Trump 23: The Death Eaters Have Taken the Fucking Country

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

And I suppose Donald Dumbfuck and his idiot Executive Branch staff groupies get upset any time some lowly rank and file member of government stays at anything above a Motel 6. 

What's this about a fancy Motel 6? They should stay in a National Forest Service campground with vault toilets in a leaky tent, unless they're in Trump's inner circle. (Sarcasm mode off now. I feel like I'm living in sarcasm mode now. Life wasn't like this a year ago.)

[GreyhoundFan]

I can relate: "Help! President Trump is killing me."

Spoiler

President Trump is killing me.

No, really. He’s killing me.

I went for my annual physical last month, and, for the first time in my 49 years, I had to report that I’ve not been feeling well: fatigue, headaches, poor sleep, even some occasional chest pain. My doctor checked my blood pressure, which had always been normal before: alarmingly high!

What could this mean? I don’t smoke, I’m not obese and I swim most days. The doctor hooked me up to electrodes and ran an EKG; it was normal. He suggested I try an ultra-low-sodium diet, and I spent a few weeks living on unsalted rice cakes, undressed salads and unappealing entrees; the pressure dropped a few points, but not enough. We could pretty much rule out sleep apnea and other things that can cause a spike in blood pressure. My doctor had me take a calcium CT scan of my heart, which filled me with enough radiation to melt s’mores but turned up nothing terrible.

At this point, I arrived at a self-diagnosis: I was suffering from Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder, or THUD. For almost five decades, I had been the picture of health, but eight months into Trump’s presidency, I was suddenly ailing. Trump is the only variable, I told my doctor. “He sure is variable,” my doc replied, endorsing the diagnosis.

I know THUD is a real condition because I have a scientifically valid sample to prove it. I told my editor about my new medical state, and he reported that he, too, has been newly warned by his doctor that his blood pressure has become borderline, and things could go either way. Sort of like with the “dreamers” (although in my editor’s case, dealing with me may be the primary cause of illness).

I also know THUD is real because I performed a longitudinal study to test my hypothesis. I bought a blood-pressure monitor and strapped it around my bicep at various points during the news cycle:

I am spending the evening with friends. Blood pressure: 116/67.

Trump says he is going to respond to North Korea with “fire and fury.” Blood pressure: 150/95.

I’m at home with the kids. Blood pressure: 117/69.

Jeff Sessions says they’re scrapping the DACA program: 137/92.

Trump agrees with “Chuck and Nancy” to avoid a debt-limit fight. Blood pressure: 122/81.

I remember that Trump’s term lasts another 40 months. Blood pressure: 159/97.

I have a strong suspicion THUD is a widespread phenomenon. A dentist tells me orders have surged in the Washington area for night guards because more people are clenching and grinding their teeth in the Trump era. Psychotherapists tell me that they are unusually busy and that most clients are talking about Trump, who is exacerbating whatever neurosis, depression or other conditions they had. This is probably quantifiable, but I am too fatigued to do this work. My heart can only take so much.

It stands to reason that THUD is less pervasive in parts of the country that supported Trump: rural areas, the South, the industrial Midwest. Americans here are probably suffering no deleterious effects on their health as a result of Trump’s election. Indeed, they may be feeling much better, collectively, as a recent epidemic of Obama Derangement Syndrome subsides.

Trump may be making blue America sick, but he is not causing health conditions to deteriorate in red America. Barack Obama famously spoke of spreading the wealth. Trump is spreading the health.

This, then, may be the essence of Trumpcare. He isn’t improving health for anybody. But by making health worse for those who live in parts of the country that opposed him, he is equalizing the health of all Americans. He is uniting us in infirmity.

An article published this week in the American Journal of Public Health finds that life expectancy in the United States closely follows voting patterns in the 2016 election, with Trump winning the most support in counties with the lowest gains in lifespans.

Jacob Bor, an assistant professor at Boston University, found that in counties where life expectancy rose by less than three years since 1980, there was a 9.1 percentage point increase for the Republican share of the vote between 2008 and 2016. In counties where life expectancy rose by more than seven years since 1980, there was a 3.5 point increase in the Democratic share.

Call it the health gap — and Trump is closing it, by making those in blue America ill.

