Trump 22: Not Even Poe Could Make This Shit Up

[LeftCoastLurker]

Don't think I've seen this posted.

Trump admin waives environmental laws for border wall

Apparently, the laws have been waived previously a few times between 2005 and 2008 for other portions of the border wall.

[Howl]

Rational people in Texas are shitting bricks over a section of the wall proposed to cut through the  middle of the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, located on the Texas side  of the Texas-Mexico border.  The National Wildlife Refuge Association says this in Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge—Border Wall Through the Refuge?

Quote

WHAT WE KNOW:

The Trump Administration has secretly been planning on building a wall through this border refuge, which sits on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande River

The Army Corps of Engineers has been taking soil samples at the refuge in preparation to build the wall.

We have seen information leak out that a wall would cut the refuge down the middle, leaving the visitor’s center on one side and the refuge on the other. It appears that the wall would likely be built outside of the flood plain. Practically speaking, this means that when the river floods, which is does every spring, the flood waters would come up to the wall, leaving wildlife trapped.

The Santa Ana NWR is known worldwide as a birding destination. The refuge sits at a critical place geographically—many songbirds that migrate north from Central and South America go no further north than the refuge, and thus this is a prime place to see birds that don’t exist anywhere else in the United States.

Two endangered cat species still prowl the thick forests of this small refuge: the ocelot and jaguarondi.

If the “wall” consists of a mixture of levees and an actual fence, then this habitat would be changed forever. Levees block water flow and by definition alter the landscape. A fence would reduce the size of the habitat, particularly for land-based animals, who can’t fly over a barrier.

Besides the devastating ecological impacts, birding in the refuge is a huge draw in this area, and parts of the local economy depend on the resultant tourism. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"How Trump could lose his base"

Spoiler

John F. Kelly, President Trump’s new chief of staff, is focused on ending chaos in the White House. Given that his boss is the self-disrupter in chief, good luck with that.

And Trump world’s vicious backstabbing is not, in any event, the administration’s most important problem. A devotion to lying is a far graver danger to this presidency, and military efficiency will not dispel it.

The Post’s report, essentially confirmed by the White House, that the president was the prime mover behind Donald Trump Jr.’s misleading statement about his meeting with a Russian lawyer peddling derogatory information about Hillary Clinton ratifies the pattern of deceit and misdirection on all matters Russian. Behaving as if you are guilty won’t convince others that you are innocent.

The president seems convinced that he can survive whatever comes his way as long as he keeps his much-celebrated political base with him. But this is not as easy as it sounds for either Trump or his party because his base is fundamentally divided.

Nothing illustrated this more dramatically than the health-care showdown. Trump’s rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act during last year’s campaign should have been a tipoff to the dilemma both he and conservative politicians confront now. On the one hand, he roundly denounced Obamacare, which made right-wing ideologues happy. But he also regularly promised an alternative that would be more, not less, generous in helping Americans of modest means.

His position was incoherent but very shrewd. To pull off his electoral college victory in 2016, Trump needed the votes of traditional Republican conservatives, but he also had to add on non-ideological working-class voters, many of whom found Mitt Romney unappealing in 2012.

For clues about the political turmoil and coalition-management challenges the president and the GOP face, consult “The Five Types of Trump Voters” by Emily Ekins, the director of polling at the Cato Institute. The bottom line of her research is that Trump and his party can’t win without the conservative faithful, but the conventional right alone cannot guarantee victory.

A narrow majority of Trump’s voters, Ekins found, fell into two traditionally Republican groups, “Staunch Conservatives,” who made up 31 percent of his backers, and “Free Marketeers,” who constituted 25 percent. She also identifies a smaller, less loyally Republican faction, “The Disengaged,” who amounted to 5 percent of his supporters.

But two other large Trump groups, whom Ekins labeled “American Preservationists” (20 percent of Trumpists) and “Anti-Elites” (19 percent), are quite different from regular conservatives. In particular, Ekins notes, both “lean economically progressive,” which is why the health-care issue is so problematic for Trump.

The preservationists might be seen as White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon’s people. They “have nativist immigration views, and a nativist and ethnocultural conception of American identity.” The Anti-Elites are more moderate on these issues and the “most likely” of the Trump supporters “to favor political compromise.” This group was never as strongly pro-Trump as the others, and seems most ripe for defection to the Democrats.

Trump is so hungry for “wins” that he is still pushing the Senate to pass any bill to repeal Obamacare. But enacting proposals along the lines of those that failed last week would be the worst possible outcome for Trump because they effectively break the promises he made to nearly 40 percent of his own sympathizers.

Senate Republicans who want to back away from repeal, at least for now, seem more attuned to how disruptive this issue is. But the looming battle over deep tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy will also split the alliance Trump is counting on for survival.

As Ekins concludes, Trump voters “hold different perceptions of justice in the political and economic systems.”

Trump’s coalition is by no means unique historically in bringing together constituencies with widely divergent views. Franklin D. Roosevelt, after all, won votes from Northern African Americans and Southern white segregationists. On the other hand, the New Deal alignment was shattered when civil rights became a driving national issue.

Still, political leaders trying to hold diverse groups together need to demonstrate finesse and both the appearance and reality of successful governance. Finesse, needless to say, is not a Trump long suit. And every day that brings a new Trump revelation, new questions about Russia or sheer craziness (the Mooch interlude or the president’s reported description of the White House as “a real dump”) puts increased pressure on a rickety alliance that can only bear so much. When Trump most needs that base of his, it may no longer be there.

"Finesse, needless to say, is not a Trump long suit." : understatement of the year.

[47of74]

An Eagle Scout named John Rowell turned in his Eagle Scout Badge after the Trumpster Fire spoke at the Jamboree.

Quote

Rowell has proudly kept his Eagle Scout badge in his home office in Moorhead, at least until last week, when he drove to the Fargo Boy Scout office and gave it back.

It was during President Donald Trump’s outrageous, self-serving and mean-spirited (my words, not Rowell’s) speech to the Boy Scout Jamboree that the scouting laws of “courteous,” “kind” and “reverent” came back to Rowell. Egged on by Trump, many of the Scouts cheered or booed on cue, and to Rowell’s dismay, scouting leaders did little if anything to stop it.

Rowell, a retired mail carrier who served in the Army reserves, didn’t want to discuss the nature of Trump’s speech because nobody had any control over it, likely not even Trump’s speechwriters. But Scout leaders throughout the crowd could have controlled their Scouts simply by standing up, facing them and giving them the Boy Scout sign, which Rowell said is the recognized signal for quiet.

“It didn’t matter what the speaker said, I identified it as an enormous failure of leadership by the adults who were there,” Rowell said.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Impersonating the Thompson Twins again ("Lies, Lies, Lies"): "8 things the Trump team denied, and then later confirmed"

Spoiler

The White House directly contradicted President Trump's own attorney on Tuesday. It confirmed that the president was involved in that misleading Donald Trump Jr. statement about his meeting with a Russian lawyer after Trump's attorney, Jay Sekulow, had issued two unmistakable comments asserting Trump wasn't.

But this was hardly the first time that the Trump team has appeared to confirm something it previously denied. Below are eight examples.

1. That Trump was involved in Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia statement

The denials

“I do want to be clear that the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement.” — Sekulow on NBC News on July 16

“The president didn't sign off on anything. … The president wasn't involved in that.” — Sekulow on ABC News on July 12

The confirmation

“The president weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had.” — White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, after The Washington Post reported that Trump had changed the statement at the last minute to be more misleading.

...

2. That Trump is thinking about pardons

The denial

“Pardons are not being discussed and are not on the table.” — Sekulow on July 21

The confirmation

...

3. That Trump decided unilaterally to fire FBI Director James B. Comey

The denials

“No one from the White House. That was a DOJ decision.” — Sean Spicer on May 9

Asked whether Trump had already decided to fire Comey and asked Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and the Justice Department to craft a justification for it: “No.” — Huckabee Sanders on May 10

“He took the recommendation of his deputy attorney general, who oversees the FBI director. … He has lost confidence in the FBI director, and he took the recommendation of Rod J. Rosenstein.” — Kellyanne Conway on May 10

The confirmations

“I was going to fire Comey … Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.” — Trump on NBC News on May 11

“On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input.” — Rosenstein on May 19

4. That Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation

The denials

“That's not what — let me be clear with you — that was not what this is about. That's not what this is about.” — Vice President Pence on May 10

Rosenstein's memo contained no mention of the Russia investigation and instead focused on Comey's unusual announcements about the Hillary Clinton investigation during the 2016 campaign: “I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.” — Rosenstein on May 9

“Based on my evaluation, and for the reasons expressed by the Deputy Attorney General in the attached memorandum, I have concluded that a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI.” — Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a letter May 9

The confirmation

“And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.” — Trump to NBC on May 11

...

