Trump 19: Please Cry for Us Montenegro (and We Are so Sorry!)

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh: "Trump Poised to Pull U.S. From Paris Climate Accord"

Spoiler

President Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, three officials with knowledge of the decision said, making good on a campaign pledge but severely weakening the landmark 2015 climate change accord that committed nearly every nation to take action to curb the warming of the planet.

A senior White House official cautioned that the specific language of the president’s expected announcement was still in flux Wednesday morning. The official said the withdrawal might be accompanied by legal caveats that will shape the impact of Mr. Trump’s decision.

And Mr. Trump has proved himself willing to shift direction up until the moment of a public announcement. He is set to meet Wednesday afternoon with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has advocated that the United States remain a part of the Paris accords and could continue to lobby the president to change his mind.

Even as reports surfaced about his decision, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter that he would make his intentions known soon.

...

Still, faced with advisers who pressed hard on both sides of the Paris question, Mr. Trump appears to have decided that a continued United States presence in the accord would harm the economy; hinder job creation in regions like Appalachia and the West, where his most ardent supporters live; and undermine his “America First” message.

Advisers pressing him to remain in the accord could still make their case to the boss. In the past, such appeals have worked. In April, Mr. Trump was set to announce a withdrawal from the Nafta free trade agreement, but at the last minute changed his mind after intense discussions with advisers and calls from the leaders of Canada and Mexico. Last week, a senior administration official said Mr. Trump would use a speech in Brussels to make an explicit endorsement of NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense provision, which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. He didn’t.

The exit of the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas polluter would not dissolve the 195-nation pact, which was legally ratified last year, but it could set off a cascade of events that would have profound effects on the planet. Other countries that reluctantly joined the agreement could now withdraw or soften their commitments to cutting planet-warming pollution.

“The actions of the United States are bound to have a ripple effect in other emerging economies that are just getting serious about climate change, such as India, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that produces scientific reports designed to inform global policy makers.

Once the fallout settles, he added, “it is now far more likely that we will breach the danger limit of 3.6 degrees.” That is the average atmospheric temperature increase above which a future of extreme conditions is considered irrevocable.

The aim of the Paris agreement was to lower planet-warming emissions enough to avoid that threshold.

“We will see more extreme heat, damaging storms, coastal flooding and risks to food security,” Professor Oppenheimer said. “And that’s not the kind of world we want to live in.”

Foreign policy experts said the move could damage the United States’ credibility and weaken Mr. Trump’s efforts to negotiate issues far beyond climate change, like negotiating trade deals and combating terrorism.

“From a foreign policy perspective, it’s a colossal mistake — an abdication of American leadership ” said R. Nicholas Burns, a retired career diplomat and the under secretary of state during the presidency of George W. Bush.

“The success of our foreign policy — in trade, military, any other kind of negotiation — depends on our credibility. I can’t think of anything more destructive to our credibility than this,” he added.

But Mr. Trump’s supporters, particularly coal state Republicans, cheered the move, celebrating it as a fulfillment of a signature campaign promise. Speaking to a crowd of oil rig workers last May, Mr. Trump vowed to “cancel” the agreement, and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, has pushed the president to withdraw from the accord as part of an economic nationalism that has so far included pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade pact, and vowing to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Coal miners and coal company executives in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia have pushed for Mr. Trump to reverse all of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies, many of which are aimed at reducing the use of coal, which is seen as the largest contributor to climate change.

In a May 23 letter to Mr. Trump from Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia and nine other state attorneys general, Mr. Morrisey wrote, “Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is an important and necessary step toward reversing the harmful energy policies and unlawful overreach of the Obama era.” He added, “The Paris Agreement is a symbol of the Obama administration’s ‘Washington knows best’ approach to governing.”

Although the administration has been debating for months its position on the Paris agreement, the sentiment for leaving the accord ultimately prevailed over the views of Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and close adviser, who had urged the president to keep a seat at the climate negotiating table.

Other countries have vowed to continue to carry out the terms of the Paris agreement, even without the United States.

President Xi Jinping of China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter, has promised that his country would move ahead with steps to curb climate change, regardless of what happens in the United States.

During a telephone call in early May with President Emmanuel Macron of France, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Mr. Xi told the newly elected French leader that China and France “should protect the achievements of global governance, including the Paris agreement.”

But the accord’s architects say the absence of the United States will inevitably weaken its chances of being enforced. For example, the United States has played a central role in pushing provisions that require robust and transparent oversight of how emissions are monitored, verified and reported.

Without the United States, there is likely to be far less pressure on major polluting countries and industries to accurately report their emissions. There have been major questions raised about the accuracy of China’s emissions reporting, in particular.

“We need to know: What are your emissions? Where are your emissions?” said Todd D. Stern, the lead climate negotiator during the Obama administration. “There needs to be transparent reporting on countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. If the U.S. is not part of that negotiation, that’s a loss for the world.”

 

[fraurosena]

Beware before you summon covefefe...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

One of the articles I posted earlier mentioned Hope Hicks' statement. This is a good analysis: "This White House statement on Trump’s ‘positive energy’ reads like a parody"

Spoiler

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks issued a statement about President Trump on Monday that is so disconnected from reality that it reads like a parody — like something “Saturday Night Live” cooked up to mimic propaganda.

Here it is:

President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor … and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.

Hicks composed the statement in response to a Washington Post report on Trump's habit of cutting down staffers with insults. The most jarring thing about her characterization of the president is not the inaccuracy; it's the sudden rejection of Trump's entire political brand.

To say that Trump “exudes positive energy” is to ignore the whole premise of his campaign. He would not need to “Make America Great Again” if America were currently great — and Trump made very clear that he believes it is not.

“When was the last time America was great?” NBC's Chuck Todd asked early in the campaign. “I would say that during the administration of Ronald Reagan, you felt proud to be an American,” Trump replied. “You felt really proud. I don't think since then, to any great extent, people were proud.”

At the GOP convention last summer, Trump declared that “it is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.” His assessment was that the country is in “crisis” in virtually every way.

“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it,” Trump said.

The message clearly resonated with many voters; that's why Trump is president. But he didn't win by being positive. He won by claiming everything is a mess.

And what's this nonsense about making people “feel special”? Trump doesn't care about hurting people's feelings — and his supporters love him for it.

