which could give him a slight edge over the competition—though “Nixon Now” doesn't exactly have a beat you can dance to.

Katie Walsh

Walsh—a former deputy chief of staff who became victim of one of the White House’s many “shuffles”—was known to Priebus as someone who could fix things in a pinch. But how quickly could she pick up the foxtrot? Sadly for ABC, Walsh has returned to the R.N.C. in a senior role . . . which means that unlike many of her competitors, she would have to juggle the demands of Dancing with the Stars with an actual job.

Preet Bharara

All due respect to Bharara; he refused to resign when Jeff Sessions requested that all Obama-era U.S. Attorney appointees do so, forcing Trump to fire him instead. But we’re not sure how such a display of spine would work out for him as a contestant; would Bruno Tonioli have to chase Bharara off the stage during elimination week?

Corey Lewandowski

Remember this guy? CNN hired him right after Trump fired him—and then he quit that job right after Trump won the election. Frankly, we’re not sure Lewandowski has the commitment required of a Dancing with the Stars contestant; the cha-cha demands some serious stamina.

Michael Caputo

We know Caputo has sass, at least; just after Lewandowski got fired, Caputo himself fired off this tweet:

...

That move, incidentally, got him fired. Whoops! Dancing with the Stars isn’t often plagued by cantankerous contestants who insist they’re “not here to make friends,” but bringing on Caputo could change all that. Trump’s inner (outer?) reality host would certainly approve.

Sean Spicer

According to Page Six, Dancing has actually reached out to Spicer already. Here’s hoping his hips are more honest than his speeches from the lectern. But Spicer should be cautious: there will be no bushes on stage to hide among should he fail at the Viennese waltz.

James Comey

When he testified before the Senate about his investigation into Russian interference in the election—and possible ties between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign—Comey quickly gained unexpected status as the Internet’s “daddy.” Honestly, we’re not sure how that impacts his chances of winning, but we have a feeling he’d have the people’s unwavering support. The real question is which partner would have the best stage presence beside his six-foot-eight frame? Imagine doing a lift and being hoisted almost seven feet into the air!

Sally Yates

Put this woman at the top of your bracket. She’s confident; she’s got the masses on her side; and most importantly, there’s no way in hell she’ll crack under pressure. Best of luck next season, Sally. May the odds be ever in your favor.

I agree, Sally Yates for the win!

[AmazonGrace]

21 minutes ago, Howl said:

From the startling article linked by @AmazonGrace: “Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not pertinent,” Sekulow’s statement read.

Let me fix this for Mr. Sekulow: 

“Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not highly pertinent,” Sekulow’s statement *should* read.

Oh that old chestnut. "The story is untrue, we didn't do it. If we did it  it doesn't matter. If it matters it's not illegal. "

[nvmbr02]

Well, this sure ups my confidence of the competency of the white house. 

White House officials tricked by email prankster

Quote

White House officials tricked by email prankster

By Jake Tapper, Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent

Updated 0145 GMT (0945 HKT) August 1, 2017

A self-described "email prankster" in the UK fooled a number of White House officials into thinking he was other officials, including an episode where he convinced the White House official tasked with cyber security that he was Jared Kushner and received that official's private email address unsolicited.

"Tom, we are arranging a bit of a soirée towards the end of August," the fake Jared Kushner on an Outlook account wrote to the official White House email account of Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert. "It would be great if you could make it, I promise food of at least comparible (sic) quality to that which we ate in Iraq. Should be a great evening."

Bossert wrote back: "Thanks, Jared. With a promise like that, I can't refuse. Also, if you ever need it, my personal email is" (redacted).

Bossert did not respond to CNN's request for comment; the email prankster said he was surprised Bossert responded given his expertise. The emails were shared with CNN by the email prankster.

 

 

[Childless]

8 hours ago, nvmbr02 said:

Well, this sure ups my confidence of the competency of the white house. 