5. That Michael Flynn discussed sanctions with Russia's ambassador

The denial

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. … What I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.” — Pence on Jan. 15

The confirmations

Asked whether Flynn discussed sanctions related to Russia's alleged 2016 election interference: “Right.” — Spicer on Feb. 14

“So just to be clear, the acting attorney general informed the White House counsel that they wanted to give, quote, 'a heads-up' to us on some comments that may have seemed in conflict with what he had said to the vice president in particular. … The issue, pure and simple, came down to a matter of trust, and the president concluded that he no longer had the trust of his national security adviser.” — Spicer on Feb. 14

“What I would tell you is that the vice president became aware of incomplete information that he'd received on February 9, last Thursday night, based on media accounts.” — Pence spokesman Marc Lotter

6. That Trump's navy secretary nominee was going to withdraw

The denial

After CBS's Major Garrett reported that Navy secretary nominee Philip Bilden was likely to withdraw, Spicer tweeted on Feb. 18:

...

The confirmation

“Mr. Philip Bilden has informed me that he has come to the difficult decision to withdraw from consideration to be secretary of the Navy.” — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Feb. 26

7. That Trump shared classified information with Russian leaders in the Oval Office

The denial

“The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.” — national security adviser H.R. McMaster on May 15

The confirmations

“It is wholly appropriate for the president to share whatever information he thinks is necessary to advance the security of the American people. That’s what he did.” — McMaster on May 16

...

8. That intelligence officials briefed Trump on an unconfirmed dossier that suggested Russia had compromising info on him

The denial

"And [the story] says that they never briefed him on it, that they appended two pages to the bottom of his intelligence report. ... [Trump] has said that he is not aware of that." - Kellyanne Conway on Seth Meyers's show on Jan. 10. (The report had said he was, in fact, briefed.)

The confirmation

"I think [Comey] shared it so that I would — because the other three people left, and he showed it to me. ... So anyway, in my opinion, he shared it so that I would think he had it out there." Asked whether it was used as leverage: "Yeah I think so." - Trump to the New York Times on July 19

 

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

A republic is a form of democracy, one that uses elected represenratives.

Except when there are banana's involved...

[fraurosena]

Nope, nobody could make this shit up. 

Donald Trump threatened to sue Sharknado when they didn't cast him as the president

Quote

Let's take a moment to descend into some new depths of Donald Trump's pettiness.

Back in January 2015, Trump was asked to play the president in Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No!. He wasn't their first choice, that honour fell to Sarah Palin, but negotiations fell through and producers looked for another ludicrous C-list celebrity who could fill in as the head of state and comfortably share scenes with Tara Reid. 

Almost immediately, The Hollywood Reporter states, Trump said yes to the role. "He was thrilled to be asked," commented studio head David Latt. 

Talks progressed as far as drawing up a contract, sent to Trump attorney Michael D. Cohen (now under FBI investigation in connection with the Russia inquiry), before the Sharknado team were faced with sudden silence. 

The reason? "Donald's thinking about making a legitimate run for the presidency, so we'll get back to you," Latt recalled Cohen saying. "This might not be the best time." 

With time running out for the production team, Mark Cuban was instead offered the role, which prompted rather furious response. "Then we immediately heard from Trump's lawyer," recalled Latt. "He basically said, 'How dare you? Donald wanted to do this. We're going to sue you! We're going to shut the entire show down!'"

"I took it personally, but I get it now," he added. "That was my moment of doing business with Donald Trump. And that's Sharknado."

Sigh. I wish they had given him the role. Then he could have just played one on tv and his need for being president would have been satistified, and that would have been the end of that. 

[sawasdee]

i have, in fact, several times been told that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. I must admit that I thought it was both. But I found this article which explains it reasonably clearly.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

[fraurosena]

Straight out of Putin's Playbook.

A Chilling Theory on Trump’s Nonstop Lies

Spoiler

“26 hours, 29 Trumpian False or Misleading Claims.”

That was the headline on a piece last week from the Washington Post, whose reporters continued the herculean task of debunking wave after wave of President Donald Trump’s lies. (It turned out there was a 30th Trump falsehood in that time frame, regarding the head of the Boy Scouts.) The New York Times keeps a running tally of the president’s lies since Inauguration Day, and PolitiFact has scrutinized and rated 69 percent of Trump’s statements as mostly false, false, or “pants on fire.”

Trump’s chronic duplicity may be pathological, as some experts have suggested. But what else might be going on here? In fact, the 45th president’s stream of lies echoes a contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the “Firehose of Falsehood.”

In 2016, the nonpartisan research organization RAND released a study of messaging techniques seen in Kremlin-controlled media. The researchers described two key features: “high numbers of channels and messages” and “a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.”

The result of those tactics? “New Russian propaganda entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”

Indeed, Trump’s style as a mendacious media phenomenon resonates strongly with RAND’s findings from the study, which also explains the efficacy of the Russian propaganda tactics. Here are the key examples:

RAND: “Russian propaganda is produced in incredibly large volumes and is broadcast or otherwise distributed via a large number of channels.”

Trump is known for his high-volume use of Twitter, tweeting about 500 times in his first 100 days in office, using both his personal account and the official @POTUS account. His tweets often become the subject of news stories and sometimes provoke entire news cycles’ worth of coverage across the mainstream media, such as when he accused former President Barack Obama of “wiretapping” his campaign and suggested he might have secret recordings of ex-FBI Director James Comey. Both CNN and the Los Angeles Times keep running tweet trackers on the president. Trump has also appeared on White House-friendly cable news shows like Fox & Friends—a show he also tweets about effusively on a regular basis.

Trump is also a prolific liar on stage: Of the 29 false statements the Washington Posttracked last week, five came in a speech to Boy Scouts, two came from a news conference, and a whopping 15 came from a rally in Youngstown, Ohio. (Seven others came from, where else, his personal Twitter feed.)

The deluge matters, notes RAND: “The experimental psychology literature suggests that, all other things being equal, messages received in greater volume and from more sources will be more persuasive.”

RAND: “Russian propaganda is rapid, continuous, and repetitive”

Trump often repeats misleading statements in rapid, successive tweets. As the Postcaptured, in three tweets within 13 minutes on the evening of July 24, he railed against the “Amazon Washington Post,” and in three tweets between 3:03 a.m. and 3:21 a.m. on July 25, he railed against his old foe Hillary Clinton, calling Attorney General Jeff Sessions “VERY weak” for not investigating her, and wrongly saying that acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s wife received money from Clinton. 

Why the technique works: RAND explains that “repetition leads to familiarity, and familiarity leads to acceptance.”

RAND: “Russian propaganda makes no commitment to objective reality”

Phony news stories are a staple of Vladimir Putin’s Russia—and as Mother Jones has detailed, Trump and his team have been caught repeating several that originated in Russian news outlets.

Trump also has a habit of repeating false statements that can be very easily checked—such as lies about the number of bills he has signed. On July 17: “We’ve signed more bills—and I’m talking about through the Legislature—than any president, ever.” And then on July 21: “I heard that Harry Truman was first, and then we beat him. These are approved by Congress. These are not just executive orders.” The historical record shows that many presidents—including Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton—all signed more bills within their first six months of office.

From RAND’s 2016 study

RAND notes that this propaganda strategy flies in the face of conventional wisdom that “the truth always wins.” However, the researchers found, “Even when people are aware that some sources (such as political campaign rhetoric) have the potential to contain misinformation, they still show a poor ability to discriminate between information that is false and information that is correct.” Confirmation bias and emotion also factor in: “Stories or accounts that create emotional arousal in the recipient (e.g., disgust, fear, happiness) are much more likely to be passed on, whether they are true or not.”

RAND: “Russian propaganda is not committed to consistency”

Trump’s story often changes, even among his own false statements. The New York Times tracked five times this spring that the president changed his story about when China had stopped manipulating its currency—from “the time I took office” to “since I started running” to “since I’ve been talking about currency manipulation.” The reality is, China stopped manipulating its currency years ago.

According to RAND, this approach exploits relatively low expectations of truth among the public regarding statements from politicians. In Russia, “Putin’s fabrications, though more egregious than the routine, might be perceived as just more of what is expected from politicians in general and might not constrain his future influence potential.” In the United States, Trump may be taking advantage of historically low public trust in both the media and politicians.

RAND: “Don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.”

The Washington Post has called Trump “the most fact-checked politician.” Yet, the RAND research found that pointing out specific falsehoods was an ineffective tool against the propaganda techniques they studied in Russia because “people will have trouble recalling which information they have received is the disinformation and which is the truth.” The researchers acknowledged the challenges that other governments and organizations like NATO have in countering Russian propaganda, and advised against taking on the propaganda messages directly.