When Megyn Kelly listed a few of the many barbs Trump had directed at women over the years, during the first debate of the Republican primary, this was the billionaire's response: “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people, and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either.”

The crowd of Republicans in Cleveland applauded Trump's answer.

Hicks's statement reflects a White House without a clear political identity or message — no surprise, given that communications director Mike Dubke just resigned. The statement seems purely reflexive. The media is saying one thing, so let's say the exact opposite.

That's not a viable strategy, and it's not what has worked for Trump in the past. A more Trump-like response would have been to spin his abrasiveness as a positive. The president and his staff are totally focused on Making America Great Again. They are not worried about their own feelings.

Instead, we got a statement that shows the White House press shop to be rudderless.

Yeah, "positive energy" is not a phrase I'd associate with the TT. Cranky narcissist is more like it.

[countressrascal]

Don the Con, So called Dr Price and Half Pence are going to take away birth control-Hobby Lobby wins. I am 65 years old, I thought that when I marched and fought for access to birth control on the mid '70 that I would not have to do it again in  my life. Boy was I wrong. Defunding Planned Parenthood repealing the policy that insurance companies have to cover birth control at no cost and making it harder for medicaid patients to access to birth control is just wrong. Then they cut all the programs that help working poor feed, have quality child care, safe places to live and clean air & water, as always the rep. only care about the child when they are in the womb after that you are on your own. I would really like to have a president.

[GreyhoundFan]

Good -- I don't want him to score any "victories", since his victories hurt the American people and the rest of the world: "Trump’s window for scoring early legislative victories is shrinking"

Spoiler

President Trump faces an increasingly narrow path to win major legislative victories before the looming August recess, with only two months left to revive his health-care or tax initiatives before Congress departs for a long break.

White House officials said Tuesday that Trump has become increasingly incensed that legislation is bogging down in the Senate, something they blame on Democrats. Trump wrote on Twitter that the Senate should change its long-standing rules and “switch to 51” votes to pass health-care changes and to vote on a tax bill instead of working to get 60 votes to end a potential filibuster.

But the Senate is already trying to pass health-care and tax changes with just 51 votes, something it is unable to do because of splits within the GOP.

“The hardest thing now is figuring out what can get 51 votes in the Senate,” said Stephen Moore, who was a top economic adviser to Trump during the campaign and who has urged the White House to move more quickly.

Congress also faces an increasing number of legislative distractions that could further imperil Trump’s agenda. There is a big divide among Republicans over whether they can vote to pass a budget resolution in the coming months, and failing to do so could make it much more difficult to change the tax code. In addition, White House officials are now demanding that Congress vote to raise the debt ceiling before the August break — pressing members to take a difficult vote before they head back to their districts.

Trump’s frustration comes as the White House is increasingly consumed by internal tumult and controversies. Communications director Michael Dubke announced his resignation Tuesday, while Trump and his aides worked to deflect questions about whether his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, inappropriately worked to establish a back channel for talks with the Russian government during the transition.

Given these distractions, White House officials and top Republicans had hoped that an ambitious legislative agenda could stabilize the presidency heading into the August break.

White House officials plan to push Senate Republicans in June to vote on a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and they want to spend the rest of the summer whipping up support for major tax cuts. They are also planning to push lawmakers soon to consider an infrastructure package, although that effort has also moved more slowly because his staff hasn’t put together a final plan.

Each of these efforts has stalled either in the White House or in Congress, but Trump has pinned much of the blame on Senate Democrats. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president’s “frustration” was that the White House’s big-ticket items have bogged down because of Democrats’ ability to block measures using filibuster rules. Republicans control 52 of the Senate’s 100 seats, requiring them to get support from Democrats on many issues.

“Part of the reason that he is frustrated with the Senate rules is because when there is a majority of support on key issues — or key people, as the case was in the confirmation process — he thinks it’s standing in the way of progress that the American people have asked for,” Spicer said.

But critics from both parties have said the lack of progress is a reflection in part of Trump’s inability to marshal votes or persuade lawmakers to follow his lead.

Trump “is the least policy-aware, policy-knowledgeable, policy-driven president that I can remember, maybe that we’ve ever had,” said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “Most of the Republicans do have some kind of coherent framework through which they see things.”

To pass an overhaul of the tax code with just 51 votes, lawmakers must agree on a budget resolution, which could be a difficult task for a divided GOP.

Republican leaders in Congress are unsure how they will do this because of stark differences within the GOP over whether to prioritize defense spending or deficit reduction. The procedural vote is crucial because it would pave the way for them to need only a simple majority — instead of 60 votes — to pass comprehensive changes to the tax code.

In a private meeting of House Republicans this past Thursday, numerous members warned about the strict budget caps that would decimate defense spending starting in the fall. Those caps cannot be lifted unless Republicans strike a deal with Senate Democrats, who in past negotiations have demanded increases in nondefense spending.

Complicating matters further, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has told Congress that he wants the debt ceiling to be raised before the August recess, a move that would force uneasy Republicans to take a gut-wrenching vote opposed by many hard-line conservatives.

Top Trump administration officials — including Mnuchin, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn — are expected to come up with a strategy soon for how to handling the looming debt-ceiling vote.

The federal government spends more money than it brings in through revenue, and it covers the difference by issuing debt to essentially borrow the money. It can only borrow money up to a certain level set by Congress. There are several ways to measure government debt, but debt subject to the limit is now essentially $19.8 trillion.

In 2015, President Barack Obama and Congress agreed to suspend the debt ceiling until mid-March, and now the Treasury Department is suspending certain payments to allow the government to continue paying its bills until Congress can agree to raise or suspend the limit again.

If Americans pay taxes at a slower rate than expected — and there are signs that this is happening now — the government could run out of money sooner than anticipated, a quandary that has forced Treasury to push for a vote by August.

Lawmakers will only be in Washington for seven more weeks before the August recess, and Senate Republicans are not close to an agreement on the actual bills they might debate regarding taxes, health care or the debt limit.

Each of the past five presidents enacted legacy-defining legislation during their first seven months in office, something Trump has yet to do.

“This is a president who knows very little, who reads almost not at all, and who is indifferent to details, which is what legislation is all about,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.). “And translating some broad idea into legislation requires a certain amount of attention and legerdemain this man simply does not possess, and at 70, he’s not going to develop it.”