White House officials tricked by email prankster

 

And these are the fools in charge of our national security.  *shudder*

[Howl]

Trump's problem with conservatives/tea baggers? No deliverables.  The signature issue, killing Obamacare, was an utterly delicious fiasco, and this has opened the door for criticism.  There's been plenty of time to get the word out about tax "reform" --  tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy -- so expect a BIG fight on that.  Perhaps when people realized they were about to get horribly screwed on health insurance, there is a further realization that this administration is capable of screwing them over on taxes as well. 

In addition, these conservative gas bags have been promising that the Russia problem is a nothing burger.  Surely, they may be starting to realize that there could be Russian shit sandwich on the way and they will look like idiots. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump aides’ stunning cry for help: Admitting the president misled the American people'

Spoiler

President Trump hates leaks. He hired Anthony Scaramucci 10 days ago to very publicly root them out, and he has even attacked his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for not investigating them aggressively enough.

But oftentimes with Trump, a leak isn't just a leak; it's an effort to save him from himself.

Such is the case with The Washington Post's big scoop Monday night that Trump personally dictated the highly misleading initial statement about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016. Anonymous White House advisers said they had settled on a plan to be transparent about the meeting, only to have the president come in at the 11th hour and decide to try and withhold the whole truth. The result, at Trump's personal direction, was a statement that claimed the meeting was about adoption, when in fact the stated purpose of it was opposition research -- supposedly from the Russian government -- about Hillary Clinton.

Check out this detailed blow-by-blow from The Post's Ashley Parker, Carol D. Leonnig, Philip Rucker and Tom Hamburger about how the Trump team responded to the New York Times learning about the meeting:

[White House director of strategic communications Hope] Hicks also spoke by phone with Trump Jr. Again, say people familiar with the conversations, [Jared] Kushner’s team concluded that the best strategy would be to err on the side of transparency, because they believed the complete story would eventually emerge.

The discussions among the president’s advisers consumed much of the day, and they continued as they prepared to board Air Force One that evening for the flight home.

But before everyone boarded the plane, Trump had overruled the consensus, according to people with knowledge of the events.

It remains unclear exactly how much the president knew at the time of the flight about Trump Jr.’s meeting.

The president directed that Trump Jr.’s statement to the Times describe the meeting as unimportant. He wanted the statement to say that the meeting had been initiated by the Russian lawyer and primarily was about her pet issue — the adoption of Russian children.

And now look at these comments from anonymous advisers:

“This was . . . unnecessary,” said one of the president’s advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. “Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”

And here:

Trump, advisers say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.

“He refuses to sit still,” the presidential adviser said. “He doesn’t think he’s in any legal jeopardy, so he really views this as a political problem he is going to solve by himself.”

And this:

Because Trump believes he is innocent, some advisers explained, he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a cover-up. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal.

The White House's first six months, of course, have been littered with internal leaks. Many of them are owed to the warring factions within the West Wing and dissension in the broader administration. But every so often you see this kind of leak: the send-a-message-to-the-boss leak -- the spreading of unhelpful information about the president because advisers see no other way to make it stop.

And even in that line of reporting, this is a pretty remarkable cry for help. In this story, they're admitting that he is personally responsible for deliberately misleading the American people about a major topic of the Russia investigation. They're saying that he did something that could very well be construed as a cover-up and could damage his legal defense. The reason? Because they apparently can't prevail upon him in person and they think he simply doesn't get what kind of jeopardy he is putting himself in.

Part of it may simply be exasperation, as well. When you, as a White House staffer, continue to have to put up with the boss's unpredictable whims and furthering of unhelpful story lines (i.e. Russia was on my mind when I fired FBI Director James B. Comey), it's liable to lead to this kind of leaking.

Trump will surely view this as an effort by the deep state and/or the media to undermine him. He'd be better off understanding it for what it is: a desperate effort to help him help himself. After all, in this case, the advisers were right. The truth all came out in rather short order, and Trump only made it worse.