Some responses proposed by the researchers may also hold clues for media struggling to contend with Trump’s unprecedented behavior in the Oval Office. The researchers suggest making the first impression on an issue by priming audiences with accurate information, to get in front of a potentially misleading message. And they advise exposing the method: “Highlight the ways propagandists attempt to manipulate audiences,” they say, “rather than fighting the specific manipulations.”

For the American media, it may well be a matter of doing both, and often.

 

[Howl]

John Kelly comes on right before everybody (including Trump and both houses of Congress) leaves abandons DC for the August break.  Interesting times ahead.  Trump, who relentlessly sh*t on Obama for taking too many vacations, will be at his Bedminster, NJ golf club for 2+ weeks. 

Not being discussed much, but several Bannon (and Jared) favorites, notably and most recently, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, have been evicted from their various positions, which is definitely a sign that Bannon's (and possibly Jared's) power and influence are waning.  Breitbarters are (predictably) foaming at the mouth. 

It will be interesting to see how John Kelly attempts to instill a culture of  discipline in the White House.  As noted above, he'll have the August break to get things under control and move forward.  

Will Jared take this opportunity to bail on the White House and go back to New York as a private citizen "to spend more time with his family"?  Stay tuned for more episodes of The White House: Shit Gets Real! 

[fraurosena]

It will also be interesting to see how the Breitbarter BT's will react...

[Howl]

What/who are Breitbarter BTs?

[fraurosena]

BT's are 'branch trumpvidians', or his rabid followers. The ones that are of the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, conspiracy theorist, alt-right, racist, misogynistic kind that get all their info from Breitbart are the 'Breitbarter BT's'.

In other words, the stupid Bannon lovers that voted voor this presidunce.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Does Trump really think the White House is a dump? ‘TOTALLY UNTRUE,’ he says on Twitter."

Spoiler

President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday night to dispute a much-repeated report that he prefers staying at his own properties around the country because the White House is “a real dump.”

“I love the White House, one of the most beautiful buildings (homes) I have ever seen,” Trump tweeted, blaming the misunderstanding on “Fake News.”

“TOTALLY UNTRUE,” the president said.

A story that debuted Tuesday on Golf.com (that is also appearing in Sports Illustrated) about the president’s love of the sport reported that he told some of his golf buddies of his preference.

Explaining his frequent visit to his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., Trump reportedly told several club members: “That White House is a real dump.” The publication noted that a Trump spokesman denied Trump had made the statement.

Whatever the case, Trump is scheduled to go to Bedminster on Friday for a two-week summer stay.

This is not the first time Trump’s comments about government-owned accommodations have raised eyebrows.

Just before taking office in January, Trump told a journalist that Camp David, the rustic presidential retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains, would be likable “for about 30 minutes.”

After returning to the White House after his first and only trip there in June, Trump responded to a shouted question from a reporter who wanted to know what he thought.

As he walked from Marine One to the White House, Trump offered these words: “incredible,” “beautiful” and “really nice.”

Yeah, right.

[Childless]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Does Trump really think the White House is a dump? ‘TOTALLY UNTRUE,’ he says on Twitter."

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump took to Twitter Wednesday night to dispute a much-repeated report that he prefers staying at his own properties around the country because the White House is “a real dump.”

“I love the White House, one of the most beautiful buildings (homes) I have ever seen,” Trump tweeted, blaming the misunderstanding on “Fake News.”

“TOTALLY UNTRUE,” the president said.

A story that debuted Tuesday on Golf.com (that is also appearing in Sports Illustrated) about the president’s love of the sport reported that he told some of his golf buddies of his preference.

Explaining his frequent visit to his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., Trump reportedly told several club members: “That White House is a real dump.” The publication noted that a Trump spokesman denied Trump had made the statement.

Whatever the case, Trump is scheduled to go to Bedminster on Friday for a two-week summer stay.

This is not the first time Trump’s comments about government-owned accommodations have raised eyebrows.

Just before taking office in January, Trump told a journalist that Camp David, the rustic presidential retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains, would be likable “for about 30 minutes.”

After returning to the White House after his first and only trip there in June, Trump responded to a shouted question from a reporter who wanted to know what he thought.

As he walked from Marine One to the White House, Trump offered these words: “incredible,” “beautiful” and “really nice.”

Yeah, right.

I was looking at pictures by Souza of Obama's time in office.  The photos of him at the White House are particularly stunning.  How could anyone think it was a dump?  Oh, yeah.  The entire thing isn't gaudily covered in gold plating.

Looking at those photographs made me long for yesteryear when our president was humble, respectful, intelligent, well-spoken, kind, empathetic, and had a great sense of humor.  *sigh*

[fraurosena]

Trump urged Mexican president to end his public defiance on border wall, transcript reveals

Spoiler

President Trump made building a wall along the southern U.S. border and forcing Mexico to pay for it core pledges of his campaign.

But in his first White House call with Mexico’s president, Trump described his vow to charge Mexico as a growing political problem, pressuring the Mexican leader to stop saying publicly that his government would never pay.

“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued to make defiant statements.

The funding “will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said, adding later that “it will come out in the wash, and that is okay.” But “if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”

He described the wall as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

The heated exchange came during back-to-back days of calls that Trump held with foreign leaders a week after taking office. The Post has obtained transcripts of Trump’s talks with Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Produced by White House staff, the documents provide an unfiltered glimpse of Trump’s approach to the diplomatic aspect of his job, subjecting even a close neighbor and long-standing ally to streams of threats and invective as if aimed at U.S. adversaries.

The Jan. 28 call with Turnbull became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “This is ridiculous.”

The White House declined to comment. An official familiar with both conversations, who refused to speak on the record because the president’s calls have not been declassified, said, “The president is a tough negotiator who is always looking to make the best possible deals for the American people. The United States has many vital interests at stake with Mexico, including stopping the flow of illegal immigration, ending drug cartels’ reach into our communities, increasing border security, renegotiating NAFTA and reducing a massive trade deficit. In every conversation the president has with foreign leaders, he is direct and forceful in his determination to put America and Americans first.”

The official noted that Trump has since met both the Australian and Mexican leaders in person and had productive conversations with them.

The transcripts were based on records kept by White House notetakers who monitored Trump’s calls. Known as a “memorandum of conversation,” such documents are commonly circulated to White House staff and senior policymakers.

Both documents obtained by The Post contain notes indicating they were reviewed and classified by retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg Jr., who serves as chief of staff on the National Security Council.

Portions of Trump’s strained conversations with Turnbull and Peña Nieto were reported earlier this year. But the transcripts trace the entire course of those calls from greeting to confrontation to — in the case of Turnbull — abrupt conclusion.

Both calls centered on immigration-related issues with high political stakes for Trump, who built his campaign around vows to erect new barriers — physical and legal — to entry to the United States.

But there was little discussion of the substance of those plans or their implications for U.S. relations with Australia and Mexico. Instead, Trump’s overriding concern seemed to center on how any approach would reflect on him.

“This is going to kill me,” he said to Turnbull. “I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.”

The agreement reached by the Obama administration actually called for the United States to admit 1,250 refugees, subject to security screening. A White House readout of the Trump call,issued at the time, said only that the two leaders had “emphasized the enduring strength and closeness of the U.S.-Australia relationship.”

Trump spent much of his call with Peña Nieto seeking to enlist the Mexican president in a deal to stop talking about how the wall would be paid for. Two days earlier, Trump had signed an executive order mandating construction of the wall, but funding for it remains unclear.

“On the wall, you and I both have a political problem,” Trump said. “My people stand up and say, ‘Mexico will pay for the wall,’ and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language.”

Trump seemed to acknowledge that his threats to make Mexico pay had left him cornered politically. “I have to have Mexico pay for the wall — I have to,” he said. “I have been talking about it for a two-year period.”

To solve that problem, Trump pressured Peña Nieto to suppress the issue. When pressed on who would pay for the wall, “We should both say, ‘We will work it out.’ It will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said. “As opposed to you saying, ‘We will not pay,’ and me saying, ‘We will not pay.’ ”

Peña Nieto resisted, saying that Trump’s repeated threats had placed “a very big mark on our back, Mr. President.” He warned that “my position has been and will continue to be very firm, saying that Mexico cannot pay for the wall.”

Trump objected: “But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that.”

Searching for an exit, Peña Nieto reiterated that the border plan “is an issue related to the dignity of Mexico and goes to the national pride of my country” but agreed to “stop talking about the wall.”

The exchange suggests that even at the outset of his presidency, Trump regarded the prospect of extracting money from Mexico as problematic but sought to avoid acknowledging that reality publicly.

