Trump 18: Info to Russia, With Love

[nvmbr02]

34 minutes ago, JMarie said:

How would she know when it's safe to start listening again??

Quite honestly I doubt she was ever really listening in the first place.

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

 I'm surprised he doesn't just represent himself, because he knows more about all the laws than anybody

When he received that honorary law degree from Liberty University, my first thought was to wonder how long it would be until he started calling himself a lawyer. 

[onekidanddone]

For all you aging head bangers like myself an updated song from our youth.

Quote

Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go
He needs be sedated
Nothing to do, no where to go o,
He needs be sedated

Just get him to the airport, put him on a plane
Hurry hurry hurry, before we all go insane
He can't control his fingers, He can't control his brain
Oh no oh oh oh oh

Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go
He needs be sedated
Nothing to do, no where to go o,
He needs be sedated

Just put him in a wheelchair, get him on a plane
Hurry hurry hurry, before we go insane
He can't control his fingers, He can't control his brain
Oh no oh oh oh oh

Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go
He needs be sedated
Nothing to do, no where to go o,
He needs be sedated

Just put him in a wheelchair, get him to the show
Hurry hurry hurry, before we go loco
He can't control his fingers, he can't control his toes
Oh no oh oh oh oh

Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go
He needs be sedated
Nothing to do, no where to go o,
He needs be sedated

Just put him in a wheelchair, get him to the show
Hurry hurry hurry, before we go loco
He can't control his fingers, he can't control his toes
Oh no oh oh oh oh

Ba ba baba, baba ba baba, He needs be sedated
Ba ba baba, baba ba baba, He needs be sedated
Ba ba baba, baba ba baba, He needs be sedated
Ba ba baba, baba ba baba, He needs be sedated

 

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Loved this summary of the last day

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/the-white-houses-absolutely-brutal-night-in-6-headlines/?utm_term=.3e5995e6761d

Spoiler

For any president, one of these headlines would be very bad news. For President Trump, they all came in a span of 12 hours:

“Justice Department to appoint special counsel to oversee probe of Russian meddling in 2016 election”

“House majority leader told colleagues last year: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump”

“Flynn stopped military plan Turkey opposed — after being paid as its agent”

“Trump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White House”

“Israeli Source Seen as Key to Countering Islamic State Threat”

“Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians — sources”

Trump's opponents have often accused the media of allowing Trump to distract them with the insignificant, shiny objects that Trump dangles in front of them. At this point, the bigger problem may be that there are too many very real stories to keep up with.

1) The special prosecutor

This is the day the White House — and apparently congressional Republicans — hoped would never come. The White House said just three days ago that there was “frankly no need” for a special investigator to look into Russian meddling, and very few in the GOP signed off on one, even after the drama of Trump firing FBI Director James B. Comey last week.

The reasons they didn't want one are: a) The investigation had previously been handled only by Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, and by the FBI, which is at least within the chain of command in the Trump administration. A special prosecutor lends much more seriousness to the proceedings and carries the kind of independence from political influence that simply didn't exist before.

And as I argue, it's a pretty direct rebuke from Trump's own Justice Department of his heavy-handed approach to this whole thing, something opponents have argued amounts to obstruction of justice.

2) Kevin McCarthy's 'Putin pays' Trump line

Even if you acknowledge this was a joke, which House GOP leadership say it was, it shows that Republicans were joking about Trump colluding with Russia even before WikiLeaks. That's a story line even Democrats didn't really pick up until much later.

It's not difficult to see Democrats using this to argue that Republicans buried whatever curiosity they had about ties between Trump and Russia as they were working to elect him president.

3) Flynn directly influenced White House policy in a pro-Turkey direction after Turkey paid him

Michael T. Flynn, who was forced to resign as Trump's national security adviser, is the opposite of the gift that keeps on giving. He's the infestation that no exterminator can get rid of.

4) White House counsel knew Flynn was under investigation even before he was hired

This arrangement may not have been known to the public, but the New York Times reports that not only was the Trump team aware, but that it knew he was under investigation for it.

This makes the above and everything that came before it just remarkable. How could Trump hire Flynn for a national security job knowing this? How could the White House let him weigh in on policy affecting Turkey? How could the White House have waited so long to terminate Flynn when his problems grew on that second big issue, his contacts with Russia?

And very troubling for Vice President Pence, who led Trump's transition, how in the world do you explain this?

The new cover of Time is priceless

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/this-new-time-cover-is-an-instant-classic-but-will-it-earn-a-spot-on-trumps-wall/

Spoiler

This new Time cover is an instant classic, but will it earn a spot on Trump’s wall?

By Callum Borchers May 18 at 4:06 PM

On the new cover of Time magazine, the White House is depicted in the midst of a makeover — the iconic spires of St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow replicated on the roof of President Trump’s home, as it turns red. The arresting image conveys a sense that Russia, as a news subject, is overtaking Washington.

Which, of course, it is.

The cover joins a memorable collection published by Time in the nearly two years since Trump entered politics. Some highlights:

As good as the latest cover is, Time does lose points in the category of originality. Mad magazine featured the same concept in August.

Trump must hate the Time cover, right? Probably. He certainly hates the whole Russia mess.

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Keeping up with politics is easy now.

Sign up

But remember that Trump has called it “a great honor” to be featured on the cover of Time. He even liked the cover that labeled him a “bully” and a “demagogue.”

“Look at that picture of me on Time,” he said to a People magazine reporter, after that particular issue of Time hit newsstands in March 2016. As he spoke, People reported, Trump gestured to a tall stack of the magazines in his office and asked, “Isn’t that an amazing picture?”