Happily, I have addressed my case of Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder in its early stages, and my doctor has started me on blood-pressure medication. My prescription is renewable until January 2021, at which point I expect it will no longer be medically necessary.

Interestingly enough, I have one of the same issues reported -- I've started grinding my teeth at night and now have to wear a night-guard. I wish I could have forced the TT to pay for it.

[47of74]

54 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I can relate: "Help! President Trump is killing me."

  Hide contents

President Trump is killing me.

No, really. He’s killing me.

I went for my annual physical last month, and, for the first time in my 49 years, I had to report that I’ve not been feeling well: fatigue, headaches, poor sleep, even some occasional chest pain. My doctor checked my blood pressure, which had always been normal before: alarmingly high!

What could this mean? I don’t smoke, I’m not obese and I swim most days. The doctor hooked me up to electrodes and ran an EKG; it was normal. He suggested I try an ultra-low-sodium diet, and I spent a few weeks living on unsalted rice cakes, undressed salads and unappealing entrees; the pressure dropped a few points, but not enough. We could pretty much rule out sleep apnea and other things that can cause a spike in blood pressure. My doctor had me take a calcium CT scan of my heart, which filled me with enough radiation to melt s’mores but turned up nothing terrible.

At this point, I arrived at a self-diagnosis: I was suffering from Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder, or THUD. For almost five decades, I had been the picture of health, but eight months into Trump’s presidency, I was suddenly ailing. Trump is the only variable, I told my doctor. “He sure is variable,” my doc replied, endorsing the diagnosis.

I know THUD is a real condition because I have a scientifically valid sample to prove it. I told my editor about my new medical state, and he reported that he, too, has been newly warned by his doctor that his blood pressure has become borderline, and things could go either way. Sort of like with the “dreamers” (although in my editor’s case, dealing with me may be the primary cause of illness).

I also know THUD is real because I performed a longitudinal study to test my hypothesis. I bought a blood-pressure monitor and strapped it around my bicep at various points during the news cycle:

I am spending the evening with friends. Blood pressure: 116/67.

Trump says he is going to respond to North Korea with “fire and fury.” Blood pressure: 150/95.

I’m at home with the kids. Blood pressure: 117/69.

Jeff Sessions says they’re scrapping the DACA program: 137/92.

Trump agrees with “Chuck and Nancy” to avoid a debt-limit fight. Blood pressure: 122/81.

I remember that Trump’s term lasts another 40 months. Blood pressure: 159/97.

I have a strong suspicion THUD is a widespread phenomenon. A dentist tells me orders have surged in the Washington area for night guards because more people are clenching and grinding their teeth in the Trump era. Psychotherapists tell me that they are unusually busy and that most clients are talking about Trump, who is exacerbating whatever neurosis, depression or other conditions they had. This is probably quantifiable, but I am too fatigued to do this work. My heart can only take so much.

It stands to reason that THUD is less pervasive in parts of the country that supported Trump: rural areas, the South, the industrial Midwest. Americans here are probably suffering no deleterious effects on their health as a result of Trump’s election. Indeed, they may be feeling much better, collectively, as a recent epidemic of Obama Derangement Syndrome subsides.

Trump may be making blue America sick, but he is not causing health conditions to deteriorate in red America. Barack Obama famously spoke of spreading the wealth. Trump is spreading the health.

This, then, may be the essence of Trumpcare. He isn’t improving health for anybody. But by making health worse for those who live in parts of the country that opposed him, he is equalizing the health of all Americans. He is uniting us in infirmity.

An article published this week in the American Journal of Public Health finds that life expectancy in the United States closely follows voting patterns in the 2016 election, with Trump winning the most support in counties with the lowest gains in lifespans.

Jacob Bor, an assistant professor at Boston University, found that in counties where life expectancy rose by less than three years since 1980, there was a 9.1 percentage point increase for the Republican share of the vote between 2008 and 2016. In counties where life expectancy rose by more than seven years since 1980, there was a 3.5 point increase in the Democratic share.

Call it the health gap — and Trump is closing it, by making those in blue America ill.

Happily, I have addressed my case of Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder in its early stages, and my doctor has started me on blood-pressure medication. My prescription is renewable until January 2021, at which point I expect it will no longer be medically necessary.

Interestingly enough, I have one of the same issues reported -- I've started grinding my teeth at night and now have to wear a night-guard. I wish I could have forced the TT to pay for it.