Trump reiterated that vow as recently as last month, when he said during a summit of foreign leaders in Germany that he “absolutely” remained committed to forcing Mexico to pay for the wall. Weeks later, however, the House approved a spending bill setting aside $1.6 billion for a structure that is projected to cost as much as $21 billion.

Trump told Peña Nieto that he knew “how to build very inexpensively . . . and it will be a better wall and it will look nice.” He has suggested the money could come from border taxes and even threatened to block remittance payments that flow from workers in the United States to relatives in Mexico, but has yet to provide complete plans or funding details.

Trump also lashed out at Peña Nieto over the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

“We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy,” Trump said. “I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.”

He described Mexican drug cartel leaders as “pretty tough hombres” and promised U.S. military support, saying that “maybe your military is afraid of them, but our military is not.”

Peña Nieto responded by saying that drug trafficking in Mexico is “largely supported by the illegal amounts of money and weapons coming from the United States.”

Trump also threatened to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on imports from Mexico, saying that as president he had been given “tremendous taxation powers for trade,” even though tariffs are mainly the province of Congress.

Despite the friction, Trump at other moments sought to sweet-talk Peña Nieto, telling him that “you and I will always be friends,” and that if they could resolve their disputes over the border and trade, “We will almost become the fathers of our country — almost, not quite, okay?”

Though Australia is one of the United States’ closest allies, Trump’s call with Turnbull was even more contentious. The prime minister opened by noting that he and Trump have similar backgrounds as businessmen turned politicians. Trump also inquired about a mutual acquaintance, the golfer Greg Norman.

But the conversation devolved into a blistering exchange over a U.S. agreement to accept refugees from Australian detention centers on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island and the island nation of Nauru. The Obama administration had agreed to accept some of those being detained on humanitarian grounds after intervention by the United Nations.

At one point, Trump expressed admiration for Australia’s refusal to allow refugees arriving on boats to reach its shores, saying it “is a good idea. We should do that too.” In a remark apparently meant as a compliment, Trump told Turnbull, “You are worse than I am.”

But the conversation rapidly deteriorated.

“I hate taking these people,” Trump said. “I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people” — an apparent reference to U.S. dairy farms.

Turnbull tried to salvage the deal, noting that the detainees were economic refugees who had not been accused of crimes. He explained that they were being denied entry into Australia because of a policy aimed at discouraging human smuggling.

“There is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal,” Turnbull said. “You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.”

Trump only became angrier, saying the refugees could “become the Boston bomber in five years.”

“I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made,” Trump said. “As far as I am concerned, that is enough, Malcolm. I have had it.”

Turnbull tried to turn to Syria and other subjects. But Trump refused. The call, which began at 5:05 p.m., ended 24 minutes later with Turnbull thanking the still-fuming Trump for his commitment.

“You can count on me,” Turnbull said. “I will be there again and again.”

“I hope so,” Trump said before saying thank you and hanging up.

What a blithering idiot.

And note how often he shows how well he knows how wrong he is. 

[fraurosena]

Somebody's angry he had to sign a bill that angered his bestie...

When will the repugs stand up to his constant derogation of Congress? It will not end well if they let this slide.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Can Donald Trump grow up in office?"

Spoiler

Readers of Spoiler Alerts might be aware that, on the side, I have been curating a Twitter thread about the myriad ways that President Trump’s own staff appears to treat him or talk about him like a toddler. It starts here:

... <great tweet>

Some commentators have pushed back on the toddler analogy. In 2015, however, Trump himself told a biographer that he feels that his emotional temperament has been unchanged since he was 6 years old. I’ve found enough examples of Trump’s toddler-like behavior in the thread for FiveThirtyEight to do a big data analysis of it if it chooses to do so. So maybe the toddler analogy has some analytic bite.

One of the more recent additions to my thread came from this intriguing detail in an Associated Press report about new White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly:

[Secretary of Defense James] Mattis and Kelly also agreed in the earliest weeks of Trump’s presidency that one of them should remain in the United States at all times to keep tabs on the orders rapidly emerging from the White House, according to a person familiar with the discussions. The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the administration’s internal dynamics.

Clearly Kelly and Mattis seem to feel that the president of the United States needs adult supervision. This raises an interesting question: Can Kelly structure the White House to make Donald Trump grow up a little bit? In the words of “Bull Durham,” can Kelly “mature” the kid?

The initial reports have been encouraging. Consider this from Axios’s Mike Allen and Jonathan Swan:

Gen. John Kelly, the new White House chief of staff, has taken control in dramatic fashion, and is already imposing unmistakable signs of order after just a few days on the job.

Even POTUS appears to be trying to impress his four-star handler, picking up his game by acting sharper in meetings and even rattling off stats….

The most consequential workplace in America has been one of the most dysfunctional. General Kelly took an instantly assertive tack, and some of the overt shenanigans stopped overnight.

Kelly has also made sure that people who bring out the worst in Trump have exited the building. To use the language of child care, Kelly got rid of some bullies. He fired Trump mini-me Anthony Scaramucci on his first day. National security adviser H.R. McMaster has taken advantage of Kelly’s appointment to finally clean house within the NSC staff.

Kelly has also helped ensure that Trump is not exposed to scary ghost stories, as Politico’s Josh Dawsey reports:

Since starting this week, Kelly has told aides that anyone briefing the president needs to show him the information first. The Trump West Wing tradition of aides dropping off articles on the president’s desk — then waiting for him to react, with a screaming phone call or a hastily scheduled staff meeting, must stop. He will not accept aides walking into the Oval Office and telling the president information without permission — or without the information being vetted.

“He basically said, ‘The president has to get good briefings, he has to get good intelligence,’ ” one senior White House official said. “We have to be putting him in a position to make good decisions.”

In the West Wing, many of the president’s most controversial decisions have been attributed to bad information, partially because the president is easily swayed by the last person he has talked to — or the last thing he has read.

These are all good steps!! Having a new daddy authority figure like Kelly emerge might make Trump more disciplined and more eager to act like a big boy. Kelly has already managed to eliminate some bad seeds and bad information helping to make Trump act worse than he otherwise would.

So, is this the beginning of a new, more disciplined Trump? Nah, not likely.

First, even as all these positive stories emerged about Kelly’s influence today, consider Trump’s statement as he signed a Russia sanctions bill he did not want to sign but had no choice due to its overwhelming popularity in Congress. Here are the super-petulant parts:

The bill remains seriously flawed — particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate. Congress could not even negotiate a health-care bill after seven years of talking. By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together. The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice …

I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.

This is the Toddler Trump that I have come to expect! It’s also unfortunately consistent with how he has behaved in other venues that require grown-up behavior, like speeches in front of Boy Scouts or national security meetings.

Even Kelly knows that there are limits to his ability to force Trump to grow up. According to Dawsey:

Kelly and senior West Wing officials don’t believe Trump will fully change. He is not going to stop tweeting, for example, and they expect him to keep dialing old friends in New York after hours — and that he will likely huddle with aides when Kelly is not around. Senior officials are likely to still give him articles to read without Kelly knowing. “He’s not under the impression he can tell Donald Trump, ‘Oh, you’re going to do it my way,’ ” one Kelly associate said. “He’s not delusional about it.”

As I noted a few months ago, “Trump is a mercurial guy.” His desire to impress Kelly is likely to fade. This will be particularly true the first time something bad happens and Trump blames Kelly for it.

One thing that could work to Kelly’s advantage, paradoxically, is how poorly Trump is polling right now. He’s polling really badly, according to Gallup, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight. This will not put him into a good mood, but if this is a local nadir and he experiences a dead cat bounce, Kelly will be the beneficiary. Kelly might be able to advise Trump on how to think strategically and how to exercise power more effectively. That ain’t beanbag.

Still, toddlers are gonna toddler. Trump’s attempt to impress Kelly and behave like a big boy will fade after the first Twitter tantrum. It is just a question of when.

Boy, what a pitiful situation.

[fraurosena]

Not that this should be surprising, as TT and Rupert Murdoch are fast friends, but here is another disquieting article, showing the presidunce and Faux News working together to spread Chekist style disinformation.

White House Colludes With Fox News to Embrace Disinformation

Spoiler

We’re officially losing the propaganda war with Russia. This isn’t entirely news. Two years ago, I explained how the Obama administration, facing a deluge of Kremlin lies aimed at the West, refused to fight back. This shirking of battle in the propaganda war that Vladimir Putin is waging against America and our allies may be the most consequential what-if of our 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton’s backers have pointed questions about why a Democratic administration proved so timid about resisting the Kremlin’s weaponized lie machine—as well they should. Recently, more troubling questions have emerged about why the Trump White House is even more derelict than its predecessor about this important national security matter.