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a senior House appropriator, said he doubts whether Republicans alone can pass a debt-ceiling increase and urged Trump and congressional leaders to spend June and July negotiating a deal with Democrats that would extend the debt limit, set new spending numbers and possibly extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program, whose funding lapses on Sept. 30.

That, Dent said, would “open up time and space” to deal with meatier policy issues such as health care and taxes later. But until the fiscal issues are resolved, he said, “You have no choice.”

The scramble by the White House comes after four months of false starts and distractions. Republicans won confirmation of a Supreme Court justice and Congress has voted to roll back numerous regulations, but the three key planks for their domestic agenda — health care, taxes and infrastructure — have stalled.

A revised health-care bill narrowly passed the House, but Senate Republicans have signaled that they want to start from scratch.

On taxes, the White House issued a one-page blueprint for overhauling the tax code but provided no new ideas or details when it unveiled its budget plan last week. Trump, in a Monday Twitter post, also claimed the tax effort was “actually ahead of schedule.”

The tax overhaul effort is actually behind schedule: Mnuchin pushed for it to be passed by the August recess, but lawmakers have not advanced a tax bill through a House or Senate committee.

To win more support, some lawmakers are considering dramatically scaling back Trump’s tax cut plan, people briefed on the discussions said. Trump has proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, but Republicans could pursue a tax rate that’s somewhere in the middle.

One reason Senate Republicans have not unified behind a central plan on health care or taxes is because top White House officials — including Trump — do not seem to be in lockstep on the issues.

Trump wrote in a Twitter post Sunday night that “we [should] add more dollars to Healthcare and make it the best anywhere.” But several days before, he proposed cutting between $800 billion and $1.4 trillion in future spending on Medicaid, the health care program for low-income Americans. Spicer would not say on Tuesday where Trump wanted to add more money to health care.

Several top White House aides warned against discounting their chances of legislative success, saying key pieces could quickly fall into place after a concerted effort this summer.

“We’ve got a pretty bold agenda,” Spicer said. “He’s still pushing hard on health care. Infrastructure is a priority of his. So the president’s legislative agenda is in full swing.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Poll: Support for Trump impeachment rises"

Spoiler

An increasing percentage of voters want Congress to impeach President Donald Trump — even if they don't think Trump has committed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the Constitution requires.

Forty-three percent of voters want Congress to begin impeachment proceedings, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, up from 38 percent last week.

"If President Trump was hoping his foreign trip would shift the conversation away from scandals, he may be out of luck," said Morning Consult Co-Founder and Chief Research Officer Kyle Dropp. "Over the last week, support for beginning impeachment proceedings among voters rose from 38 percent to 43 percent."

But that's still less than the 45 percent who don't want Congress to impeach Trump, down a tick from 46 percent the week before.

Only three American presidents in history have faced legitimate impeachment threats.

Much of the support for impeaching Trump comes from political considerations, the poll shows — not a belief that Trump is actually guilty of impeachable offenses, like treason, bribery or obstructing justice.

Of those who want Congress to move toward impeachment, a 54-percent majority of those believe Trump “has proven he is unfit to serve and should be removed from office, regardless of whether he committed an impeachable offense or not.” Only 43 percent of those seeking impeachment believe Trump has committed an offense that meets the high constitutional standards for removal.

The results underscore the intense partisan divisions following last year’s rancorous election. A wide majority of self-identified Democratic voters, 71 percent, want Congress to impeach Trump. But more than three-quarters of GOP voters, 76 percent, don’t think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings.

Despite the sharp split on impeachment, Trump’s approval ratings as president have stabilized, the poll shows. For the second consecutive week, 45 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, while half disapprove. That has recovered from a low of 41 percent prior to Trump’s trip overseas this month.

...

While poll respondents were not asked explicitly to react to Trump’s first foreign trip, the poll shows voters are skeptical of Trump’s aspirations to help Israel and the Palestinians strike a long-sought peace deal. Only 9 percent think it’s very likely Trump will be able to broker such an agreement. More say it’s either somewhat likely (18 percent), not too likely (28 percent) or not likely at all (31 percent).

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted May 25-30, beginning just after the Congressional Budget Office weighed in on Trump’s chief legislative goal in the opening months of his presidency: the health care bill the House passed earlier this month. The CBO’s report projected the bill, if enacted, would save the federal government $119 billion over the next decade, but 23 million fewer Americans would have health insurance.

The poll shows more voters continue to disapprove of the GOP health care bill, 47 percent, than approve, 38 percent. And the 33 percent who disapprove of the bill “strongly” far outpaces the 14 percent who approve strongly.

A 47-percent plurality of voters think the bill would make the U.S. health care system worse — more than the 32 percent who think it would make the system better. Twenty-two percent say it won’t make a difference on the health care system.

Forty-seven percent of voters also believe the bill will increase their health care costs, while only 18 percent think it will lower their costs and 17 percent don’t think it will have an impact.

Last week’s CBO report is unlikely to improve voter perceptions of the bill. Told about both the bill’s deficit savings and the reductions in health insurance coverage, only 20 percent say it would make them more likely to support the bill. Nearly twice as many, 39 percent, say it makes them more likely to oppose the measure.

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll included interviews with 1,991 registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

I know it's a small poll, but it's interesting that the numbers have gone up.

[gunlord500]

8 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Sigh: "Trump Poised to Pull U.S. From Paris Climate Accord"

I hear Elon Musk is very displeased about this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/31/elon-musk-paris-climate-change-donald-trump/102351824/

It might be humiliating for Trump if one of his "tech moguls" abandons him over his obstinate climate change denial.

[onekidanddone]

I knew his covfefe tweet sounded familiar. It sounded like a charter from the show 'The Closer' 

Quote

Brenda and Fritz's wedding is only a day away, but both of them have their minds on their jobs more than their impending nuptials. Fritz is called to a stakeout in the hopes of finally arresting a drug lord known as El Jefe. And Brenda gets tied up in an investigation into a robbery and murder at an escort service. With Brenda's parents (guest stars Frances Sternhagen and Barry Corbin) and Fritz's sister (guest star Amy Sedaris) dealing with the wedding details, the question remains whether the bride and groom will actually make it to the altar.
 