Hopefully before then, but then we'd probably get that fornicate stick Pence. 

Yeah, I've been feeling angry more and more these past few months.  Some of it's probably due to Donald J. Putinfluffer and his groupies in the three branches of government, plus his supporters. 

Also I think my surgery last July had a bit to do with it too.  I do not regret for an instant having that surgery, and I am happy to have lost 55 pounds so far just since surgery.  But my bullshit tolerance levels, which was already low due to the giant orange toxic megacolon, took a hit after surgery.  Especially at work. 

[GreyhoundFan]

7 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

I am happy to have lost 55 pounds so far just since surgery.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! Keep up the great work!

 

[onekidanddone]

Surgeon General? I mean he cares about boobs, so he must be concerned about woman's health. 

[Cartmann99]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It stands to reason that THUD is less pervasive in parts of the country that supported Trump: rural areas, the South, the industrial Midwest. Americans here are probably suffering no deleterious effects on their health as a result of Trump’s election. Indeed, they may be feeling much better, collectively, as a recent epidemic of Obama Derangement Syndrome subsides.

Trust me, those of us in the red states who didn't vote for Trump also have THUD.  

[GrumpyGran]

12 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Trust me, those of us in the red states who didn't vote for Trump also have THUD.  

Yep. Having to deal with all these DITA-infected trolls(Delusionally Insane Trump Adoration) has caused a severe case of THUD.

[fraurosena]

On 15-9-2017 at 0:33 AM, 47of74 said:

Jesus, fuck face.  Grow up already. 

After 71 years of trying, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.... 

[fraurosena]

On 15-9-2017 at 10:56 PM, Cartmann99 said:

This is nuts. I'm sure whoever does the books for Grift-a-Lago could crunch some numbers and come up with a rate that covers expenses, but doesn't make Trump a profit. Either do that, or do as the quote suggests and get these folks a reservation at a cheaper place. 

Here's a novel idea. Why not work from the White House? You know, the official residence of the presidunce? I've heard he has a nice Oval Office there. Just a thought...

[onekidanddone]

21 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Interestingly enough, I have one of the same issues reported -- I've started grinding my teeth at night and now have to wear a night-guard. I wish I could have forced the TT to pay for it.

Panic attacks, rapid heart beat, splitting head aches, emotional eating. Oh and the uptick in my clinical depression and fear of leaving he house. Yup, this orange pile of crap is just doing wonders for my mental and physical health.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s ‘fake news’ attack lost its power this week"

Spoiler

An amazing thing happened this week.

News outlets that President Trump has branded “fake news” reported Trump agreed in principle to grant long-term legal status to DACA recipients — a big item on Democrats' wish list — without securing funding for a Southern border wall in return. Trump said the media and the Democrats who say they negotiated with him were mischaracterizing the situation.

Given a choice of whom to believe, reliably pro-Trump commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter and Mike Cernovich chose the media, Charles E. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi over the president.

Mark it down: This is the week that Trump's “fake news” attack lost its power.

In the past, Trump's boosters would have rushed to assure his supporters that the president is totally committed to the wall and claimed that the media are trying to drive a wedge between Trump and his base by manufacturing a narrative about supposed flimsiness.

That was Breitbart News's contention last month, when The Washington Post published the transcript of a telephone conversation between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in which Trump said the wall is “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

“Very fake news: Trump didn't say the wall wasn't important,” read a Breitbart headline. The accompanying article asserted that “instead, the new president of the United States (POTUS) shows an indefatigable commitment to his 'Make America Great Again' agenda — which included toughness on immigration, crime, trade and the border wall.”

That was some astounding spin. Now, even Breitbart is echoing the mainstream media and reporting that Trump is, indeed, waffling on the wall.

About 4 p.m. Thursday, Trump's reelection campaign sent an email to supporters that was signed by the president.

“Let me set the record straight in the simplest language possible,” he said in the email. “We will build a wall (not a fence) along the Southern border of the United States of America to help stop illegal immigration and keep America safe. Apparently, liberals in Congress and the mainstream media need one more reminder that building the wall is nonnegotiable.”

On Friday afternoon, the Trump campaign sent this text message to supporters:

... < text from the TT's campaign >

Notice that Trump didn't deny that funding for the wall is not part of a tentative DACA deal in either message. He merely said that he will build the wall at some point; in fact, he told reporters on Thursday that “the wall will come later.”