Also, Trump has a habit of collecting magazine covers and hanging them on his office wall.

That was in Trump Tower, however. The Oval Office is another story, and it is hard to imagine a cover that shows the White House morphing into a Russian landmark earning a spot next to Trump’s portrait of Andrew Jackson. Maybe Trump likes the attention, albeit negative, but he probably won’t put this one on display.

 

[onekidanddone]

10 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

The new cover of Time is priceless

<rest snipped>

 

Look at it this way at least he can still brag on how many covers of Time he has. More than any other dictator ... the best.

[RoseWilder]

14 hours ago, AuntK said:

I've been reading on FJ about Louise Mensch and her predictions and have started following her on Twitter. While I would love for her predictions to be correct, I have noted a lot of them are not.  I am reserving judgment, but there seems to be a building wave of criticism on Twitter, primarily because it is alleged that she is a British conservative, employee of Rupert Murdoch, and a friend of Ivanka Trump. Don't know if this is true, but she is definitely controversial!

Up until this week, the only story of hers that the mainstream media confirmed was true was the existence of a FISA warrant (that she reported on five months before the rest of the media caught on.) 

But, in this week alone, 4 other stories she had previously reported on were all confirmed by the mainstream media. 

So I think it would be more accurate to say that a lot of the things she's reported on have not been proven correct YET. Also, she's careful to point out the places where she's speculating, and the times when she has sources. Very little of what she says is meant to be a prediction. They're news scoops, that says she has sources for. And she's been proven correct quite a lot lately. 

When someone gets the story right 5 times, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the rest. This is a complicated story that's taking a long time to unravel, and it seems that every day this week another piece of what she's been reporting on falls into place. It gives me a great deal of hope that the rest of what she's saying is true. 

P.S. - I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion about Mensch, by the way. I know a lot of people don't believe her, and that doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to explain why I do believe her, despite finding her a bit irritating at times. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump or Congress can still block Robert Mueller. I know. I wrote the rules."

Spoiler

Appointing special counsel Robert Mueller to probe Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any possible ties to President Trump’s campaign was the only option for moving toward resolving the conflicts and potential conflicts of interest these matters posed. In fact, the special-counsel regulations under which Mueller was appointed were written precisely to address a situation like this one.

I would know; I wrote them, in 1999. But Mueller’s appointment won’t end the possibility of political interference in the investigation. The rules provide only so much protection. Congress, Trump and the Justice Department still have the power to stymie (or even terminate) Mueller’s inquiry.

The special-counsel regulations were drafted at a unique historical moment. We were approaching the end of President Bill Clinton’s second term, and no one knew who would be elected president the next year. Presidents of both parties had suffered through scandals and prosecutions under the Independent Counsel Act — Ronald Reagan with Iran-contra and Clinton with Monica Lewinsky. There was a chance to rethink things without either party fearing that it would give its political adversaries an advantage. Attorney General Janet Reno convened an internal working group to study the matter, and I ran that group for 18 months.

Our first decision was to let the Independent Counsel Act expire on June 30, 1999. Independence sounds good in theory, but in practice, it is mutually exclusive with accountability. The more independence you give a prosecutor, the less you make that prosecutor accountable to the public and regular checks and balances. And so we had seen the investigations and mandates of independent counsels mushroom, becoming a headless fourth branch of government. The consensus around this point was so great that sitting independent counsel Ken Starr testified against the act in 1999 and sought its expiration (his own investigation into Clinton, then still going on, was grandfathered).

At the same time, everyone understood the need for a prosecutor to take the reins when the Justice Department faced a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety. So we drafted the regulations with an eye toward that and convened many meetings with Hill staffers of both parties. Ultimately, Reno and then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder presented the regulations in congressional testimony. They received near-universal acclaim for striking a more proper balance.

Though our regulations were written nearly 20 years ago, they eerily anticipate the Russia investigation. Their very first lines refer to cases in which the attorney general is recused, as Jeff Sessions is now. They require the special counsel to be “a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking,” which Mueller certainly is. They provide for the counsel to “not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department.” And they say that the acting attorney general (for the purposes of the Russia investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) can stop the special counsel “for any investigative or prosecutorial step” that is “so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” If, however, Rosenstein invokes that authority, the regulations require him to notify the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. (In yet another foreshadowing of the present day, we assumed that the majority in Congress, if of the same party as the president, might be spineless and fail to investigate any interference by the Justice Department or the White House, and so we required the report to be given to the ranking minority member of each committee as well.)

This was the best we could do, given the United States’ constitutional structure. It’s not perfect. There are still at least three ways in which Trump, Congress or high-ranking Justice Department officials could interfere with Mueller’s investigation.

First, most simply, Trump could order Mueller fired. Our Constitution gives the president the full prosecution power in Article II; accordingly, any federal prosecutor works ultimately for the president. That constitutional reality is not something we could write around with a regulation. Instead, we opted to try to focus accountability for any such activity. The regulations provide that Mueller can “be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General” (again, Rosenstein here, because Sessions is recused) and only for “good cause.” The president therefore would have to direct Rosenstein to fire Mueller — or, somewhat more extravagantly, Trump could order the special-counsel regulations repealed and then fire Mueller himself. Either of those actions was unthinkable to us back in 1999, for we understood that President Richard Nixon’s attempt in this regard ultimately led to his downfall. At the same time, after Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey this month, many things once thought beyond the realm of possibility look less so now.