Sadly, he'll never understand that it's best to tell the truth, because the truth will eventually come out and the fallout from the coverup will be worse than the fallout from the original issue.

[Penny]

9 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Sadly, he'll never understand that it's best to tell the truth, because the truth will eventually come out and the fallout from the coverup will be worse than the fallout from the original issue

He has never known how to tell the truth. He has never had someone tell him no. We call him toddler, but he was never told no in his whole life and must have been the same spoiled brat as a kid as he is now. He is loosing control and does not know how to handle it. 

We check the news every morning holding our breath for the next shoe to drop, but I am afraid we will soon see a whole truck load of shoes dropping. I fear it is going to get really ugly soon. Once the shit hits the fan who knows what he will do. I just hope it is not a nuclear war. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s lawyer repeatedly denied Trump was involved in Trump Jr.’s statement. But he was."

Spoiler

...

President Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, has some explaining to do.

The Washington Post reported Monday night that the president himself was responsible for the drafting of Donald Trump Jr.'s misleading statement after the New York Times revealed that the younger Trump had arranged a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016. Sources say White House advisers had decided to be transparent about the meeting, but the president changed the game plan at the last minute to misleadingly suggest that the meeting was about adoption. The full truth soon came out that the meeting was arranged to discuss compromising information, supposedly from the Russian government, about Hillary Clinton.

The problem for Sekulow? He denied at least twice, pretty unequivocally, that the president played any role in the drafting of that statement.

Here's what Sekulow said on NBC's “Meet the Press” on July 16 (emphasis added):

CHUCK TODD: You were very careful to say the president didn’t draft the statement. That isn’t what I asked. Did the president get a heads-up on the statement? Did he sign off on the statement? Was he asked to read the statement before it was given to the New York Times on Air Force One?

SEKULOW: No, I mean, I can’t say whether the president was told the statement was going to be coming from his son on that. I didn’t have that conversation and let me say this — but I do want to be clear — that the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement. It came from Donald Trump Jr. So that’s what I can tell you because that’s what we know. And Donald Trump Jr. has said the same thing. That it was, in fact, from him and I believe it was his lawyer was in consultation — I’m sure his lawyer was in consultation.

And here's Sekulow again on ABC's “Good Morning America” four days prior, on July 12:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That does raise another set of questions. Because the New York Times is reporting this morning the president's signed off on the initial statement on Saturday on the initial statement from Don Jr. on Saturday, but didn't mention the emails, didn't really go into any great detail on the meeting, in fact, was misleading about the meeting. So the president signed off on that statement. Does he feel he was misled by his son and by Jared Kushner if, indeed, they didn't tell him about these emails that they both received?

SEKULOW: The president didn't sign off on anything. He was coming back from the G-20 [summit], the statement that was released on Saturday, was released by Donald Trump Jr. and, I'm sure, in consultation with his lawyers. The president wasn't involved in that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well the New York Times says that he was involved in it, that several people on the plane were involved in it as well. So you're disputing ...

SEKULOW: That's incorrect.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … that account from the New York Times.

SEKULOW: Yes.

Several of Sekulow's claims in defense of Trump have come under scrutiny. I did a whole annotation of his Sunday show appearances last month.

But these statements are about as contradictory as it gets, when compared to The Post's new report. What's remarkable is that, as Stephanopoulos noted, the New York Times had reported at the time, on July 11, that the president himself approved the statement. “Ultimately, the people said, the president signed off on a statement from Donald Trump Jr. for the Times,” it wrote.

So it's difficult to believe Sekulow didn't have an opportunity to verify that information. Instead, he offered a broad and complete denial. And then, four days later, he offered the same broad denial.

I wonder if this lawyer will be on the way out next.

[apple1]

Sekulow sold his soul a very long time ago. It's just that it's very public now.

 

I can't stand him.

[sawasdee]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Sadly, he'll never understand that it's best to tell the truth, because the truth will eventually come out and the fallout from the coverup will be worse than the fallout from the original issue.