Breitbart was not assuaged by the president's words. This is what the site's homepage looked like on Friday:

... < Breitbart page >

On Fox News, Carlson led off his Thursday night show with a stinging rejection of Trump's position that allowing hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States does not amount to “amnesty.”

“It would be a massive amnesty,” Carlson said. “It would be the biggest ever granted in American history. This is thrilling news for Democrats and for open-borders advocates everywhere. In return for this concession, the president receives nothing — no reduction in overall immigration totals, no tightened restriction on foreign workers who take jobs from Americans, no E-Verify to prevent illegal immigrants from working under the table, no end to chain migration.

“The president isn't even getting a border wall, though he insisted he will somehow get one later, possibly. … Well, the president seems confident it will all work out in the end, but there's no reason to be optimistic. The fate of DACA recipients is, by far, the best piece of leverage he has or ever will have. If he gives it away for free, none of his other immigration priorities — the priorities he ran on and won the presidency with — will even be considered.”

On Twitter, Coulter fumed that Trump was “easily rolled” by Democratic leaders. Cernovich, an Infowars host, tweeted that it was “insane” for Trump to let DACA recipients stay in the country without demanding money for the border wall.

In a truly head-spinning exchange, Cernovich fired back at a Trump supporter who dismissed a New York Times report by Maggie Haberman as “fake news.”

“Pretty much any Haberman-Trump story is good to go,” Cernovich tweeted. “That's reality.”

You read that right: An Infowars host told a Trump supporter that the New York Times is not fake news.

The Infowars website also highlighted MAGA hat-burning on Friday and questioned Trump's dedication to his “America First” agenda.

... < Infowars page >

None of this means the term “fake news” is dead or that every single Trump booster is calling BS on the president's claim that he is as determined as ever to build the wall.

“There hasn't been a cave yet,” Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience on Thursday, urging patience, “but it looks like there might be.”

The significance of this week is that Trump can no longer cry “fake news” when the media reports on a broken promise, and count on his boosters to help keep the faith. In a credibility war with the media, Trump's victory is not automatic, even in the eyes of his most ardent admirers.

I can't believe Cernovich tweeted that about Maggie Haberman. I would have thought he would have died rather than say something reasonable or complementary about her (or the NYT).

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good segment from last night's "Real Time" -- "Bill Maher Reveals ‘25 Things You Don’t Know’ About Melania Trump"

Spoiler

Bill Maher imagined Friday night what Melania Trump might say should she take part in Us Weekly’s regular “25 Things You Don’t Know About Me” feature.

The first lady is actually appearing on the magazine’s front cover this coming week, so the “Real Time” host thought it was the perfect time to create the spoof article.

Maher unleashed some amusing one-liners ― including FLOTUS purportedly claiming that she had “no first language,” that she had “copied this list from Michelle Obama” and that she “once caught [Vice President] Mike Pence trying on my stilettos.”

... < tweet with the list >

The video is embedded in the article.

[GrumpyGran]

16 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump’s ‘fake news’ attack lost its power this week"

  Hide contents

An amazing thing happened this week.

News outlets that President Trump has branded “fake news” reported Trump agreed in principle to grant long-term legal status to DACA recipients — a big item on Democrats' wish list — without securing funding for a Southern border wall in return. Trump said the media and the Democrats who say they negotiated with him were mischaracterizing the situation.

Given a choice of whom to believe, reliably pro-Trump commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter and Mike Cernovich chose the media, Charles E. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi over the president.

Mark it down: This is the week that Trump's “fake news” attack lost its power.

In the past, Trump's boosters would have rushed to assure his supporters that the president is totally committed to the wall and claimed that the media are trying to drive a wedge between Trump and his base by manufacturing a narrative about supposed flimsiness.

That was Breitbart News's contention last month, when The Washington Post published the transcript of a telephone conversation between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in which Trump said the wall is “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

“Very fake news: Trump didn't say the wall wasn't important,” read a Breitbart headline. The accompanying article asserted that “instead, the new president of the United States (POTUS) shows an indefatigable commitment to his 'Make America Great Again' agenda — which included toughness on immigration, crime, trade and the border wall.”