 

[47of74]

43 minutes ago, gunlord500 said:

I hear Elon Musk is very displeased about this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/31/elon-musk-paris-climate-change-donald-trump/102351824/

It might be humiliating for Trump if one of his "tech moguls" abandons him over his obstinate climate change denial.

For about five minutes until some reich wing stooge takes over for Musk.  It would probably be a better use of Musk's time not to bother with this horseshit since the Orange Covfefe won't listen anyways. 

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

I knew his covfefe tweet sounded familiar. It sounded like a charter from the show 'The Closer' 

 

Thank you for bringing this up -- I loved "The Closer"!!

 

WTDH? "Trump administration moves to return Russian compounds in Maryland and New York"

Spoiler

The Trump administration is moving toward handing back to Russia two diplomatic compounds, near New York City and on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, from which its officials were ejected in late December as punishment for Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Then-President Barack Obama said Dec. 29 that the compounds were being “used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes,” and gave Russia 24 hours to vacate them. Separately, Obama expelled from the United States what he said were 35 Russian “intelligence operatives.”

Early last month, the Trump administration told the Russians it would consider turning the properties back over to them if Moscow would lift its freeze, imposed in 2014 in retaliation for U.S. sanctions related to Ukraine, on construction of a new U.S. consulate on a certain parcel of land in St. Petersburg.

Two days later, the U.S. position changed. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at a meeting in Washington, that the United States had dropped any linkage between the compounds and the consulate, according to several people with knowledge of the exchanges.

In Moscow on Wednesday, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said Russia was “taking into account the difficult internal political situation for the current administration,” but retained the option to reciprocate for what he called the “expropriation” of Russian property, “if these steps are not somehow adjusted by the U.S. side,” the news outlet Sputnik reported.

Senior Tillerson adviser R. C. Hammond said that “the U.S. and Russia have reached no agreements.” He said the next senior level meeting between the two governments, below the secretary of state level, will be in June in St. Petersburg.

Before making a final decision on allowing the Russians to reoccupy the compounds, the administration is examining possible restrictions on Russian activities there, including removing the diplomatic immunity the properties previously enjoyed. Without immunity, the facilities would be treated as any other buildings in the United States and would not be barred to entry by U.S. law enforcement, according to people who spoke on the condition anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.

Any concessions to Moscow could prove controversial while administration and former Trump campaign officials are under congressional and special counsel investigation for alleged ties to Russia.

Changes in the administration’s official posture toward the compounds come as Russian media recently suggested that Kislyak, about to leave Washington after serving as ambassador since 2008, may be proposed by the Kremlin to head a new position as U.N. undersecretary general for counterterrorism.

Kislyak, who met and spoke during the campaign and transition with President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s White House adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others, is known to be interested in the post. His replacement as ambassador, current Deputy Foreign Minister Anatoly Antonov, was confirmed last month by the Russian Duma, or parliament. Officials in Moscow said Russian President Vladi­mir Putin will officially inform Trump of the new ambassador when the two meet in July, at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg. It will be Trump’s first meeting with Putin as president.

The U.N. General Assembly must first approve establishment of the counterterrorism slot, part of a larger U.N. reorganization and the first new post at that level for decades.

Russia will almost certainly claim the slot as the only member of the five permanent members of the Security Council without one of its nationals in a senior U.N. position. Jeffrey Feltman, a former senior U.S. diplomat, is currently undersecretary-general for political affairs; comparable jobs for peacekeeping, humanitarian affairs and economic affairs are held, respectively, by nationals from France, Britain and China.

Secretary General António Guterres will decide who fills the new job, although both Russia and the United States are expected to make their views known.

Kislyak has repeatedly rejected descriptions of him in the U.S. media as a spy. Asked whether U.S. intelligence considered him to be one, James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence, told CNN Sunday that, “Given the fact that he oversees a very aggressive intelligence operation in this country — the Russians have more intelligence operatives than any other nation that is represented in this country, still even after we got rid of 35 of them — and so to suggest that he is somehow separate or oblivious to that is a bit much.”

The Russian compounds — a 14-acre estate on Long Island, and several buildings on secluded acreage along the Corsica River on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — have been in Russian possession since the days of the Soviet Union. According to a Maryland deed in 1995, the former USSR transferred ownership of the Maryland property to the Russian Federation in 1995, for a payment of one dollar.

Russia said it used the facilities, both of which had diplomatic immunity, for rest and recreation for embassy and U.N., employees, and to hold official events. But U.S. officials dating back to the Reagan administration, based on aerial and other surveillance, had long believed they were also being used for intelligence purposes.

Last year, when Russian security services began harassing U.S. officials in Moscow — including slashed tires, home break-ins and, at one point tackling and throwing to the ground a U.S. embassy official entering through the front of the embassy — the Obama administration threatened to close the compounds, former Obama officials said.

In meetings to protest the treatment, the Obama administration said that it would do so unless the harassment stopped, and Moscow dropped its freeze on construction of a new consulate to replace the one in St. Petersburg, considered largely unusable because of Russian spying equipment installed there. Russia had earlier blocked U.S. use of a parcel of land and construction guarantees in the city when sanctions were imposed after its military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.

The threat of closing the compounds was not pursued. In late December, after U.S. intelligence said there had been election meddling, and in response to the ongoing harassment in Moscow, Obama ordered the compounds closed and diplomats expelled. “We had no intention of ever giving them back,” a former senior Obama official said of the compounds.

Trump, then at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, appeared to disparage the Obama administration sanctions, telling reporters, “I think we ought to get on with our lives.”

Surprisingly, Russia did not respond. It later emerged that Flynn, in a phone conversation with Kislyak, had advised against retaliation and indicated that U.S. policy would change under the Trump administration.

The Kremlin made clear that the compound issue was at the top of its bilateral agenda. Russia repeatedly denounced what it called the “seizure” of the properties as an illegal violation of diplomatic treaties.

On May 8, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, Thomas Shannon, traveled to New York to meet with his Russian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on what the State Department described as “a range of bilateral issues” and what Russia called “irritants” and “grievances.”