In response to Russian clandestine interference in our 2016 election—a spy campaign in which disinformation and Active Measures, to use proper Chekist terminology, played a pivotal role in harming the Democrats and helping Donald Trump—late last year Congress passed and the Obama White House signed a bill giving the State Department $80 million to resist Russian lies aimed at the West.

This, therefore, was the law of the land when Trump took his oath of office a few weeks later, but, as I recently explained, in the more than half a year since, absolutely nothing has been done to follow the law. The State Department has hired nobody, created no new programs or organizations, and has not spent a dollar of the $80 million Congress gave it for this new and important mission. All this while our Western allies actually are doing something in the fight against the Kremlin’s lie machine.

Despite repeated inquiries from Congress, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his department have refused to take action and follow the law. Why this is happening has been answered by a new piece in Politico that explains the reason is more sinister than bureaucratic inertia or lethargy in Foggy Bottom. Some wondered if this failure was caused by the unprecedented chaos at the State Department that Tillerson has engendered—including not filling key jobs, disregarding advice from in-house experts, and seeming to despise his own department, which he apparently wants to all but disband, on White House orders.

While the present degree of dysfunction in Foggy Bottom would be difficult to overstate, thanks to Trump’s leadership team, the full truth is even more unpleasant. Tillerson flatly refuses to take action against Moscow and push back on the noxious disinformation that undermines our democracy. According to Politico, a top Tillerson aide “suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow.”

In other words, Tillerson won’t follow U.S. law because it might upset the Kremlin. Notwithstanding that it’s Moscow’s misconduct that is the cause of all this. The funds appropriated by Congress expire at the end of fiscal year 2017, which is less than two months away now. Senators and Representatives ought to have urgent questions about why the executive branch isn’t following the law here.

Unwilling to resist Russian disinformation, the Trump administration instead has enthusiastically embraced such unpleasant espionage techniques, aiming them at fellow Americans for Team Trump’s political benefit. Months ago, I explained how Kremlin-made lies had a habit of winding up on Fox News—the president’s preferred media outlet—before being parroted by the White House itself. This Moscow-created disinformation chain, replete with lies about America’s “deep state” and its alleged plots against the administration, has become a staple on Trump-friendly media at Fox News and beyond.

The pupil is clearly learning: The Trump administration has started employing Chekist-style disinformation to protect itself from the increasingly serious KremlinGate investigation. An unpleasantly illustrative case that has just come to light is that of Seth Rich, a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered in Washington, D.C. in July 2016. His killing remains unsolved; there has never been any reason to think it was anything more than a tragic, random late-night shooting of the kind that happens in our nation’s capital more often than it should.

Nevertheless, for nearly a year, pro-Trump mouthpieces have parroted a fact-free conspiracy theory that Rich—not Russia’s intelligence services—was the “real” source of the purloined DNC emails that were disseminated in the summer of 2016 by Wikileaks, to Hillary Clinton’s detriment. Julian Assange has repeatedly hinted that Rich was his source and that the young man was assassinated by a vengeful Clintonian hit-team, without offering any evidence.

Which he can’t, because there isn’t any. This is just another absurd lie broadcast by a well-known Kremlin front, albeit a particularly nasty one that has tortured the grieving young man’s family. The story doesn’t end there, however. Fox News, too, gleefully parroted Assange’s lie. Here a preeminent role was played by Sean Hannity, a Fox News star plus a friend of Assange’s, who in mid-May broadcast fact-free assertions about Seth Rich and his alleged role in leaking DNC emails.

Rich’s enraged family denounced Hannity and threatened legal action, leading Fox News to take the rare step of retracting Hannity’s fabricated “bombshell” story. Yet the damage was done, and this became yet another case of Kremlin-backed disinformation transforming into a pro-Trump trope on the right-wing, despite there being zero evidence for its veracity. It should be noted that Moscow played a direct role in creating and spreading this noxious Rich mythology. Sputnik, the Kremlin propaganda website, actually cashiered one of its American reporters when he refused to go along with an obvious lie about the murdered young man.

It now turns out that Fox News, too, was complicit in spreading lies about Seth Rich to aid the White House. As reported by NPR, a lawsuit filed by Rod Wheeler, a former cop and sometime Fox News contributor, against the right-wing media giant, alleges that the network consciously spread lies about Seth Rich to help the president deflect attention from the Russia scandal—and that the White House was directly involved in this conspiracy to deceive the public.

According to Wheeler, he was “recruited” by Ed Butowsky, a wealthy Texas investor who’s close to Team Trump, to fabricate a coherent (if utterly false) narrative about Rich’s murder to take the heat of KremlinGate off the increasingly worried White House. This effort included invented quotes about the case from a Fox News reporter. Most importantly, Trump himself reviewed the draft of Hannity’s subsequently discredited “bombshell” before it went live.

This allegation, if true, places the White House at the center of a very Russian-style Active Measure to deceive the American public. This means Donald Trump will resort to truly grand deceptions to deflect attention from his ties to Moscow, leading to obvious questions about what’s so important that the president needs to hide here.

The White House is keeping mum about the Wheeler lawsuit and, significantly, so is Sean Hannity. None of this speaks to their innocence regarding Wheeler’s shocking allegations. It’s bad enough that Team Trump flatly refuses to follow the law and push back against Kremlin lies. It’s considerably worse if the White House is employing Putinesque disinformation to deceive the American public too.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good one: "A Week Without Trumps …'

Spoiler

So much outcry about chaos at the White House. Who’s in? Who’s out? Yet we’ve failed to consider one important question.

What happens to the Weeks?

They’ve been such an administration highlight. Who can forget White House Infrastructure Week? Or Energy Week? Or the current American Dream Week, which the president celebrated by calling for a 50 percent cut in legal immigration?

Reince Priebus was said to have been a big Week maven, and he’s been, um, disappeared. Which is why I’m sort of worried about the end of a great new national tradition.

We still haven’t heard what the next Week is supposed to be. Do you think John Kelly got rid of them? That man cannot stop cleaning house.

All modern presidents have promoted themes they want us to think about, but the current administration has been a pioneer in packaging things into Weeks and then staging lots of events to remind us about their topic. President Trump also generally proposes a bill on the same subject, which Congress promptly rejects.

This happened even during Infrastructure Week — who among us doesn’t like infrastructure? But Trump hasn’t been able to get his act together on a package of projects, so he started the week off with a call for privatizing the air traffic control system, which the Senate commerce committee cheerfully vetoed.

Also, to be fair, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders read a letter from a 10-year-old boy from Virginia who wants to mow the White House lawn. And that’s going to happen. “It’s our responsibility to keep the American dream alive for kids like Frank,” she told the media.

Because this administration has been so danged exciting, it’s easy to merge the Weeks with unrelated presidential events of the moment. So we’ll also remember Infrastructure Week as the one when the fired F.B.I. director testified before Congress. And that during American Dream Week, a golfing story revealed that Trump had called the White House “a real dump.”

But even when the White House is in control of the timing, the Weeks tend to go awry.

Obviously, the idea of having the president give a speech to the Boy Scouts during Heroes Week was planned. But it’s a good bet the planners didn’t expect him to brag to the kids about winning the election, snipe at his political opponents and tell a really long story about a friend who sold his business and bought a big yacht.

Scout leaders were somewhat unnerved by the performance, but Trump, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said “the head of the Boy Scouts” had called him to say “it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them.” The head of the Boy Scouts immediately denied that. Sanders told a press briefing that the president was talking about someone else.

So that was American Heroes Week. Plus the speech to law enforcement officials in which Trump appeared to advocate police brutality. Which Sanders told a press briefing was just a joke.

“The president went out of his way this week to give a special honor to some very special people,” said Lara Trump, the host of a brand-new news program on the president’s Facebook site, as she recounted some of the White House events. She is the wife of Eric Trump, otherwise known as the adult son not currently under investigation for talking with Russians.

Until now we have known Lara as an animal rights activist. Perhaps she could get us a White House Be Kind to Animals Week, in which her father-in-law would have to appear in public with a dog or a cat. This is the first president since James K. Polk who does not have a pet. All this could change in a wink of a Week.

There are all kinds of ways we could turn the Weeks around to the national interest. For instance, the State Department appears to be struggling to get the normal day-to-day business done for lack of staff. Perhaps we could have a Who Wants to Be Ambassador to Norway Week. The press secretary could read letters from 10-year-old volunteers, and on Friday the president could draw a name from a hat.

One of my favorite Weeks was Energy Week, when Trump and Rick Perry went around vowing to make the nation “energy dominant,” a concept so much more manly than energy independent. But still educational. “Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand,” Perry said during a coal mining promotion. “You put the supply out there and the demand will follow.”

And then, of course, there was Made in America Week, which Trump observed by requesting visas to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago.

And Workforce Development Week, when Trump and daughter Ivanka met with C.E.O.s to discuss worker training. And Tech Week, when Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner met with top executives of technology companies.