Isn't that what brought Nixon down - not the crime, but the attempted cover up?

[GreyhoundFan]

@sawasdee -- yes, the coverup was what really brought him down.

 

"The Past Week Proves That Trump Is Destroying Our Democracy"

Spoiler

America is on its way to a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Over just a few days last week, President Trump and his allies stepped up attacks on Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the campaign’s connections to Russia. They tried to push Attorney General Jeff Sessions out of office. They thought out loud about whether the president can pardon himself.

This all points to the same conclusion: Mr. Trump is willing to deal a major blow to the rule of law — and the American Republic — in order to end an independent investigation into his Russia ties.

It is tempting to picture the demise of democracy as a Manichaean drama in which the stakes are clear from the start and the main actors fully understand their roles: Would-be dictators rail against democracy, hire violent thugs to do their bidding and vow to destroy the opposition. When they demand expanded powers or attack independent institutions, their supporters and opponents alike realize that authoritarianism has arrived.

There have, in fact, been a few times and places when the villains were quite as villainous, and the heroes quite as heroic. (Think Germany in the 1930s.) But in most cases, the demise of democracy has been far more gradual and far easier to overlook.

In their first years in office, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey and Viktor Orban in Hungary claimed that they wanted to fix, rather than cripple, democratic institutions. Even as it became clear that these strongmen sought to consolidate power, most of their opponents told themselves that they were saving their courage for the right moment. By the time the full extent of the danger had become incontrovertible, it was too late to mount an effective resistance.

In some ways, the United States seems far from such a situation today. The Trump administration, after all, appears weak: It is relatively unpopular, mired in scandal and divided by infighting — Anthony Scaramucci’s 10-day tenure is just the latest example. And it faces determined opposition from courts, the news media, state and local governments and ordinary citizens. If Mr. Trump’s presidency ends in humiliation, future generations may well conclude that it was bound to fail all along.

But in other respects the United States is already well on the way to what I have, in my academic work, called “democratic deconsolidation.” Mr. Trump is increasingly emulating the playbook of popularly elected strongmen who have done deep, lasting damage to their countries’ democratic institutions.

In recent weeks, he has treated a gathering of Boy Scouts like a campaign rally. He has asked soldiers for political support at a ceremonial event. He has implied that policemen should rough up suspects they arrest. He has continued to feud with the country’s intelligence community. And he has suggested he still wants Hillary Clinton prosecuted.

Mr. Trump nonetheless has many supporters. While a majority of Americans believes that the president is doing a bad job, around 40 percent of voters — and some 80 percent of Republicans — approve of his performance. A number of Republican senators and congressmen have reportedly objected to Mr. Trump’s attacks on Mr. Sessions and voted against parts of his legislative agenda, but most have yet to oppose him publicly.

This is worrying. The Constitution cannot defend itself. If Congress does not stand up to Mr. Trump because Republicans are afraid of their own base, the president may be able to obstruct the course of justice with impunity. Worse, he may then conclude that he can get away with violating even more basic limits on his power.

If Congress stands idly by as he fires Mr. Mueller, as it did when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey, it might prove similarly pliable should he disregard court rulings, attempt to close down critical newspapers or order his appointees at the Department of Justice to indict Mrs. Clinton.

Congress must send a clear message that these types of violations won’t be tolerated. If Mr. Trump fires Mr. Mueller, Congress can ask him to continue his investigation under the auspices of the legislative branch. And if Mr. Trump pardons himself, disregards court rulings or blatantly oversteps the boundaries of his legitimate authority in some other way, Congress should impeach him.

No flashing light will announce that the very survival of democracy is now at stake if Mr. Mueller is fired. And since nobody can say for sure that the Constitution will become toothless if congressional Republicans let yet another infraction pass, their instinct will be to defer their patriotic duty to some more opportune moment in the future. But that moment may never come. There may never be a time when we know for sure that this decision, today, will determine whether the American republic lives or dies.