Ryabkov brought up the compounds, while Shannon raised St. Petersburg and harassment, suggesting that they deal with the operation of their diplomats and facilities in each others’ countries separate from policy issues such as Syria, and proposing that they clear the decks with a compromise.

Russia refused, saying that the compound issue was a hostile act that deserved no reciprocal action to resolve, and had to be dealt with before other diplomatic problems could be addressed. In an interview with Tass, Ryabkov said Moscow was alarmed that Washington “carries on working out certain issues in its traditional manner, particularly concerning Russia’s diplomatic property in the states of Maryland and New York.”

Two days later in Washington, Tillerson told Lavrov that the United States would no longer link the compounds to the issue of St. Petersburg.

Immediately after their May 10 meeting at the State Department, Tillerson escorted Lavrov and Kislyak to the Oval Office. There, they held a private meeting with Trump. The night before the president had fired FBI Director James B. Comey, who was then heading an FBI investigation of the Russia ties.

Comey, Trump told the Russians, was a “real nut job,” and his removal had “taken off” the Russia-related pressure the president was under, the New York Times reported. Later in May, the Justice Department appointed former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel to oversee the federal investigation.

In a news conference at the Russian Embassy after his meetings with Tillerson and Trump, Lavrov said of the compound closures, “Everyone, in particular the Trump administration, is aware that those actions were illegal.”

“The dialogue between Russia and the U.S. is now free from the ideology that characterized it under the Barack Obama administration,” he said.

Good freaking grief. Let them set up more places to spy.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why does Trump keep getting basic facts wrong?"

Spoiler

During the 2016 campaign, Trump had his share of moments where he clearly did not know what he was being asked about. While somewhat concerning, it wasn’t surprising that a candidate who prided himself on inexperience might not know things presidential candidates are normally expected to know. But after four months, we see a more disturbing trend: The president seems not to know basic facts about issues and legislation that he supposedly has been briefed on.

Three tweets from the past three days display this startling lack of knowledge. (No, none of them include “covfefe.”) On Tuesday morning, Trump called on Republicans to get rid of the filibuster to pass two key pieces of the party’s agenda: “The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy.” But Senate Republicans are using reconciliation rules to take up the House’s health-care bill, which means they need only 51 votes anyway. GOP leaders plan to use the same process for tax cuts as well. Either Trump has not been told this, or his staff has briefed him on this and he has simply forgotten.

Rewinding the clock to Sunday brings us a similarly baffling statement, again on health care. “I suggest that we add more dollars to Healthcare and make it the best anywhere,” he tweeted Sunday night, “ObamaCare is dead — the Republicans will do much better!” Set aside for the moment that Obamacare is not dead, though Trump is doing his best to kill it through sabotage. Focus for now on the suggestion “we add more dollars to Healthcare.” The American Health Care Act — which Trump celebrated the House’s passage of with a big Rose Garden photo op — cuts Medicaid by more than $800 billion. Trump’s own budget adds another $600 billion in cuts on top of that. Again: Has his staff not briefed him what the AHCA does or what his budget calls for? Or has he been told and forgotten?

The last example came the same day as Trump’s call to get rid of the filibuster. Trump wrote, “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” There are kernels of truth here: Germany has a trade surplus with the U.S. — and critics say Germany’s trade policies hurt other countries. What’s worrying is “this will change,” which implies that Trump wants a new U.S.-Germany trade deal. But Germany, as a member of the European Union, can’t negotiate a trade deal with the United States by itself. As Trump’s Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the very same day, “The E.U. is one of our largest trading partners, and any negotiations legally must be conducted at the E.U. level and not with individual nations.” (Yes, Trump technically could be saying “this will change” under a U.S.-E.U. deal. But lumping trade in with military spending — which is not dictated by E.U.-wide agreements — suggests that he is simply mistaken.)

This mistake is even more concerning because Trump has made it before — to Angela Merkel’s face, no less. When the German chancellor visited Washington in March, a senior German official told the Times of London that “Ten times Trump asked [Merkel] if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, ‘You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the E.U..’ On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, ‘Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.’ ” In other words, the head of another government corrected the president on a basic fact (after multiple efforts!) and within a few weeks, he is making the exact same mistake.

I’ve suggested two possible explanations for each of these errors: Either the president did not know an obvious detail, or he was told it and forgot. But there’s a third possibility: He was told, but he wasn’t listening. After all, Trump’s troubles with focus are well-known. The president’s attention span is so short that briefers have to insert his name more to keep his attention. It’s so short that NATO staffers reportedly asked other heads of state to keep their speeches short. Take it from Trump himself: “My attention span is short,” he wrote in 1990.

Whatever the reason, the result is a president who seems to have trouble learning fundamental facts even on the job. No conspiracy theory around Trump’s presidency is as frightening as this incompetence. The power of the presidency has reached extraordinary heights, and now that power lies in the hands of a man who, when confronted with risks, may simply tune out — or who may be dissuaded from danger, then forget in a few weeks why he was wrong and make the mistake anyway. “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same,” Trump once said. Now the first-grader is driving the car, he doesn’t care to learn how to steer and the rest of us are trapped as passengers.

In short, because he's a clueless, narcissistic toddler.

[47of74]

And I have a giant fuck you for all the Branch Trumpvidians complaining because Kathie Lee did something stupid.

 

[47of74]

Man baby is catching up on his being a dumb fuck on Twitter

rawstory.com/2017/05/for-the-love-of-covfefe-stop-tweeting-internet-cant-deal-with-trump-resuscitating-crooked-hillary/

Quote

On May 31, less than 24 hours after his now-infamous “covfefe” gaffe, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to talk about his favorite throwback — calling former Secretary of State and presidential rival Hillary Clinton “crooked”.

Twitter users, fresh off their feeding frenzy from Trump’s bizzare midnight tweet, responded in kind.

The recipient of the president’s ire also chimed in.

“People in covfefe houses shouldn’t throw covfefe,” Clinton tweeted in a moment reminiscent of when she posted another meme-friendly tweet during last year’s election encouraging Trump to delete his Twitter account.

Yep, this guy summed it up nicely

 

[candygirl200413]

I'm so mad he used Barron as a crunch. Yes children of the president (especially minors) should be off limits but Sasha and Malia grew up with their dad being depicted on a noose and being burnt. Wonder how he responded when he saw he said say grabbed by the pussy.