Second, Congress could muck up Mueller’s investigation. Several congressional committees are looking into Russia, and any one of them could decide to give immunity to a particular witness. You’ve seen the drill before: Some high-ranking corporate executive comes before Congress and refuses to answer a question because it might incriminate her. The way Congress deals with that problem is to say that her testimony can’t be used against her. That’s part of Congress’s truth-seeking function. Formally, such immunity is confined to her congressional testimony and doesn’t prevent criminal charges altogether, again because the Constitution gives the president the prosecution power. But in the real world, if one of the committees gives immunity to, say, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, that could make Flynn’s prosecution impossible. Recall the Oliver North case. North was criminally convicted by an independent counsel during Iran-contra. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out his conviction because Congress earlier gave him immunity for his testimony. Even though that immunity didn’t directly cover action by the independent counsel, the court found that the special prosecutor could have benefited from the fruits of that congressional testimony. There is a possible silver lining in this scenario, though: If Flynn was given immunity, he would have to testify, including against higher-ups, as he would no longer have any rights to refuse to testify to protect himself against self-incrimination. So even if Mueller can’t get Flynn, he might be able to convict someone else, including potentially a bigger fish.

Third, the regulations permit Rosenstein to define the scope and powers of the investigation. At the outset, the sweep looks fairly broad, encompassing “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” But that is not as broad as the authorities that were given in another recent independent investigation: In 2003, when Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate leaks that identified former CIA officer Valerie Plame, his appointment letters made clear that he was granted “all the authority of the Attorney General,” which was “plenary.” Those sweeping powers could be given only to someone who was in the government and confirmed by the Senate — as Fitzgerald, then a sitting U.S. attorney, had been — so they are unavailable to Mueller. But they stand as a reminder that Mueller operates as a subordinate to the Justice Department, not as Rosenstein’s equal.

And one final thought: You might have heard of the guy who signed the appointment letters giving Fitzgerald that plenary power. His name was James Comey.

We need to be cognizant of any attempts to stymie Mueller's investigation by the administration or congress.

[NotQuiteMotY]

I'm stunned no one's posted yet about Chaffetz's resignation letter here! (Sorry, not sure how to C&P addresses on my Kindle or I'd add a link.)

[fraurosena]

So, the presidunce is off on his first overseas trip today. Here's a NYT article on the subject:

Foreign Trip Comes at Crucial Time, but Trump Is a Reluctant Traveler

 

Quote

[...] Preparation — a standard part of the weeks before a big foreign trip — has also been hit-or-miss in recent days. [...]

As allegations of obstruction of justice and giving secrets to Russia consumed Mr. Trump’s administration, aides sought to focus the president’s fleeting attention on the vital foreign policy issues he will confront and the nuts-and-bolts difficulty of taking the White House around the globe.

Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, led briefings, including one on European leaders, last week in the Oval Office. The president conferred with the defense secretary about the Middle East and discussed his Saudi Arabia meetings with his secretary of state. Among the touchy issues in Israel: whether to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, something the president has decided not to announce during the trip.

But even as he sat with briefing books and stacks of news clippings about global events, Mr. Trump has generally just skimmed through, according to several people familiar with his preparations. Instead, he has focused on the chaos swirling around his White House.

In an attempt to capture his interest, aides threaded Mr. Trump’s own name through the paragraphs of one of the two-page memos they wrote for him.

“You have to be prepared. These things tend to be heavily prepared on both sides so everyone knows what the expectations are,” said James B. Steinberg, a diplomat for former President Barack Obama who traveled extensively around the world. Of Mr. Trump, he said, “The fact that he doesn’t go in for the typical preparations complicates these things.” [...]

I literally laughed out loud when I read the bolded part. I can just picture him sitting with a memo before him on the table, a little finger of his tiny hands moving along the words, and then a triumphant smile breaks out on his pouty little mouth as he cries to those with him in the room: "Look, look, it says 'Trump' right there, see? And here too! And here! Trump, Trump, Trump..."

Quote

Still, in private, Mr. Trump’s advisers acknowledge that they are concerned about his off-script eruptions, his tendency to be swayed by flattery and the possibility that foreign leaders may present him with situations he does not know how to handle. They worry he will accidentally commit the United States to something unexpected, and they have tried to caution him about various scenarios.

I have to confess, I'm rather looking forward to him going off-script...

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

26 minutes ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

I'm stunned no one's posted yet about Chaffetz's resignation letter here! (Sorry, not sure how to C&P addresses on my Kindle or I'd add a link.)

I think it was mentioned somewhere -- so much going on... Here's a link to one of the stories: "Chaffetz to resign, raising doubts about Trump probe"

Quote

ALPINE, Utah (AP) — Rep. Jason Chaffetz announced Thursday he will resign from Congress next month, saying a “mid-life crisis” had compelled him to step away from his chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee just as it is poised to investigate President Donald Trump’s firing of the FBI director.

The announcement by Chaffetz, 50, was the latest upending of the Republican-controlled congressional investigations into Trump.

Chaffetz’s announcement came a day after he tweeted that he had invited ex-FBI Director James Comey to testify next week at a hearing of the oversight committee he leads.

...

Chaffetz, a former kicker for the Mormon-owned Brigham Young University football team, was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008. He strolled to four-easy re-elections in his heavily Republican district that stretches from towns in the Wasatch Mountains to the Salt Lake suburbs and Provo, home of Brigham Young University. Chaffetz became chairman of the House Oversight Committee in 2015.

He has not ruled out running for another office, such as Utah governor.