That was some astounding spin. Now, even Breitbart is echoing the mainstream media and reporting that Trump is, indeed, waffling on the wall.

About 4 p.m. Thursday, Trump's reelection campaign sent an email to supporters that was signed by the president.

“Let me set the record straight in the simplest language possible,” he said in the email. “We will build a wall (not a fence) along the Southern border of the United States of America to help stop illegal immigration and keep America safe. Apparently, liberals in Congress and the mainstream media need one more reminder that building the wall is nonnegotiable.”

On Friday afternoon, the Trump campaign sent this text message to supporters:

... < text from the TT's campaign >

Notice that Trump didn't deny that funding for the wall is not part of a tentative DACA deal in either message. He merely said that he will build the wall at some point; in fact, he told reporters on Thursday that “the wall will come later.”

Breitbart was not assuaged by the president's words. This is what the site's homepage looked like on Friday:

... < Breitbart page >

On Fox News, Carlson led off his Thursday night show with a stinging rejection of Trump's position that allowing hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States does not amount to “amnesty.”

“It would be a massive amnesty,” Carlson said. “It would be the biggest ever granted in American history. This is thrilling news for Democrats and for open-borders advocates everywhere. In return for this concession, the president receives nothing — no reduction in overall immigration totals, no tightened restriction on foreign workers who take jobs from Americans, no E-Verify to prevent illegal immigrants from working under the table, no end to chain migration.

“The president isn't even getting a border wall, though he insisted he will somehow get one later, possibly. … Well, the president seems confident it will all work out in the end, but there's no reason to be optimistic. The fate of DACA recipients is, by far, the best piece of leverage he has or ever will have. If he gives it away for free, none of his other immigration priorities — the priorities he ran on and won the presidency with — will even be considered.”

On Twitter, Coulter fumed that Trump was “easily rolled” by Democratic leaders. Cernovich, an Infowars host, tweeted that it was “insane” for Trump to let DACA recipients stay in the country without demanding money for the border wall.

In a truly head-spinning exchange, Cernovich fired back at a Trump supporter who dismissed a New York Times report by Maggie Haberman as “fake news.”

“Pretty much any Haberman-Trump story is good to go,” Cernovich tweeted. “That's reality.”

You read that right: An Infowars host told a Trump supporter that the New York Times is not fake news.

The Infowars website also highlighted MAGA hat-burning on Friday and questioned Trump's dedication to his “America First” agenda.

... < Infowars page >

None of this means the term “fake news” is dead or that every single Trump booster is calling BS on the president's claim that he is as determined as ever to build the wall.

“There hasn't been a cave yet,” Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience on Thursday, urging patience, “but it looks like there might be.”

The significance of this week is that Trump can no longer cry “fake news” when the media reports on a broken promise, and count on his boosters to help keep the faith. In a credibility war with the media, Trump's victory is not automatic, even in the eyes of his most ardent admirers.

I can't believe Cernovich tweeted that about Maggie Haberman. I would have thought he would have died rather than say something reasonable or complementary about her (or the NYT).

He did manage to get his great big ass in a sling this week, didn't he? He was quick and consistent on the flip-flop, even for him. Hilarious that his supporters think they can chide him and get results. The very thing they love about him is biting them in the ass.

[GreyhoundFan]

"RTs = endorsements? Trump’s retweets of outlandish memes a signal to his base"

Spoiler

NEW YORK — Over the past 2½ months, President Trump has retweeted to the more than 30 million followers of his personal Twitter account these pieces of highbrow social media content:

●An animated GIF of him executing some WWE-style ground-and-pound on a CNN avatar.

●A cartoon meme of a “Trump train” running over a hapless CNN reporter.

●On Sunday, another doctored GIF of him hitting a golf ball into Hillary Clinton so hard she falls over.

Do these retweets equal an endorsement? For Trump, they probably do, but the White House isn’t saying, and it doesn’t really matter.

Given a boost by the tweeter in chief, the attacks on Trump’s enemies, content dredged from the depths of the Internet’s mud pits, are amplified, spread virally and instantly transmitted into the center of the nation’s daily political discourse — “liked” by hundreds of thousands of Trump’s supporters and seen by countless more in breathless news reports.