[JesusHDuggar]

Hey everybody! I have the perfect "Fj" meme for the latest Oompa Loopah tweet!

[gunlord500]

3 hours ago, 47of74 said:

And I have a giant fuck you for all the Branch Trumpvidians complaining because Kathie Lee did something stupid.

That's what irritates me about the right-wing these days. It's like they have no self-awareness; they're pretty much the epitome of double-standards. If Hillary pulled half the nonsense Trump did, they'd be screaming bloody murder, but Trump can sell off the government to Russia and you'll hear nary a peep. They take one example of an anti-trump celebrity being "violent," and completely forget how they did as much and worse to Obama. I can't understand how anyone can go through life as if they don't even realize what they're doing.

[Imagine20]

Rant on:

Covfefe is just a distraction. What's happening with this administration is going to be the end of the US as we know it. Well, it already is after hearing Angela Merkel speak. I don't think many people have realized just how terrible things have gotten. 

We no longer live under a rule of law. The administration flauts their felonies in the faces of the public and nothing will come of it. There seems to be two camps: those watching it happen with glee, and those  standing by in horror.

Sure, we've got a crack investigative team, but that's just letting Trump speed up all of the damage he can do because it will be months before anything will happen (if it ever does, with Republicans running the show.)

I used to get a chuckle out of the stupid shit Trump and his people did. But I can't find humor in it anymore. He's going to pull us out of the Paris agreement, Germany has said Europe can't rely on us anymore, and Russia is going to get their spy bases in MD and NJ(?) back. The cabinet secretaries are all hell bent on ruining the agencies they're heading. White nationalists keep ratcheting up the violence. This is not normal and it's not OK. 

/rant

I feel much better now. Thank you. 

[VixenToast]

54 minutes ago, gunlord500 said:

That's what irritates me about the right-wing these days. It's like they have no self-awareness; they're pretty much the epitome of double-standards. If Hillary pulled half the nonsense Trump did, they'd be screaming bloody murder, but Trump can sell off the government to Russia and you'll hear nary a peep. They take one example of an anti-trump celebrity being "violent," and completely forget how they did as much and worse to Obama. I can't understand how anyone can go through life as if they don't even realize what they're doing.

I agree. However, I think we need to remember, "When they go low, we go high." That to me seems like the best path.

As much as I find Donnie Dumbfuck repugnant and volatile and entirely loathsome, I don't approve of anything that might incite violence or assasination attempts. I don't care that they did it with Obama. We are better than that. What we need is impeachment, and hopefully it will be in the next year. Preferably because of the Russia scandal. I only hope that key Republicans are complicit in the scandal and brought down. And right in time for midterm elections. 

Also, they sure as hell don't need a martyr for their cause. 

[fraurosena]

I don't think this is true. But... what if it is? 

 

[47of74]

Now we have Putin chiming in;

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-russian-state-involved-hacking-47763799

Quote

President Vladimir Putin insisted Thursday that the Russian state has never engaged in hacking and scoffed at allegations that hackers could influence the outcome of elections in the United States or Europe.

But the Russian leader admitted the possibility that some individual "patriotic" hackers could have mounted some attacks amid the current cold spell in Russia's relations with the West.

Speaking at a meeting with senior editors of leading international news agencies, Putin also alleged that some evidence pointing at Russian hackers' participation in attacks — he didn't specify which — could have been falsified in an attempt to smear Russia.

"I can imagine that some do it deliberately, staging a chain of attacks in such a way as to cast Russia as the origin of such an attack," Putin said. "Modern technologies allow that to be done quite easily."

And if anyone believes a word of what Putin says I've got some bridges and swampland for sale. 

 

[fraurosena]

Sad, but true.

While You Obsessed Over Trump’s Scandals, He’s Fundamentally Changed The Country

Spoiler

On the morning of May 12, Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed that he had instructed federal prosecutors to begin pursuing lengthier prison sentences for drug offenders.

It was a draconian change in approach that flew in the face of a growing bipartisan agreement on sentencing reform. “He’s completely discarded what has been an emerging consensus about how best to keep the country safe,” said Matthew Miller, a former Department of Justice spokesman. “[O]ne of the most extreme voices in the country on criminal justice policy just happened to be put into the most important job for shaping its future.”

The move was then largely buried under an avalanche of Donald Trump-related news.

Just hours after Sessions’ policy was revealed, the president tweeted that he may have taped conversations with his recently-fired FBI director, James Comey. With less than 140 characters, Washington was abuzz again over Trump’s potential ties to Russia, which Comey had been investigating.

This is a defining feature of the Trump administration: While scandal and squabble, palace intrigue and provocative tweets suck much of the oxygen out of the room ― and leave the impression of mass government disfunction ― a wide array of fundamentally Trump-minded reform is taking place.

“All of this smoke is missing the steady progress that the modern Republican Party is achieving,” said Grover Norquist, the longtime anti-tax advocate. “The idea that Trump isn’t getting anywhere is wrong. Those free market guys are picking up maybe not all the marbles in the world, but a large quantity of them. And we haven’t thrown away any marbles.”

One reason behind the perception that Trump’s agenda has largely foundered is that it’s made painfully little legislative progress. His efforts to push health care reform through Congress have advanced incrementally, but many hurdles remain. Tax reform appears unlikely to come before the summer, if at all. Trump’s budget won’t get a vote, and his relationship with Congress seems to fall somewhere between fractious and nonexistent.

But legislative progress is only one vehicle that moves a president’s agenda. And there have been profound policy changes on a variety of administrative fronts, often obscured by scandals emerging from the White House.

Take reports that Trump will leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, the milestone global accord to lower carbon emissions in the face of overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming.

The president’s retrenchment will have immense, generations-long geopolitical ripple effects. Yet on Wednesday morning, it competed for media attention alongside the fallout from Trump’s bizarre Twitter typo the night before and the backlash against comedian Kathy Griffin’s vulgar depiction of a severed Trump head.

On regulatory policy, Trump’s impact has far outpaced the coverage it’s often received. He’s made it harder for workers to set up retirement accounts and has delayed the implementation of workplace safety rules. He repealed a regulation protecting workers from wage theft and allowed employers with spotty labor records to get government contracts. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has hit the brakes on a rule that would require firms to report worker injury data online. Trump has given coal companies permission to dump debris into local streams and canceled requirements for reporting methane emissions. Both the Dakota Access and Keystone pipelines have been allowed to proceed, and coal companies have been allowed to again lease on public lands.