In Hungary, democracy did not end when Mr. Orban staffed the electoral commission with his cronies, or when he put loyalists in charge of state television stations or even when he changed the Constitution to expand his powers. But now that he has taken all these steps, the opposition has little chance of ousting him at the next elections. Slowly but surely, Hungary has ceased to be a real democracy.

The temptation to delay opposing Mr. Trump until the right moment comes along is understandable. It’s also very dangerous. Even if congressional Republicans abdicate their duty, the Constitution may turn out to be unusually resilient. But the only sure way to save the Republic is for them to start standing up to the president’s authoritarian behavior — not next week, or next month, but today.

Food for thought.

[LeftCoastLurker]

Definitely off-topic, but when I saw this headline buried in the comments of a news website I thought it would be about the Orange one...it's not but definitely worth a look. It made me smile!

Toddler pre-flight ritual

[candygirl200413]

I'm SOOO sick of being sick and tired. Seeing this article this morning again made me realize hate for this administration knows know limits anymore.

Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale

tlrd: A wealthy Trump supporter basically set up this conspiracy theory with approval from the white house and knew Fox News would be able to spread it easily.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"How to tell when Trump is hiding something? The Trump Jr. saga offers 2 clues."

Spoiler

The Washington Post's report that President Trump dictated his son's misleading statement about meeting with a Russian lawyer contradicts previous denials by Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer. But one person without egg on her face is White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who pleaded ignorance when asked repeatedly about the president's involvement.

In hindsight, Sanders's shrugs look like signals that Trump was hiding something — perhaps even from his own spokeswoman — and provide clues about how to detect secrets in the future.

1. Pay attention to things that White House spokesmen say they “don't know” or “haven't asked” about. These types of answers are given frequently.
2. Watch for times when the White House declines to repeat the claims of Trump's personal legal team.

The statement at the root of The Post's report was issued to the New York Times when it reported July 8 that Donald Trump Jr. met last summer with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer. Here's the key passage: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no followup.”

That version of events was, at best, a partial truth. The Times reported a day later that the premise of the meeting was that the Russian lawyer would share damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Naturally, the genesis of the original statement — with its glaring omission — interested journalists. Was the president involved?

At an off-camera news briefing on July 11, Sanders was asked when Trump and Trump Jr. had spoken last. She said she did not know.

That night, the Times reported that the president had signed off on his son's statement.

On “Good Morning America” the next day, Sekulow disputed the Times's report. “The president didn't sign off on anything,” Sekulow said. “He was coming back from the G-20 [summit], the statement that was released on Saturday was released by Donald Trump Jr. and, I'm sure, in consultation with his lawyers. The president wasn't involved in that.”

At an off-camera briefing hours later, however, Sanders wouldn't repeat Sekulow's denial. This was her exchange with The Post's Philip Rucker, one of the reporters behind Monday's scoop:

RUCKER: Has President Trump had any communication with his son, Donald Trump Jr., over the last several days? And was he involved in helping Donald Trump Jr. craft his statement to the press over the weekend on Air Force One, as was reported in the New York Times?

MS. SANDERS: I'm not sure about specific communications and the nature of those conversations. I know that they've spoken at least at some point over the last few days, but beyond that I don't have any other further details.

RUCKER: Has he helped him with his response?

MS. SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of, but I just don't know the answer to that, Phil.

RUCKER: So is that not true?

MS. SANDERS: I've been telling you, I'm just not sure. I don't know the answer. I'll have to check and let you know.

RUCKER: Okay. Can you find out?

MS. SANDERS: Yeah.

Sanders never followed up with reporters. It is certainly possible that she truly did not know whether the president was involved in crafting the statement; if that is the case, then she was remarkably incurious. Perhaps it was best not to know.

I have a third clue to tell how the TT is hiding something. Clue #3: He's always hiding something.