Prior to his time in office, he worked in communications for more than a decade and served as campaign manager for former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

Sitting on his couch with his wife Julie and petting their dog, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Ruby, Chaffetz said he had been stunned by two of his children’s upcoming moves from Utah and the realization he and his wife would be empty-nesters soon.

“I kind of had a little bit of a midlife crisis. I turned 50, I’m sleeping on a cot,” Chaffetz said of his life as a congressman in Washington. “The overwhelming driving force is the idea that I just love my family. And a lot of people will never ever believe that, but that is the truth.”

Um, yeah, suddenly he wants to be with his family. If Hillary had been elected, he would have spent every moment (waking and asleep) going after her until he was voted out of office.

[onekidanddone]

I might need to check myself into the hospital for Trump Obsessive Disorder.  I've been checking WoPo and there are no breaking news stories all morning.  This can't be good and it feels to me like the quiet before a new huge orange shit storm. I hope I didn't jinx it.  

[fraurosena]

55 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I think it was mentioned somewhere -- so much going on... Here's a link to one of the stories, by HuffPo: "Chaffetz to resign, raising doubts about Trump probe"

Um, yeah, suddenly he wants to be with his family. If Hillary had been elected, he would have spent every moment (waking and asleep) going after her until he was voted out of office.

Here's another article on the matter, which I don't believe has been posted yet (at least, I haven't found it in a quick search through these threads ). The article itself has links to the original Politico article.

Jason Chaffetz Resigning From Congress

Quote

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) will step down from Congress later this year, Politico reported Thursday. Chaffetz, whose term was set to last until 2019, confirmed the news in a letter to constituents, saying his last day will be June 30.

The news comes less than a month after Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, announced he would not seek re-election or “be a candidate for any office in 2018.” He also hinted in an interview with Utah’s KSL Newsradio that he was considering leaving before the end of his term.

While he left open the possibility of running for governor of Utah in 2020, Chaffetz said he wants to spend more time with his family. Sources told Politico that he is considering joining Fox News.

In his role as House Oversight chair, Chaffetz has been near the epicenter of many of the issues surrounding President Donald Trump’s administration. Chaffetz was often criticized for being slow to investigate allegations against the president, including questions about his campaign’s ties to Russia and conflicts of interests related to Trump’s businesses.

It’s unclear how Chaffetz’s departure may affect the investigations into the Trump campaign. Some of the leading contenders to replace Chaffetz as House Oversight chair are former Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Jimmy Duncan (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio).

I believe he is the first of the rats to jump the sinking ship. If Hillary had been sitting in the Oval Office right now, he'd never be resigning... because he'd be too busy trying to impeach her.

As to the bolded, does anyone know who these contenders are? Jim Jordan is on my evil list as a matter of course, as he's from the Freedom Caucus, but what about the other two?

15 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I might need to check myself into the hospital for Trump Obsessive Disorder.  I've been checking WoPo and there are no breaking news stories all morning.  This can't be good and it feels to me like the quiet before a new huge orange shit storm. I hope I didn't jinx it.  

Poor @onekidanddone!  I wouldn't worry about breaking news though. The tangerine toddler is off on his foreign visit today, so the lack of your daily scandal could be due to the fact that he's in Airforce One and/or in another timezone. 

That orange shit will hit the fan before you know it! 

[GreyhoundFan]

7 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

snip

As to the bolded, does anyone know who these contenders are? Jim Jordan is on my evil list as a matter of course, as he's from the Freedom Caucus, but what about the other two?

I don't know much about the others, but a cursory search showed that he started out in congress in 1988 and seemed fairly moderate but has shifted to the right. He endorsed Agent Orange. He succeeded his father and between the two, the seat has been held by their family since 1964. It seems he's never really been challenged for his seat. He's highly rated by the FRC and NRA. 'nuff said.

As for Turner, I've not found much on him.

 

A good opinion piece: "Don’t underestimate Trump"

Spoiler

Ron Klain, a Post contributing columnist, served as a senior White House aide to Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and was a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

First, while he is proving to be an incompetent president, Trump is an incredibly skilled politician. He did not come to the presidency by accident: He spent 30 years laying the groundwork for his run — attacking President Ronald Reagan on trade in the 1980s, putting out a campaign book in 2000, forcing President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. He vanquished an all-star GOP field in 2016 — beating a Bush, the Republicans’ Obama (Marco Rubio) and lionized candidates such as Scott Walker and Chris Christie. He resoundingly won the Republican primary in New Hampshire.  He was the host of a top-rated television show for almost a decade: no small communications achievement.

Second, there is the power of the presidency, and Trump’s ability to use its allure as a bulwark against accountability. Trump’s staff may feud with one another, but — with two family members ensconced in the West Wing — they seem prepared to defend him by any means necessary. Well-regarded people — such as national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein — have shown a willingness to sacrifice their own credibility to protect Trump. And a retinue of prominent law firms appear ready to provide legal and public relations cover in defense of Trump and his family.

Third, there is the desire of many observers to try to normalize Trump and get “back to business.” This obviously includes most Republican members of Congress, who have shown a penchant for dismissing concerns about Trump so long as he continues to pursue an agenda of repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes.

But this instinct extends beyond partisans: Remember how media commentators, including some liberal voices, acclaimed Trump’s presidential leadership after one well-executed speech three months ago? It might take shockingly little — a successful foreign trip next week or progress on Obamacare repeal in Congress — for pundits to conclude that he is “back on track.”