Elsewhere, Trump has made moves that will fundamentally alter the way our economy operates and individuals live their lives. His appointment of Ajit Pai to head the Federal Communications Commission is one of them. Pai is poised to dismantle net neutrality rules, moving away from treating online content as a public utility and toward a system that allows cable and telecom industry interests to control content and traffic. “That appointment,” Norquist said, “is [determining] 16 percent of the economy.”  

Much attention has focused on the way the courts and Congress have stymied Trump’s immigration policy. But even absent a travel ban or a border wall, he has dramatically altered the government’s approach. Deportations of undocumented immigrants have grown steadily under Trump’s watch, especially among noncriminals.

And Trump has had a profound impact on women’s health. He drastically expanded the so-called global gag rule, restricting a larger pool of funding from groups that mention or promote abortion, and he is poised to gut a mandate requiring employers to cover birth control for employees, broadening exemptions to the requirement that extend well beyond religious-affiliated groups.

These are just the domestic consequences of Trump’s presidency. On foreign affairs, his reach is far greater and restraint more limited.

Trump’s ability to do all this is not, as his administration would argue, evidence of an unappreciated wizardry at governance. He has simply utilized the powers afforded to the executive branch.

“He has a lot of leeway, and that’s why winning the White House is so important and losing it is so painful,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former top aide to former President Barack Obama. “The fact is, the bureaucracy is set up in the way that career professionals at government agencies are able to get things done in the way that the class of clowns around Trump aren’t able to.”

Indeed, the Trump administration has seemed to make the most progress when the epicenter of action is removed from the White House itself.

Kevin Ring, the president of the nonprofit Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said he was heartened to see Republicans and Democrats alike pushing back on Sessions’ sentencing guidelines. The impact of the policy change may be overstated, he says, as lawyers and judges could still determine they don’t want to abide by the tougher sentencing guidelines. But Ring concedes that Sessions had proved himself to be a competent and effective governing agent in ways that set him far apart from his boss.

“In every other battle, it is like, ‘Who is winning, Jared [Kushner] or [Steve] Bannon?’ Who is winning Trump’s blessing? And without it, they can’t go forward,” Ring said. “Sessions is at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue [where the DOJ is located] and doing whatever he wants. Which is not to say he isn’t doing what Trump wants. But he certainly has enough authority and discretion to move full speed ahead on all these fronts.”

At some point, Trump, Sessions and the rest of the Cabinet will run out of the low-hanging regulatory changes they can easily make. At that juncture, they will be limited in the policies they can promulgate. But by then, they will have already instituted substantial reforms, many of them without the public’s knowledge and hard to reverse.

Democratic operatives are waking up to the idea that the party should stop acting as if Trump is a rudderless president, desperately trying to pass an agenda as it’s anchored down by continuous scandal ― but rather, prosecute a case against Trump’s actual policy achievements.

“Democrats aren’t making a mistake by focusing on Russia, because it is potentially the biggest political scandal in U.S. history,” said Pfeiffer. “And the pressure they are putting forward has led to new revelations. But there will be a time when voters are interested in stuff beyond this. We aren’t there yet, but it would be incumbent upon the party to point this out.”

Yeah. This is the Republic of the Tangerine Toddler. We need to have eyes in the back of our heads.

[fraurosena]

Oh, and about that 'draining the swamp' thing...

The Daily 202: President Trump’s commitment to draining the swamp is being tested

Spoiler

President Trump is facing one of the clearest tests yet of his commitment to “drain the swamp,” a chant that echoed through his rallies in the final stretch of the 2016 race.

During the campaign, Trump railed against the influence of swamp-dwellers such as lobbyists, who he accused of pulling the strings of his political rivals. He promised to curtail their influence and keep them from profiting from government.

>tangerine toddler tantrum tweet<

But on Wednesday evening, the administration disclosed that it has granted ethics waivers to four former lobbyists now in the White House, allowing them to work on high-level policy issues of interest to their former clients. They are among 17 specific appointees who have been issued exemptions from conflict of interest rules in the first four months of the administration.

That’s the same number of ethics waivers that the Obama White House handed out -- over eight years.

And there’s more to come: before the week’s end, we should learn details about ethics waivers that have been given to former lobbyists and other appointees working across the federal government. The information – which the Office of Government Ethicsrequested from all federal agencies – will provide a window into how far the Trump administration is willing to bend on its promise to end business as usual in Washington.

Grizzled Beltway veterans may dismiss the lobbyist seepage as the inevitable result of the collision of campaign rhetoric with the practicalities of governing. Indeed, the Obama administration eventually found that its high-minded effort to keep lobbyists from serving in agencies they had recently lobbied had unintended consequences, such as a decrease in the number of people who would register as lobbyists.

But it’s worth remembering that “drain the swamp” is not just a hashtag for Trump. It was arguably one of the animating principles of his campaign, one that was embraced by his supporters with an enthusiasm that even surprised the then-candidate. (“I hated it,” Trump said at one point. “Somebody said ‘Drain the swamp,’ and I said, ‘Oh, that is so hokey. That is so terrible.’”)

Since then, the call has been taken up by Republican candidates seeking to imbue themselves with the outsider credentials that helped propel Trump to victory.

"Tonight, Montanans are sending a wake-up call to the Washington, D.C., establishment," Greg Gianforte said last week when he won the state’s congressional special election, adding, “Montanans said, 'We're going to drain the swamp.' "

Despite its lasting power, the president often appears unconcerned about maintaining a clear principle behind the slogan. Since taking office, Trump and his aides have turned #draintheswamp into a cudgel against their political enemies and government bureaucrats.

>another tangerine toddler tantrum tweet<

Meanwhile, Trump's decision to shrug off calls to divest his hotel and real-estate company have triggered a cascade of complaints related to the use of government resources to promote properties such as Mar-a-Lago, allegations that he is violating the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause and questions about how he is being used to promote Trump Organizations projects abroad.

Still, there is some evidence that the administration is worried about Trump’s credibility on draining the swamp, at least when it comes to transparency.