Much has been made of the president’s use of social media to dominate the media bandwidth during the campaign and, since taking office, his penchant to lay bare his id in real time despite repeated efforts by White House handlers to curtail him. On Sunday, Trump, in his own words, mocked North Korea’s Kim Jong Un on Twitter, calling the dictator with a growing nuclear weapons arsenal the “Rocket Man.”

Yet if Trump’s bombast on social media has alarmed foreign leaders, confused Congress and moved financial markets, his strategy of retweeting memes and GIFs has a different effect, media experts said. At a time when Trump’s public approval ratings have tumbled and he is taking fire from conservatives for flirting with bipartisanship on immigration, the president’s promotion of the outlandish content — created and distributed by his most ardent supporters — aims to rally his far-right political base.

“Last week, he met with Democrats, and a lot in the base were kind of pissed off,” said Nikki Usher, an assistant professor at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs. “Now he’s signaling to them: ‘I found this stuff [online]. Isn’t it cool? I’m listening to you.’ It’s a reaffirmation to the base that they really matter.”

The tactics strike Trump’s critics as distasteful at best and harmful at worst; some liberals and media columnists have accused the president of promoting violence against reporters and sexism against female politicians. The Twitter user whose Clinton golf GIF Trump retweeted Sunday has an account handle that relies on the phonetic spelling of the f-word.

Despite the howls of outrage, Trump can claim a win, Usher said. The Internet, she said, has produced a “remix culture” in which anyone can produce content. By that measure, some of the content Trump is retweeting is “brilliant” as parody or comedy and is clearly intended as a joke, she said.

“The mainstream media and progressives say this stuff is threatening and dangerous and calls for violence, but then Trump supporters say these folks can’t even take a joke,” she said. “He wins in that regard. And the other appeal is that members of his base have a horrible, deep-seated hatred of Hillary Clinton.”

In addition to the golf GIF, Trump retweeted other memes Sunday. One showed his face with stock market arrows pointing up, another showed a Trump train plowing through a snowstorm, and a third showed an image of the U.S. electoral map covered in Republican red with the words “keep it up Libs. This will be 2020.”

Critics said Trump has not only coarsened and debased the nation’s dialogue, but also that he has promoted xenophobia and anti-Semitism. During the campaign, Trump promoted a meme of Clinton with the words “most corrupt candidate ever” emblazoned on a six-pointed star of David. As president, Trump has retweeted users who, journalists later discovered, have made other racist or anti-Semitic statements.

To Macon Phillips, who served as the White House’s director of new media under President Barack Obama, Trump’s choices of what he retweets demonstrate a lack of interest in growing his base and at the same time highlight the narrow political space in which the president has room to operate.

“The fact that he routinely retweets people with a checkered history and viewpoints reflects the slim pickings he has to go with” of supporter-created pro-Trump content, Phillips said.

It is not clear whether Trump retweets the memes himself or relies on aides, such as White House social media director Dan Scavino. Nor is it known how Trump discovers the material, given that he follows just 45 people on Twitter from his personal account.

Trump aides did not respond to a request for comment.

In recent months, Trump has flubbed a couple of retweets. In one case, he retweeted and thanked a supporter who does not appear to be real person but whose persona was invented to promote a Trump-related apparel store. In another case last month, Trump retweeted a user from Britain who called him a “fascist.”

Asked about the president’s retweets Sunday, Republican strategist David Urban replied: “I’m not going to judge what’s appropriate and inappropriate with the president. Retweets do not equal endorsement. I think it says in the bottom of this tweet.”

There is, in fact, no such disclaimer.

Sigh, the juvenile retweets are exhausting.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s divisive presidency reshapes a key part of his private business"

Spoiler

For two years, a shelter for victims of domestic violence called Safe+Sound Somerset held its fundraiser golf tournament at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.

They loved it.

Then they quit it.

“Beautiful golf course. Beautiful facilities. We were treated well. But we couldn’t go back,” said Debbie Haroldsen, the charity’s acting executive director. President Trump’s campaign-trail comments about women and Mexicans had offended staff and clients. They found another course.

In Florida this year, the president’s politics attracted a new client for one of his businesses. Steven M. Alembik, a conservative activist, is planning a $600-per-seat gala at the Mar-a-Lago Club.

His logic: Trump helped Israel. So Alembik will help Trump in return.