“I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there,” Lara Trump told her audience.

What about a Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Week?

 

[JMarie]

20 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is a good one: "A Week Without Trumps …'

  Hide contents

So much outcry about chaos at the White House. Who’s in? Who’s out? Yet we’ve failed to consider one important question.

What happens to the Weeks?

They’ve been such an administration highlight. Who can forget White House Infrastructure Week? Or Energy Week? Or the current American Dream Week, which the president celebrated by calling for a 50 percent cut in legal immigration?

Reince Priebus was said to have been a big Week maven, and he’s been, um, disappeared. Which is why I’m sort of worried about the end of a great new national tradition.

We still haven’t heard what the next Week is supposed to be. Do you think John Kelly got rid of them? That man cannot stop cleaning house.

All modern presidents have promoted themes they want us to think about, but the current administration has been a pioneer in packaging things into Weeks and then staging lots of events to remind us about their topic. President Trump also generally proposes a bill on the same subject, which Congress promptly rejects.

This happened even during Infrastructure Week — who among us doesn’t like infrastructure? But Trump hasn’t been able to get his act together on a package of projects, so he started the week off with a call for privatizing the air traffic control system, which the Senate commerce committee cheerfully vetoed.

Also, to be fair, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders read a letter from a 10-year-old boy from Virginia who wants to mow the White House lawn. And that’s going to happen. “It’s our responsibility to keep the American dream alive for kids like Frank,” she told the media.

Because this administration has been so danged exciting, it’s easy to merge the Weeks with unrelated presidential events of the moment. So we’ll also remember Infrastructure Week as the one when the fired F.B.I. director testified before Congress. And that during American Dream Week, a golfing story revealed that Trump had called the White House “a real dump.”

But even when the White House is in control of the timing, the Weeks tend to go awry.

Obviously, the idea of having the president give a speech to the Boy Scouts during Heroes Week was planned. But it’s a good bet the planners didn’t expect him to brag to the kids about winning the election, snipe at his political opponents and tell a really long story about a friend who sold his business and bought a big yacht.

Scout leaders were somewhat unnerved by the performance, but Trump, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said “the head of the Boy Scouts” had called him to say “it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them.” The head of the Boy Scouts immediately denied that. Sanders told a press briefing that the president was talking about someone else.

So that was American Heroes Week. Plus the speech to law enforcement officials in which Trump appeared to advocate police brutality. Which Sanders told a press briefing was just a joke.

“The president went out of his way this week to give a special honor to some very special people,” said Lara Trump, the host of a brand-new news program on the president’s Facebook site, as she recounted some of the White House events. She is the wife of Eric Trump, otherwise known as the adult son not currently under investigation for talking with Russians.

Until now we have known Lara as an animal rights activist. Perhaps she could get us a White House Be Kind to Animals Week, in which her father-in-law would have to appear in public with a dog or a cat. This is the first president since James K. Polk who does not have a pet. All this could change in a wink of a Week.

There are all kinds of ways we could turn the Weeks around to the national interest. For instance, the State Department appears to be struggling to get the normal day-to-day business done for lack of staff. Perhaps we could have a Who Wants to Be Ambassador to Norway Week. The press secretary could read letters from 10-year-old volunteers, and on Friday the president could draw a name from a hat.

One of my favorite Weeks was Energy Week, when Trump and Rick Perry went around vowing to make the nation “energy dominant,” a concept so much more manly than energy independent. But still educational. “Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand,” Perry said during a coal mining promotion. “You put the supply out there and the demand will follow.”

And then, of course, there was Made in America Week, which Trump observed by requesting visas to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago.

And Workforce Development Week, when Trump and daughter Ivanka met with C.E.O.s to discuss worker training. And Tech Week, when Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner met with top executives of technology companies.

“I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there,” Lara Trump told her audience.

What about a Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Week?

 

Well, we're currently observing World Breastfeeding Week, but I'm guessing the White House won't acknowledge it.

http://www.national-awareness-days.com/august/world-breastfeeding-week/

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one: "Trump Knows How to Push Our Buttons"

Spoiler

Last week, when President Trump called on the police to use rough justice in dealing with violent Latino gangs, there was a clear method to his madness.

Addressing patrolmen and officers assembled in the Van Nostrand Theatre on Long Island on July 28, Trump was fully aware that his remarks would prove incendiary:

When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice. (Laughter.) Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?

Underlying Trump’s defiance of law enforcement norms is a calculated strategy advocating the use of force, with the twofold goal of pushing liberals back on their heels and affirming the instincts of his most avid supporters.

The same design underpins such recent actions as his endorsement of legislation to cut legal immigration in half and his administration’s apparent plans to pursue “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions” in opposition to affirmative action.

Trump’s repeated attacks on liberal orthodoxy highlight how Democrats are themselves bound — hogtied is not too strong a word — by the conflicting needs and goals of the various constituencies in their multiracial, multiethnic coalition — a coalition that has been vulnerable to wedge issue attacks for 50 years.

Trump’s Suffolk County speech came four days after the announcement by Democratic House and Senate leaders of their newest economic proposal “A Better Deal,” the recent attempt by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to recoup Democratic majorities lost in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. This “better deal” is explicitly designed to appeal to the “many American workers who have been left behind and left out of the economic recovery” — and to reduce the political salience of issues touching on ethnicity and race.

In an attempt to target swing voters, the proposal calls for “a major infrastructure investment program, a national paid family leave program, rules to ensure fair work schedules” along with “apprenticeships and work-based learning programs” and “a New Tax Credit to Employers to Train and Hire New Workers.”

All of these items poll well, and most have been suggested before, including some in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 platform and some in Trump’s own proposals.

These issues are key to the Democratic struggle to get back in the good graces of white, non-college voters — a constituency that shifted by the millions from casting Democratic presidential ballots in 2008 and 2012 to casting Republican ballots in 2016.

A recently released study by the House Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, concentrates on this constituency. It is based on polling from June 27 to July 13 of 1,000 likely 2018 voters, all of them white, 25 and up, without bachelor’s degrees.

The Majority PAC survey, conducted by Expedition Strategies and Normington, Petts and Associates, describes the profound suspicion of Democrats among these voters.

The survey asked whether seven statements apply more to Democrats or Republicans — “will take the right approach on health care,” “understands what it is like for regular Americans;” “will fight for people like you,” “will reduce the power of special interests in Congress,” “will cut taxes for the middle class,” “will do more to ensure that people are rewarded for hard work” and “will help improve the economy and create jobs.”

Democrats held the advantage on one of the seven, health care, and that was by four points. Republicans were ahead on every other issue. Most important, Republicans led Democrats by a solid 19 points on ensuring that people are rewarded for hard work and by a devastating 35 points on improving the economy and creating jobs — just what “A Better Deal” claims to do.

When Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats seek to make the case for a “better deal,” they face an audience primed to disbelieve every word they say.

I asked Pete Brodnitz, the founder of Expedition Strategies, one of the firms that conducted this survey, whether he thought there was a link between Trump’s emphasis on immigration, Latino gangs, and crime and the Democrats’ efforts to shift the agenda to economic policy.

“This has been building for months but it has become pronounced recently,” he wrote in an email. The Trump administration hopes “Democrats will react by defending immigration and look ‘soft on gangs,’ ” aware that “if they push the envelope on this issue they can get coverage for their efforts and drown out Democratic efforts to change the topic.

Brodnitz described Trump’s tactics as offering “ideas that sound really outlandish but that they believe have popular support — at least with their core voters” and that the Long Island speech was based on “the hope that Democrats would look more concerned about criminals than about crime and its victims.”

To put it mildly, it has been difficult for the Democrats to recruit key white voters to consider an economic agenda in the face of concerted efforts by the Trump campaign and his administration to shift the focus to crime.

Gallup found in October 2016 that the percentage of Americans who said they had “great respect” for the police had risen from 64 percent in 2015 to 76 percent in 2016. The poll was conducted three months after the killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge and five officers in Dallas in July and a steady barrage of headlines spotlighting Black Lives Matter, along with allegations of excessive force by police and several high-profile killings.

I asked a prominent political scientist — a man with generally moderate views — for his reaction to Trump’s comments in the Long Island speech. His answer surprised me. Requesting anonymity in order to speak candidly, he replied:

I think, yeah, a lot of people, whites anyway, think that the police are too constrained. When I watch the anarchists tear up Oakland, which happens pretty regularly, a part of me thinks “where are the 1968 Chicago police when we really need them?” These thugs behave the way they do in part because there are no consequences. Also, we see a lot of cases on TV where someone is resisting arrest, the police wrestle him down and hit him a few times, and then there are complaints about excessive force. Heavens’ sakes, if someone doesn’t comply with an order, what are the police supposed to do?