Until last week, it was unclear that the Trump White House was going to follow its predecessors and publicly disclose information about the ethics waivers that have been granted. The administration was locked in an escalating stand-off with the Office of Government Ethics, as Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, challenged the agency’s request for waiver details.

That raised the possibility that the administration would be handing out ethics waivers to lobbyists in secret for the course of Trump’s presidency.

Then, surprisingly, the White House backed down. On Wednesday evening, details about the waivers were posted on the White House website -- a day before the deadline set by OGE. 

In essence, their giving of information on the waivers is just the throwing of a bone, hoping the press and public interest will jump on it and forget to look at the allegations of violating the Constitutions emoluments clause. 

Nice diversion tactic. Not gonna work though. 

[JMarie]

19 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Oh, and about that 'draining the swamp' thing...

The Daily 202: President Trump’s commitment to draining the swamp is being tested

  Hide contents

President Trump is facing one of the clearest tests yet of his commitment to “drain the swamp,” a chant that echoed through his rallies in the final stretch of the 2016 race.

During the campaign, Trump railed against the influence of swamp-dwellers such as lobbyists, who he accused of pulling the strings of his political rivals. He promised to curtail their influence and keep them from profiting from government.

>tangerine toddler tantrum tweet<

But on Wednesday evening, the administration disclosed that it has granted ethics waivers to four former lobbyists now in the White House, allowing them to work on high-level policy issues of interest to their former clients. They are among 17 specific appointees who have been issued exemptions from conflict of interest rules in the first four months of the administration.

That’s the same number of ethics waivers that the Obama White House handed out -- over eight years.

And there’s more to come: before the week’s end, we should learn details about ethics waivers that have been given to former lobbyists and other appointees working across the federal government. The information – which the Office of Government Ethicsrequested from all federal agencies – will provide a window into how far the Trump administration is willing to bend on its promise to end business as usual in Washington.

Grizzled Beltway veterans may dismiss the lobbyist seepage as the inevitable result of the collision of campaign rhetoric with the practicalities of governing. Indeed, the Obama administration eventually found that its high-minded effort to keep lobbyists from serving in agencies they had recently lobbied had unintended consequences, such as a decrease in the number of people who would register as lobbyists.

But it’s worth remembering that “drain the swamp” is not just a hashtag for Trump. It was arguably one of the animating principles of his campaign, one that was embraced by his supporters with an enthusiasm that even surprised the then-candidate. (“I hated it,” Trump said at one point. “Somebody said ‘Drain the swamp,’ and I said, ‘Oh, that is so hokey. That is so terrible.’”)

Since then, the call has been taken up by Republican candidates seeking to imbue themselves with the outsider credentials that helped propel Trump to victory.

"Tonight, Montanans are sending a wake-up call to the Washington, D.C., establishment," Greg Gianforte said last week when he won the state’s congressional special election, adding, “Montanans said, 'We're going to drain the swamp.' "

Despite its lasting power, the president often appears unconcerned about maintaining a clear principle behind the slogan. Since taking office, Trump and his aides have turned #draintheswamp into a cudgel against their political enemies and government bureaucrats.

>another tangerine toddler tantrum tweet<

Meanwhile, Trump's decision to shrug off calls to divest his hotel and real-estate company have triggered a cascade of complaints related to the use of government resources to promote properties such as Mar-a-Lago, allegations that he is violating the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause and questions about how he is being used to promote Trump Organizations projects abroad.

Still, there is some evidence that the administration is worried about Trump’s credibility on draining the swamp, at least when it comes to transparency.

Until last week, it was unclear that the Trump White House was going to follow its predecessors and publicly disclose information about the ethics waivers that have been granted. The administration was locked in an escalating stand-off with the Office of Government Ethics, as Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, challenged the agency’s request for waiver details.

That raised the possibility that the administration would be handing out ethics waivers to lobbyists in secret for the course of Trump’s presidency.

Then, surprisingly, the White House backed down. On Wednesday evening, details about the waivers were posted on the White House website -- a day before the deadline set by OGE. 

In essence, they're giving of information on the waivers is just the throwing of a bone, hoping the press and public interest will jump on it and forget to look at the allegeations of violating the Constitutions emoluments clause. 

Nice diversion tactic. Not gonna work though. 

I don't understand how he's claiming to "drain the swamp" when so many WH positions have yet to be filled.  He can't drain what's currently empty.

[sawasdee]

@fraurosenaYour last two posts have scared the s@&t out of me. He is transforming the country, to the detriment of ordinary people and to the benefit of the oligarchs of the US, whilst using headline grabbing idiocies to distract attention.

The Democrats HAVE to wake up. They HAVE to publicise what is happening - how the bulk of the population is being set up to be exploited with no legal comeback.

I'm sorry - I hate Godwin - but I wrote my undergaduate thesis 40 years ago on the rise of Fascism, and how they concealed their true aims - he could  have used that thesis as a blueprint.

He is incompetent - but those around him are not . He appointed to Cabinet posts in control of various spheres those who hated any such control. His administration is working to dismantle the state - just as Bannon has said was his aim.

They are changing the nature of the US into an oligarchal state - and people are too interested in him shoving aside the President of Montenegro to notice.

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, sawasdee said:

@fraurosenaYour last two posts have scared the s@&t out of me. He is transforming the country, to the detriment of ordinary people and to the benefit of the oligarchs of the US, whilst using headline grabbing idiocies to distract attention.

The Democrats HAVE to wake up. They HAVE to publicise what is happening - how the bulk of the population is being set up to be exploited with no legal comeback.

I'm sorry - I hate Godwin - but I wrote my undergaduate thesis 40 years ago on the rise of Fascism, and how they concealed their true aims - he could  have used that thesis as a blueprint.

He is incompetent - but those around him are not . He appointed to Cabinet posts in control of various spheres those who hated any such control. His administration is working to dismantle the state - just as Bannon has said was his aim.

They are changing the nature of the US into an oligarchal state - and people are too interested in him shoving aside the President of Montenegro to notice.

Oh dear. Well, you'd better not read my posts in the Russian connection thread then. Especially avoid the Nigel Farage one, which gives evidence of connections between Farage, Assange, Bannon and Sessions, dating back to 2012. 

This sad situation in the US has been quite some time in the making.