Fourth, there is the intensity of his most devout supporters. While Trump has falsely boasted about many things, he was probably right when he said that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and still maintain their support. Trump’s “tribal” supporters back him, not because of what Trump does or says, but because they want the affiliation they enjoy as Trump supporters. While these hard-core supporters were not sufficient to put Trump in office — experts believe this group is 25 percent to 40 percent of the electorate — even at the lower end of that range, they make up a majority of Republican primary voters in most Republican-held districts. That is a powerful check on Republican senators and representatives who might stand up to Trump — as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) learned when he was booed in his own district for distancing himself from Trump during the “Access Hollywood” conflagration.

And fifth, there is the frightening risk that Trump’s die-hard supporters are more devoted to Trump than they are to the rule of law. The United States prides itself on being “a government of laws, not of men,” but polls show that an increasing number of Americans generally, and Trump supporters specifically, have “lost faith in democracy.” Sinclair Lewis’s brilliant novel “It Can’t Happen Here” portrayed an alliance between populist rhetoric and corporatist policies that established an iron grip on government and trampled legal accountability. A Trump campaign email, sent the day the latest Comey allegations emerged, echoed Lewis’s depiction, labelling the growing scrutiny of Trump as “sabotage,” accusing government officials of being against an “America First agenda” and urging supporters to “be prepared to go into the trenches to FIGHT.”

Trump is down but not out. Indeed, he may even be at his most dangerous in “wounded animal” mode. The effort to hold him accountable for any abuses of power will face formidable obstacles in the weeks and months ahead. He should not be underestimated.

Last October, we were in the midst of debate preparation for Hillary Clinton when news of the “Access Hollywood” tape broke. The senior Clinton team immediately wondered what the event’s impact would be. Would there still be a debate two days later? Would Donald Trump show up? Would his running mate, Mike Pence, take his place? How could Trump survive?

Trump not only showed up for the St. Louis debate that Sunday, he stood on the stage and told Clinton that if it were up to him she’d “be in jail.” Ten days later, Trump insisted at the Las Vegas debate that allegations made against him by nine women of groping and other unwelcome physical contact were so baseless that he “didn’t even apologize to [his] wife” for his actions. Twenty days after that, Trump was elected president of the United States.

The lesson: It is dangerous to underestimate Trump’s survival skills. And so, as the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Russia mess has Washington buzzing with nascent impeachment talk, 25th Amendment scenarios and rumors about resignation, it is worth remembering how tenaciously Trump pursued power, along with five key assets he has to maintain his grip on it.

 

Klain makes some scary, but excellent, points.

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I think it was mentioned somewhere -- so much going on... Here's a link to one of the stories: "Chaffetz to resign, raising doubts about Trump probe"

Um, yeah, suddenly he wants to be with his family. If Hillary had been elected, he would have spent every moment (waking and asleep) going after her until he was voted out of office.

Is there anybody anywhere who buys the "for my family" story? Like somebody installed one of the pull strings in his back, you know like the ones dolls have.  "Going to spend more time with my family".  

I think I need to call my doctor because I've rolled my eyes so much they are stuck that way.

[GreyhoundFan]

@onekidanddone -- I am in total eye-roll mode too.

 

Jennifer Rubin wrote another good one: "The stench of a corrupt president wafts into Virginia and beyond"

Spoiler

The nonstop bombshell stories regarding President Trump’s collapsing presidency tend to blot out smaller events, which at any other time might be seen as significant breaches of ethics rules and constitutional restrictions on the president. This week we saw two cases in this category.

WAMU radio reported that on Thursday night press secretary Sean Spicer was the star attraction at “a fundraiser for the Republican Party of Virginia at Trump National Golf Course in Sterling — a property that President Donald Trump owns and frequents on weekends when he is in town. The appearance is raising eyebrows for some government ethics observers primarily for the location, but also because of Spicer’s celebrity.” For one thing, White House staff usually avoid overt political appearances of this type. But that’s not the only problem:

Norm Eisen, co-founder of the government watchdog group CREW or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the top ethics advisor to President Barack Obama, says if he were counseling this administration, he would encourage Spicer to skip the event.

“There’s something very unique here, and that is the property. The Republicans are having this event at a property that is owned by Donald Trump. And they’re throwing in the presence of a senior White House staffer almost as a party favor,” Eisen said.

At issue is that Trump owns the golf course, Spicer works for Trump and, theoretically, the funds the Virginia GOP is spending to rent the facility will go directly back to Trump.

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have already been scolded for allegedly using their offices to promote financial gain, but the message clearly has not sunk in. The rule technically does not cover the president, but the noxious appearance of self-interest now permeates the administration. Everything from doubling the new-membership fee and renting golf carts to Secret Service agents at Mar-a-Lago to sweeping up 38 trademarks in China on a single day has turned the White House into an imitation of foreign kleptomaniac regimes.

Virginia has its off-year gubernatorial and other state races this year. Ed Gillespie, who ran an excellent race barely losing to Sen. Mark Warner (R-Va.) in 2014, is the favorite to win the GOP nomination. But how is he going to deal with Trump’s corruption? Will he disallow these kinds of events that put money in the president’s pockets? Is he even going to appear with Trump in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016? A promising candidate is going to have Trump wrapped around his neck for months.

Inside the Beltway, Republicans sit idly by, as Trump’s indefensible financial self-dealings go virtually unremarked upon. On Thursday, a flock of Democratic senators led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote to the Trump Organization and Trump’s Revocable Trust. The letter asserted that Trump is failing “to take proper actions to ensure he is not in violation of the Constitution.” The letter continues:

For example, a recent Forbes article, entitled “Trump’s Vegas Partner Says Business Is Not Dividing Profits From Foreign Governments As Promised,” reported that President Trump may still receive considerable profits from foreign officials through his Las Vegas hotel. There are also reports that government agencies have been forced to pay significant amounts of money to the Trump Organization. . . .