“He’s got Israel’s back,” Alembik said. “We’ve got his back.’”

Trump’s divisive political career is reshaping a key — and previously apolitical — part of his business empire.

Trump-owned hotels and clubs have long made money by holding galas and other special events. Now, their clientele is changing. Trump’s properties are attracting new customers who want something from him or his government.

But they’re losing the kind of customers the business was originally built on: nonpolitical groups who just wanted to rent a room.

This summer, 19 charities canceled upcoming events at Mar-a-Lago — a major blow to that club’s business — after the president said there were “fine people” among white supremacists, neo-Nazis and members of the alt-right protesting to preserve a Confederate statue in Charlottesville. Dozens of other clients have left since Trump entered the 2016 presidential race.

On Saturday, the latest cancellation: A triathlon for charity at Trump’s Charlotte golf course, called “Tri at the Trump,” was abruptly scrapped. Sign-ups were down this year, the organizer said, due to concerns over the name.

... < chart of events at Mar-a-loco >

For the Trump Organization, a potentially troubling trend is emerging.

Before this year, many longtime Trump clients said they would return to use his clubs again — believing that quitting a Trump club would be a political act. Now, as Trump’s presidency has grown more polarizing, some customers say they see it as a political act to stay.

“We are not a political organization,” said Mike Levin, whose charity Harlem Lacrosse this year moved its golf tournament away from a Trump course in New York state, after going there for two prior years. “Given the current political environment, we opted to reschedule for a different course.

In all, Trump owns 12 golf courses in the United States — 11 on the East Coast, and one outside Los Angeles. He owns at least a partial stake in four hotels, in the District, Chicago, Las Vegas and New York’s SoHo. And he owns Mar-a-Lago and a winery resort outside Charlottesville.

To assess the state of Trump’s hospitality business, The Washington Post reviewed public records, data released by the Trump Organization and social-media postings from Trump properties. The Post identified a sample of more than 200 groups that had rented out meeting rooms or golf courses at a Trump property since 2014.

Of those groups, 85 are no longer Trump customers. Many said they left for nonpolitical reasons. But 30 told The Post that they had left because of Trump’s political career.

The Post provided its findings to the Trump Organization, which declined to provide a response or answer questions. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment, referring questions to the Trump Organization.

The Post’s review could not determine if the Trump Organization’s special-event business is growing or shrinking overall.

But it did show, clearly, that one part of that business is thriving. The business of political events.

For instance, in the 2014 election cycle, before Trump jumped into the presidential race, nine federal Republican candidates and committees reported patronizing Trump-owned properties.

Altogether, these groups spent $32,499 over two years, less than Trump’s clubs could take in from a single run-of-the-mill golf tournament.

This year, the figures are different.

At least 27 federal political committees — including Trump’s reelection campaign — have flocked to his properties. They’ve spent $363,701 in just seven months, according to campaign-finance reports. In addition, the Republican Governors Association paid more than $408,000 to hold an event this spring at the Trump National Doral golf resort, according to tax filings, a gathering the group said was booked back in February 2015.

At Trump’s D.C. hotel, there have also been a slew of events involving groups that have come to Washington to influence policy decisions.

Just last week, the hotel hosted the prime minister of Malaysia, who is the subject of a Justice Department corruption probe, as well as the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, which wants more offshore drilling. The hotel was also scheduled to host an association of candy-makers, who want federal help in a long-running feud with the sugar industry.

In July, a trade group representing e-cigarette makers and vape shop owners brought about 150 people to the hotel. They paid $285 per guest room. They also paid to rent a ballroom, and reserve the hotel’s Lincoln Library, though the vapers wouldn’t say how much they cost.

Ten days after the group checked out, it scored a victory.

An Obama-era regulation requiring stricter government oversight of e-cigarette products was put on hold by the Food and Drug Administration.

Tony Abboud, the executive director of the Vapor Technology Association, said in a recent interview that the FDA decision was based on the merits and unrelated to the group’s choice of venue. He said the Trump hotel was chosen as a matter of convenience.

“We put this together very quickly,” he said.

When asked whether the Trump hotel event had influenced the FDA’s decision, an agency spokesman said that the announcement was the “culmination of months-long internal discussions” about how to reduce tobacco-related deaths.

Rentals from groups such as these helped Trump’s D.C. hotel surpass its own revenue expectations.