Trump made no secret of his views during the 2016 campaign, and not only received the overwhelming support of non-college white men, 71-23 (as has been widely noted), but also carried white men with college degrees by a smaller but still hefty margin, 53-39.

“Trump is endorsing the lex talionis — an eye for an eye,” Jonathan Haidt, the author of “The Righteous Mind” and a professor of ethical leadership at N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business, wrote in an email. In his own surveys, conducted at YourMorals.org, “only a subset of people on the right endorse such beliefs; it’s basically the authoritarians, not the Burkean or ‘status quo’ conservatives.”

One question Haidt’s survey asks respondents is whether they agree or disagree with the idea that “a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered.”

Haidt said “progressives strongly reject it, and it correlates fairly well with politics — the farther right you are, the more you endorse it.”

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard, argues in his book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” that “violence has declined over long stretches of time, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence.”

What, then, does Pinker make of Trump’s Long Island speech?

It appeals to one of our worst angels, the desire for “rough justice” — quick and brutal revenge inflicted on a suspected wrongdoer. The ultimate evolutionary rationale for revenge, vendettas, blood feuds, mob violence, summary justice, lynching, vigilantes, deadly ethnic riots, the code of the streets, and other forms of rough justice is deterrence: if a person anticipates getting beaten up for exploiting people, he’ll think twice about exploiting them.

Trump, in Pinker’s view, has focused on the most primitive and regressive emotions among voters:

So yes, Trump is wisecracking about overturning millennia of progress in taming our brutish instincts for instant retaliation, and discarding the norms and institutions of justice that our better angels have crafted and perfected.

Pinker sees this as part of an ongoing struggle.

The appeal of regressive impulses is perennial. The forces of liberalism, modernity, cosmopolitanism, the open society, and Enlightenment values always have to push against our innate tribalism, authoritarianism, and thirst for vengeance.

And yes,

at times in history the darker forces prevail — the two world wars, the American crime wave from the 1960s to early 1990s, the rise of civil war in the developing world over that same period. These darker forces, moreover, are not just raw instincts, but often rationalized in ideologies.

The connection may not seem obvious at first, but Pinker’s comments are directly relevant to the Democratic Party’s attempt to counter Trump with liberal economic policies.

Not only is their adversary a man ungoverned by rule or tradition, but he is a man who has taken “our impulses of authoritarianism and tribalism,” to quote Pinker one last time, and constructed “an edifice of rationalization around them.”

This puts the Democrats in a dangerous position. The more they succeed in pushing Trump up against a wall, politically speaking, the more they risk the possibility that the he will inflict real damage, whether it is hostile engagement abroad or increasingly aggressive attacks on democratic institutions at home.

It is ominous that Trump has already hit upon the use of force as his preferred solution when confronting domestic law-and-order issues. One hates to think of what a man with his mind-set can do with a nuclear arsenal and the world as his stage.

Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona and the author of a new book, “Conscience of a Conservative,” has not yet fully demonstrated the sincerity of his concern, but he has articulated the seriousness of Trump’s transgressive impulses. In an excerpt that was published by Politico, Flake describes

the strange specter of an American president’s seeming affection for strongmen and authoritarians created such a cognitive dissonance among my generation of conservatives — who had come of age under existential threat from the Soviet Union — that it was almost impossible to believe.

Conservatives have maintained an unnerving silence as instability has ensued. To carry on in the spring of 2017 as if what was happening was anything approaching normalcy required a determined suspension of critical faculties.

What Flake recognizes, and what Democrats are only coming to realize, is that Trump represents a systemic assault on the legitimacy of America’s democratic processes, an attack that needs to be countered by far more that a modest collection of economic policies organized under the rubric “a better deal.”

Flake’s open defection is an important step. If it is to become a serious problem for Trump, Flake’s Republican colleagues — Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Lisa Murkowksi, Rob Portman and Ben Sasse come to mind — will have to join him and not just one vote at a time. For a challenge to Trump to be effective, Republicans’ “unnerving silence” will have to crack.

 

[candygirl200413]

I might have to get a glass of wine while reading that transcript. I already saw bits and pieces on Velshi and Rhule and pretty sure my eyes got stuck from rolling them.

Has anyone read about the immigration "point system?". My cousin who is still on her student visa I believe (also an alumna of Wharton) looked into it and wanted to puke.

How to earn 'points' to come to the US under Trump's immigration plan

Quote

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Wednesday got behind a bill to drastically cut legal immigration and replace current employment based visas with a point system.

The plan mimics systems used by Australia and Canada, which Trump has often praised, in awarding points to potential immigrants based on broad categories. The 140,000 visas available annually under this system would be distributed to the highest point-getters first.

Under the plan -- if approved by Congress, which will be a heavy lift -- the highest point-getting candidate, for example, not including special circumstances, would be a 26- to 31-year-old with a US-based doctorate or professional degree, who speaks nearly perfect English and who has a salary offer that's three times as high as the median income where they are.

Have an Olympic medal or Nobel Prize? That will help too.

A candidate must have at least 30 points to apply.

Here's how the points would be doled out:

Age

Priority is given to prime working ages. Someone aged 18 through 21 gets six points, ages 22 through 25 gets eight points and ages 26 through 30 get 10 points.

The points then decrease, with someone aged 31 through 35 getting eight points, 36 through 40 getting six points, ages 41 through 45 getting four points and ages 46 through 50 getting two points.

Minors under the age of 18 and those over the age of 50 receive no points, though people over 50 years old are still allowed to apply.

Education

Points are distributed based on the highest degree a person has achieved. One point is given for an applicant with a US high school diploma or the foreign equivalent. A foreign bachelor's degree earns five points, while a US bachelor's degree earns six points.

A foreign master's degree in STEM fields earns seven points while a US master's earns eight points. A foreign professional degree or doctorate earns 10 points and a US equivalent earns 13.

English ability

Points are also given out for English ability, as determined by standardized English test.

Anyone with less than a 60th percentile proficiency gets no points. Between 60th and 80th percentile is worth six points, someone in the 80th to 90th percentile range earns 10 points, someone with a 90th percentile proficiency or above earns 11 points, and someone in the 100th percentile range earns 12 points.

Job offer?

The only point scale that factors in whether an individual actually has a job offer in the US comes in the form of salary in an effort to boost wages.

Five points are awarded if an applicant has a job offer that will pay at least 150% of median household income in the state where he or she will be employed. That goes up to eight points if the income is 200% the median income, and 13 points if it's 300% the median.

Nobel Prize

There are bonus points available for "extraordinary achievement," mainly reserved for major international awards. The system grants 25 points to someone who has won a Nobel prize or something "comparable."

Olympics

Fifteen points would be given to someone earning an individual Olympic medal or relatively competitive international sporting event.

Investors

The bill would eliminate a category of visas that spurred foreign investment in the US, the EB-5 program, which was used by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner's family businesses to build major real estate projects.

That concept is represented by awarding six points to an applicant who invests $1.35 million into a "new commercial enterprise" in the US, maintained for three years and with that individual holding management of that business as his or her primary application. The points go up to 12 if the investment is $1.8 million.

Spouses

The bill also requires applicants, if they want to bring a spouse with them, to calculate the points the spouse would earn under the same rubric.

 

 

[JMarie]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/trump-new-hampshire-drugs/index.html

Quote

President Donald Trump, in a conversation with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, labeled New Hampshire "a drug-infested den," according to a transcript of Trump's January 27 call that was published by The Washington Post on Thursday.

The comment was quickly decried by Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the Granite State, including the state's Republican governor who endorsed Trump during the 2016 campaign.

During the call, according to the Post, Trump lashed out at Peña Nieto for the quantity of illegal drugs that come into the United States from Mexico.

"We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy," Trump said.

He later bragged that he won the Granite State because of the opioid epidemic.

"I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den," he said.

Asked by CNN to comment on the transcript, Michael Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said only that he "can't confirm or deny the authenticity of allegedly leaked classified documents."

Trump did, in fact, win the Republican primary in New Hampshire, more than doubling the vote total received by his nearest competitor, Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Trump, however, narrowly lost the state to Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Trump seized on the opioid epidemic while campaigning in New Hampshire throughout 2015 and 2016, promising the people of the state that he would boost local clinics, help those who are already hooked on opioids and stop the flow of drugs coming into the state.

The issue was so critical to Trump that he headlined an event in New Hampshire focused strictly on opioids days before the 2016 election.

"I just want to let the people of New Hampshire know that I'm with you 1,000%, you really taught me a lot," he said before promising to help people who "are so seriously addicted."

And he has made similar comments in the past about how inexpensive drugs can be.

"We're becoming a drug-infested nation," Trump said in February. "Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars."

Republican New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu flatly said Trump's statement was "wrong" in a statement on Thursday.