Perhaps most troubling, however, is the status of President Trump’s proposed trust. On January 11, President Trump announced to the American public that he was placing his businesses in a trust and, according to his lawyer, was “completely isolating himself from his business interests.” Ethics experts warned that even that structure, if properly executed, is insufficient to guard against conflicts of interest. Yet President Trump’s proposed trust and his pledge to “completely isolat[e] himself from his business interests” ring hollow given Eric Trump’s statement that he will provide business updates to President Trump “probably quarterly.”6 The press has further reported that the trust agreement allows President Trump to request and receive any “net income or principal” from the trust- at any time and for whatever reason.

If accurate, the President will receive regular updates on the ongoing affairs of his businesses and will be able to regularly access profits. It defies common sense to believe that this type of arrangement resolves the President’s conflicts of interest. It also raises serious questions regarding how such an arrangement could credibly insulate the President from unending Emoluments Clause violations.

The senators then request some detailed information, including how monies derived from foreign governments are segregated and accounted for and the value of foreign trademarks. Detailing $23 million in condo sales, much of it to shell companies, the senators ask: “What steps has the Trump Organization taken to ensure that none of the LLCs to which it has sold these properties are linked to foreign governments or instrumentalities thereof?”

All of this presents a clear opportunity for the GOP House and Senate to stop facilitating corruption and enabling possible violations of the emoluments clause. Is there a single committee in either House with just one or two members willing to join Democrats in issuing a subpoena for this kind of information? Is there any Republican in either body willing to demand strict enforcement of federal rules on private enrichment?

Don’t hold your breath. In refusing to give up partisan gamesmanship, Republicans prove their unfitness to govern every day. Voters need to hold them accountable in 2018.

 

[fraurosena]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I don't know much about the others, but a cursory search showed that he started out in congress in 1988 and seemed fairly moderate but has shifted to the right. He endorsed Agent Orange. He succeeded his father and between the two, the seat has been held by their family since 1964. It seems he's never really been challenged for his seat. He's highly rated by the FRC and NRA. 'nuff said.

As for Turner, I've not found much on him.

 

A good opinion piece: "Don’t underestimate Trump"

  Hide contents

Ron Klain, a Post contributing columnist, served as a senior White House aide to Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and was a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

First, while he is proving to be an incompetent president, Trump is an incredibly skilled politician. He did not come to the presidency by accident: He spent 30 years laying the groundwork for his run — attacking President Ronald Reagan on trade in the 1980s, putting out a campaign book in 2000, forcing President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. He vanquished an all-star GOP field in 2016 — beating a Bush, the Republicans’ Obama (Marco Rubio) and lionized candidates such as Scott Walker and Chris Christie. He resoundingly won the Republican primary in New Hampshire.  He was the host of a top-rated television show for almost a decade: no small communications achievement.

Second, there is the power of the presidency, and Trump’s ability to use its allure as a bulwark against accountability. Trump’s staff may feud with one another, but — with two family members ensconced in the West Wing — they seem prepared to defend him by any means necessary. Well-regarded people — such as national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein — have shown a willingness to sacrifice their own credibility to protect Trump. And a retinue of prominent law firms appear ready to provide legal and public relations cover in defense of Trump and his family.

Third, there is the desire of many observers to try to normalize Trump and get “back to business.” This obviously includes most Republican members of Congress, who have shown a penchant for dismissing concerns about Trump so long as he continues to pursue an agenda of repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes.

But this instinct extends beyond partisans: Remember how media commentators, including some liberal voices, acclaimed Trump’s presidential leadership after one well-executed speech three months ago? It might take shockingly little — a successful foreign trip next week or progress on Obamacare repeal in Congress — for pundits to conclude that he is “back on track.”

Fourth, there is the intensity of his most devout supporters. While Trump has falsely boasted about many things, he was probably right when he said that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and still maintain their support. Trump’s “tribal” supporters back him, not because of what Trump does or says, but because they want the affiliation they enjoy as Trump supporters. While these hard-core supporters were not sufficient to put Trump in office — experts believe this group is 25 percent to 40 percent of the electorate — even at the lower end of that range, they make up a majority of Republican primary voters in most Republican-held districts. That is a powerful check on Republican senators and representatives who might stand up to Trump — as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) learned when he was booed in his own district for distancing himself from Trump during the “Access Hollywood” conflagration.

And fifth, there is the frightening risk that Trump’s die-hard supporters are more devoted to Trump than they are to the rule of law. The United States prides itself on being “a government of laws, not of men,” but polls show that an increasing number of Americans generally, and Trump supporters specifically, have “lost faith in democracy.” Sinclair Lewis’s brilliant novel “It Can’t Happen Here” portrayed an alliance between populist rhetoric and corporatist policies that established an iron grip on government and trampled legal accountability. A Trump campaign email, sent the day the latest Comey allegations emerged, echoed Lewis’s depiction, labelling the growing scrutiny of Trump as “sabotage,” accusing government officials of being against an “America First agenda” and urging supporters to “be prepared to go into the trenches to FIGHT.”

Trump is down but not out. Indeed, he may even be at his most dangerous in “wounded animal” mode. The effort to hold him accountable for any abuses of power will face formidable obstacles in the weeks and months ahead. He should not be underestimated.

Last October, we were in the midst of debate preparation for Hillary Clinton when news of the “Access Hollywood” tape broke. The senior Clinton team immediately wondered what the event’s impact would be. Would there still be a debate two days later? Would Donald Trump show up? Would his running mate, Mike Pence, take his place? How could Trump survive?