"It's disappointing his mischaracterization of this epidemic ignores the great things this state has to offer," he said. "We are already seeing positive signs of our efforts as overdoses and deaths are declining in key parts of the state. In spite of this crisis, New Hampshire remains the best place to live, work and raise a family."

New Hampshire's two Democratic senators also blasted the comments.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen tweeted that Trump needed to apologize to the state of New Hampshire and "then should follow through on his promise to Granite Staters to help end this crisis."

"It's absolutely unacceptable for the President to be talking about NH in this way -- a gross misrepresentation of NH & the epidemic," she wrote.

Sen. Maggie Hassan called Trump's comments "disgusting."

"As he knows, NH and states across America have a substance misuse crisis," Hassan wrote. "Instead of insulting people in the throes of addiction, [Trump] needs to work across party lines to actually stem the tide of this crisis."

And the Democratic National Committee said the comments prove that Trump "looks at the opioid epidemic as a political advantage, rather than a national crisis that demands the attention and care of our President."

Multiple White House officials failed to respond to CNN's questions about the President's comments about New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is one of the states most directly impacted by the opioid crisis. According to the NH Drug Monitoring Initiative, drug overdose deaths have climbed in the state since 2012 and it expected to again hit an all-time high once data from 2016 is tabulated.

A national study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 25% of all drug overdose deaths were related to heroin in 2015. That number was just 6% in 1999.

In response to the epidemic, Trump created a White House panel tasked with looking into how the federal government should respond. The panel, which is being led by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, released its interim report earlier this week and suggested that Trump declare a state of emergency to combat opioids.

"Our citizens are dying. We must act boldly to stop it," read its report. "The first and most urgent recommendation of this Commission is direct and completely within your control. Declare a national emergency."

The report added: "America is enduring a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks," noting the fact that 142 Americans die from drug overdoses every day.

Just. Stop. Talking.

Please.

[AmazonGrace]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/03/why-the-leaked-presidential-transcripts-are-so-frightening/?utm_term=.1a3a13f61217

Why the leaked presidential transcripts are so frightening

By Jennifer Rubin August 3 at 1:00 PM

Spoiler

 

The Post’s latest bombshell has dropped:

The Post has obtained transcripts of Trump’s talks with Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Produced by White House staff, the documents provide an unfiltered glimpse of Trump’s approach to the diplomatic aspect of his job, subjecting even a close neighbor and long-standing ally to streams of threats and invective as if aimed at U.S. adversaries.

Among the most disturbing exchanges were a series of petulant remarks concerning — what else? — refugees:

The Jan. 28 call with Turnbull became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “This is ridiculous.” … “This is going to kill me,” he said to Turnbull. “I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.”

With the president of Mexico, Trump again made it all about him:

“On the wall, you and I both have a political problem,” Trump said. “My people stand up and say, ‘Mexico will pay for the wall,’ and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language.”

Trump seemed to acknowledge that his threats to make Mexico pay had left him cornered politically. “I have to have Mexico pay for the wall — I have to,” he said. “I have been talking about it for a two-year period.” …

Peña Nieto resisted, saying that Trump’s repeated threats had placed “a very big mark on our back, Mr. President.” He warned that “my position has been and will continue to be very firm, saying that Mexico cannot pay for the wall.”

Trump objected: “But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that.”

There are several deeply troubling aspects of all this.

First, it is shocking to see presidential conversations released in this way. Some in the executive branch, as Anthony Scaramucci aptly put it, are intent on protecting the country from Trump. This is a good thing, by the way. White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly has obviously failed to plug the flood leaks, and one wonders whether a leak this egregious is meant to signal that the White House will remain dysfunctional. (Trump should understand that anything and everything in his administration that could be compromising will come out sooner or later.) Although leaking transcripts of presidential conversations is potentially very harmful in the long run, I would argue in this case that it is justified.

And that brings us to the next point: Trump is frighteningly obsessed with himself and his image to such an extent that he cannot fulfill the role of commander in chief. He cannot frame logical arguments based on public policy, and therefore comes across as, well, a fool to foreign leaders. His desire to maintain his own image suggests he’d be more than willing to make the country’s interests subordinate to his own need for personal affirmations. Dealing with foreign allies is bad enough, but one can only imagine what he has said to adversaries.

This, in turn, raises a third critical issue: Trump’s narcissism leaves him open to flattery and threats (to reveal embarrassing material, for example). That’s the worry in the Russia investigation — namely, that Vladimir Putin has “something” on Trump, which compels Trump to act in ways inimical to U.S. interests. Trump’s interests are paramount, so a cagey adversary can easily manipulate him.

As you can see, there is no magical cure for this, no Svengali who can be brought in to stop Trump from being Trump. One cannot be impeached and removed for being an embarrassment to the United States or an egomaniac temperamentally unfit for the job (that was the argument fornot electing him). Unless he really goes off the deep end, invoking the 25th Amendment is not a realistic option.

That leaves members of Congress and his administration with a few options. They can try to box him off from dangerous actions (as Congress now contemplates doing in a statute to protect special counsel Robert S. Mueller III from being fired) and ignore tweets, although that is an incomplete solution. Alternatively, Congress can rely on the special counsel’s findings and its own investigation, finding justification in the Russia scandal to impeach and remove him. Finally, Congress can force Trump to make a choice, or looked upon differently, give him an out to leave the presidency. Enforce the Constitution’s emoluments clause (he can receive no foreign monies); affix anti-nepotism rules in statute (depriving him of his relatives’ hand-holding, at least in an official capacity); through statute require complete divestiture of senior officials’ business holdings; or pass a law forcing him and all future presidents to disclose their tax returns. Because we know Trump puts himself, his ego and his interests ahead of everything and will do almost anything to avoid looking bad, he might just decide to take his ball and go home.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/03/trump-berated-australias-prime-minister-over-a-refugee-policy-he-barely-understood/

Trump berated Australia’s prime minister over a refugee policy he barely understood

By Aaron Blake August 3 at 1:40 PM

We've known for a while that President Trump berated Australia's prime minister on a Jan. 28 phone call; The Washington Post reported on it back then.

What we didn't know then was how little Trump understood the policy that was discussed on the call.

Spoiler

 

According to a transcript of the call unearthed by The Post's Greg Miller, the deal to resettle refugees was actually brought up first on the call by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who wanted assurance that the U.S. government would stand by its commitment in light of Trump's stance on other refugees. After some discussion of the Islamic State and Christian refugees more generally, Turnbull says, “This is a very big issue for us, particularly domestically, and I do understand you are inclined to a different point of view than the vice president.”

Trump then starts the back-and-forth by noting that someone had just described the deal to him. But then he uses inaccurate numbers: “Somebody told me yesterday that close to 2,000 people are coming who are really probably troublesome.”

Later, he inflates it even more for reasons that aren't clear. “With great respect, Turnbull says, “that is not right; it is not 2,000.” Trump responds: “Well, it is close. I have also heard, like, 5,000 as well.”

The number, in fact, is about 1,250, which is the number of refugees currently being held on the islands of Manus and Nauru.

Trump also doesn't even seem to familiar with the fact that the deal was forged by the Obama administration. “Who made the deal? Obama?” Trump asks. Turnbull responds, apparently realizing Trump is out of his depth: “Yes, but let me describe what it is.”

Finally, later in the conversation, Trump seems wholly unfamiliar with the reason the United States might take these refugees in the first place, rather than Australia. It's because Australia doesn't take refugees who arrive via boat, which is how these refugees traveled.

Trump repeatedly seems puzzled, first as to why Australia doesn't take the refugees, and then as to why they have a policy of not accepting people via boat:

TRUMP: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

TURNBULL: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in.

And later:

TURNBULL: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

TRUMP: Malcom, but they are arrived on a boat?

TURNBULL: Correct, we have stopped the boats.

And:

TURNBULL: We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.

TRUMP: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.

TURNBULL: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision.

It's difficult to read all of this and believe Trump had anything more than a passing understanding of the refugee resettlement deal before this call, and yet he launches into a virtual tirade against a major U.S. ally and later hangs up on Turnbull.

This, of course, wouldn't be the only time that Trump spoke with a foreign leader apparently without doing his homework on the major issues between their two countries. When he welcomed the Lebanese prime minister to the White House recently, Trump was asked about sanctions against Hezbollah and didn't seem to have a clue about it. He even seemed to not recognize the word Hezbollah at one point.

View image on Twitter

 Follow

Aaron Blake ✔@AaronBlake

This answer from Trump ...

12:17 AM - Jul 26, 2017

 

Needless to say, conducting diplomacy without an understanding of the issues you're debating is a pretty curious approach. It seems a lot like Trump heard the word “refugees” and that's all he needed to know.