Trump not only showed up for the St. Louis debate that Sunday, he stood on the stage and told Clinton that if it were up to him she’d “be in jail.” Ten days later, Trump insisted at the Las Vegas debate that allegations made against him by nine women of groping and other unwelcome physical contact were so baseless that he “didn’t even apologize to [his] wife” for his actions. Twenty days after that, Trump was elected president of the United States.

The lesson: It is dangerous to underestimate Trump’s survival skills. And so, as the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Russia mess has Washington buzzing with nascent impeachment talk, 25th Amendment scenarios and rumors about resignation, it is worth remembering how tenaciously Trump pursued power, along with five key assets he has to maintain his grip on it.

 

Klain makes some scary, but excellent, points.

I agree that Klain makes some excellent points. But I don't particularly agree with his first point though. I just don't believe he is that smart at all. Just listen to him talk. Just look at his tweets. These are not the products of a smart man, but of an infantile megalomaniac, who just happens to have some Russian friends helping him and some power-hungry DOH's aiding and abetting him. As soon as that support starts to wane, he's out. 

[GreyhoundFan]

3 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I agree that Klain makes some excellent points. But I don't particularly agree with his first point though. I just don't believe he is that smart at all. Just listen to him talk. Just look at his tweets. These are not the products of a smart man, but of an infantile megalomaniac, who just happens to have some Russian friends helping him and some power-hungry DOH's aiding and abetting him. As soon as that support starts to wane, he's out. 

Yeah, I agree with you. I wouldn't have used the term smart, I would have said savvy. He knows the buttons to push and the people to back him (Putin) to get what he wants.

 

 

[Flossie]

9 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Jennifer Rubin wrote another good one: "The stench of a corrupt president wafts into Virginia and beyond"

  Hide contents

...the noxious appearance of self-interest now permeates the administration. Everything from doubling the new-membership fee and renting golf carts to Secret Service agents at Mar-a-Lago to sweeping up 38 trademarks in China on a single day has turned the White House into an imitation of foreign kleptomaniac regimes.

 

Is this correct?  Trump makes the men responsible for his personal safety rent golf carts when they watch over him as he plays golf on his own fricken golf course?  Does he make them fetch his drinks and carry his clubs, too?

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, Flossie said:

Is this correct?  Trump makes the men responsible for his personal safety rent golf carts when they watch over him as he plays golf on his own fricken golf course?  Does he make them fetch his drinks and carry his clubs, too?

Shhhh! Don't give him any ideas!

[GreyhoundFan]

7 minutes ago, Flossie said:

Is this correct?  Trump makes the men responsible for his personal safety rent golf carts when they watch over him as he plays golf on his own fricken golf course?  Does he make them fetch his drinks and carry his clubs, too?

You don't seriously think that Agent Orange would do anything that didn't put money in his pocket. Yes, they have to rent equipment and rooms from his properties. I don't think they have to fetch drinks, but we don't really know, because he blocks the public's and media's view when he is golfing.

[Flossie]

What time does Trump take off for his trip?  How long before he locks himself in the bathroom and starts tweeting?

I bet he's a national embarrassment at every stop on the tour.  The only good thing is that now everyone the world over knows what he's like.  They'll be nice to his face while tucking away snippets of his conversations and faux pas so they can get together later and have a good laugh.  They expect a train wreck from him.

The bad thing is that everyone also knows that he can be suckered and I dread hearing what concessions a little flattery will get out of him.

[fraurosena]

I thought I'd shake things up a bit. Hold on to your seats! Our daily WUT is a positive one.

U.S. could get first paid family leave benefit under Trump budget proposal

Quote

President Trump’s budget proposal next week will include a new benefit for America’s working parents, one Democrats have long championed and Republicans have long opposed: paid family leave.

The president’s first detailed budget request on Tuesday will seek funds for the creation of a program to grant mothers and fathers six weeks of paid leave after the birth or adoption of a child, two senior White House budget office officials said.

The proposal for a family leave program was one of the few relatively large ticket items in a budget which is expected to contain sweeping reductions in spending on nondefense measures.

The White House officials said details of the program still had to be worked out through negotiation with Congress.

[...]

I did NOT expect this at all. Six weeks is meager, compared to my country*, but it's better than nothing, that's for sure.

There is one drawback, however.

Quote

The program is expected to cost about $25 billion over 10 years, and will benefit about 1.3 million people, the White House officials said. [...]

They shared few details on how the program would be funded.

Which makes the chances of this becoming reality nil, sadly.

 

*In the Netherlands, a pregnant woman has the right to 6 weeks pregnancy leave before giving birth, and 10 weeks maternity leave afterwards. It's also possible to take less than 6 weeks pregnancy leave, and then add the weeks you didn't use to the 10 weeks maternity leave. All in all though, you always have 16 weeks off, and at least 10 weeks maternity leave.

------

6 minutes ago, Flossie said:

What time does Trump take off for his trip?  How long before he locks himself in the bathroom and starts tweeting?

I bet he's a national embarrassment at every stop on the tour.  The only good thing is that now everyone the world over knows what he's like.  They'll be nice to his face while tucking away snippets of his conversations and faux pas so they can get together later and have a good laugh.  They expect a train wreck from him.

The bad thing is that everyone also knows that he can be suckered and I dread hearing what concessions a little flattery will get out of him.

There, FTFY. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

23 hours ago, sawasdee said:

To take more from the working and middle classes and give to the top.01% - and make the latter even richer...

By taxing the super rich at a low level at the expense of the consumer, it will decrease spending - except on mega yachts- and depress the economy. Because the working and middle classes will have no money to spend - especially as they come to grips with AHCA!

Welcome to the next depression!

As a foreigner this is what scares me the most (nuclear apocalypse aside). The las crisis had global repercussions from which my country haven't recovered yet. It's really really scary.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is priceless: "Conservative reporters are upset with Trump. And it has nothing to do with policy."

Spoiler

Even the reporters who are supposed to like the Trump administration are grumbling about the Trump administration these days.

The frustration among conservative media outlets, which cheered for Donald Trump on the campaign trail, has nothing to do with the scandals and policy setbacks engulfing the president. Instead, they say they have become second-class citizens in their access and connections to the president and his closest aides.

Several are upset that big interviews and big scoops have gone to the mainstream news media. And some of the biggest have gone to the New York Times and NBC News, outlets Trump has branded “enemies of the American people.”

“The liberal mainstream media has gotten the big chunks of meat,” said a reporter for a conservative news organization. He added, “It’s infuriating to read [a mainstream news story] and see that they’re talking to them and not us. They’ve forgotten who got them here.”

The complaints come at a time when the mainstream media — particularly The Washington Post and New York Times — has delivered stories that have plunged the White House into its most serious turmoil to date. And it’s another knock against White House press secretary Sean Spicer, whose job security has been questioned over the past week. (Spicer and White House communications director Michael Dubke are the main gatekeepers who determine who gets to interview the president.) Trump reportedly is considering a shakeup in his communications staff; on Tuesday, Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle said she has been interviewed for Spicer’s job.

But the griping is also surprising in light of the unprecedented efforts Spicer and other White House officials have made to accommodate Trump-centric media organizations since he took office.

Trump himself has given interviews to such Trump-friendly outlets as Breitbart News, the Christian Broadcasting Network , the Washington Examiner and several to Fox News since the inauguration. The White House has also given press credentials to right-leaning hoax-peddlers like Gateway Pundit and enabled conservative talk-show hosts to ask questions via Skype during daily press briefings.

Not good enough, say several conservative journalists, who commented for this article on condition of anonymity to avoid damaging their relationships with the White House.

“There’s still this outsize focus on trying to work with the establishment media,” said an editor of a conservative journal. “The people who gave Trump 306 electoral votes aren’t reading The Washington Post or watching CNN. They’re reading Breitbart, the Daily Caller, listening to [Laura] Ingraham and watching Fox News. I think they run a risk [with Trump’s core supporters] by keeping the conservative media at arm’s length.”

The journalists took umbrage when Trump ignored them to call New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman and Washington Post reporter Robert Costa to comment on a failed effort to pass a health-care bill in March. They also said Trump’s top advisers, chief of staff Reince Preibus and chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, gave a rare joint interview to New York magazine in February, but have offered nothing similar to them. (Bannon is the former chairman of Breitbart News.)

One reporter noted that Trump has spoken to four of the five outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC and the New York Times) that he declared “enemies of the American people” in a notorious tweet in mid-February. “They call the establishment media the opposition party,” he said, “but they don’t act like it.

Last week, Trump gave interviews to NBC and Time magazine, again ignoring the conservative media. “This makes him look like a Manhattan snob,” the reporter said. “Those big New York-D.C. media people don’t play in the red states.”

The frustration among conservative journalists has grown to the point that there has been talk among them of breaking away from the venerable White House Correspondents Association to form an organization of their own that would lobby officials for access.

Spicer and his top deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, did not return a request for comment Tuesday.

Several reporters are still sore about the last official White House outreach to the conservative press in late April.

During a White House reception featuring Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross with about 30 editors, reporters and commentators, officials asked journalists to surrender their phones and declared that the meeting was on background. That meant comments could not be attributed to specific speakers.

Afterward, press staffers told the journalists that Trump’s remarks were on the record. But by then many in the group hadn’t taken notes or recorded the remarks, leaving them unable to render specific quotes. What’s more, given the broad guestlist, no one had an exclusive on anything.

“They treated us like children,” said one journalist who attended.

In some respects, Trump’s strategy of playing to the mainstream media shouldn’t surprise anyone, said the editor of another conservative website, who expressed less frustration with the White House.

The New York Times was the respected hometown newspaper during his salad days as a New York developer, he noted, and Time magazine was the gold standard when newsweeklies were prominent and prestigious. The TV networks were the biggest players of all, he said.

“The media he cares about is the media he reads and sees,” said this editor. “There’s a disconnect there between him and his staff. He wants to do the media he watches or reads. His staff has a different strategy at times.”

Several conservative journalists offered differing opinions on whether they’d like to see Spicer stay on the job. But they seem to agree on one thing:

“At the end of the day, all we want is a seat at table,” said one. “We think we’ve earned it.”

Cry me a river of tears.

[onekidanddone]

A while back I started a thread for theme music for the orange hell we are experiencing.  I suggested 'Life in War Time".  It is playing on my Pandora right now.  I've blasted the volume up to level eleventy.  So glad I work from home.  Doomed... we are doomed.  Rufus save us. 

29 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Last week, Trump gave interviews to NBC and Time magazine, again ignoring the conservative media. “This makes him look like a Manhattan snob,” the reporter said. “Those big New York-D.C. media people don’t play in the red states.”

Because he IS a snob you right wing suck ups.

29 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“They treated us like children,” said one journalist who attended.

 

.. and you get treated like children because YOU ARE children you scummy piles of poop.