Through the first four months of the year, the hotel turned a profit of $1.97 million, according to documents reported by The Post last month. Before the election, the company had projected it would lose $2.1 million in the same period, the documents show. The revenue from food and beverage sales — which include special events — was part of that surprising performance. It came in 37 percent above expectations.

Trump’s politics was a draw for Alembik, the conservative Israel backer who decided recently to hold an event at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s oceanfront club in Palm Beach.

Alembik said he will charge $600 per ticket. He expects 700 guests. That’s $420,000. In theory, Alembik said, any leftover proceeds will go to an Israeli charity called The Truth About Israel.

But, Alembik said, Trump’s club will probably keep most of the money. He said he’d recently seen an estimate of the costs. He declined to say what the number was, but said: “My God, they’re expensive. Holy crap.”

“With what Mar-a-Lago charges,” he said, “I don’t think there’s going to be much left over.” Alembik was fine with the idea that he was putting money into the president’s pocket: “Yeah, and the other ones are taking money out of his pocket,” he said, meaning the charities that canceled after Charlottesville.

Alembik’s event is unusual, in that he is explicit about using a ballroom rental as part of a political message to the president.

More broadly, however, many Trump clubs seem to be losing the customers that had been commonplace before.

That trend began in California in 2015, just after Trump said in his campaign announcement speech that Mexico was sending “rapists” to the United States. The L.A. Unified School District canceled a golf tournament. So did ESPN, the PGA, the L.A. Galaxy soccer team and the Union Rescue Mission.

The Post counted 11 special events at Trump’s California course in 2014. Now, 10 of those clients are gone.

Those California departures made news.

But at other clubs, clients were also quietly deciding to leave.

“A lot of the children that are in our program are immigrant children, [and] we didn’t want them to feel offended” by Trump’s comments about Mexicans, said Debra Green, of a youth-sports charity called Jeremy’s Heroes. For four years, her charity, named for a passenger who fought back against hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, had used Trump’s golf course in Colts Neck, N.J., for its charity fundraiser.

In 2016, the group didn’t return.

That meant about $50,000 in lost business for Trump’s club.

“We would not have changed the venue, but for that happening,” Green said. “The facilities, the service there, were all excellent.”

At Trump’s course in the Bronx, the drop is spelled out in figures provided to New York City, which owns the land under the course. The city data shows that the revenue from “outings” — events where the course is rented out by outside groups — declined 30 percent from 2015 to 2016 and is headed down again this year.

Other courses appear to be experiencing declines. In Westchester County, N.Y., 14 of the 21 clients that The Post identified in 2014 are now gone.

In Colts Neck, N.J., 11 of 17 are gone. The losses included the Golf Classic of the Sisters of Mercy, a tournament that benefits retired nuns. “The sisters cannot participate in a political campaign or support a specific candidate,” a spokeswoman wrote.

Most of those departing cited nonpolitical reasons for their decisions — such as the end of a contract, the price of the rental or a need for more event space.

For the Trump Organization, some clubs are doing better than others. At Trump’s course outside Charlotte — one of just three courses located in counties Trump won in 2016 — a number of new events have sprung up since 2014.

But even there, the Trump name can be a drag for the club’s customers.

Like the organizer of “Tri at the Trump.”

“A lot of people wouldn’t participate because of that,” said Chuck McAllister, who runs the triathlon, referring to the Trump name. The triathlon had used that name for three prior years. This year was different. Participant numbers were far below the high of 325-plus, set before Trump won the GOP nomination.

McAllister initially tried Sept. 11 to resolve the controversy, first reported by the Charlotte Observer, by changing the race’s name to Tri for Good.

That wasn’t enough.

“I had some people sign up. And I had some people want out,” he told The Washington Post late in the week. “Probably a pretty even split.”

Finally, on Saturday, he canceled the event. The situation “became way [too] politicized,” McAllister wrote in an email message.

At Trump Doral, a golf club and resort outside Miami, The Post identified 18 business conferences or golf tournaments scheduled to be held at the property from mid-September through next May.

Many are sponsored by industry groups such as the Food Marketing Institute, which is hosting a conference for 1,000 food retailers and suppliers there in January. The group signed a contract to book the Doral back in April 2015, according to a spokeswoman.

A major defense contractor, L3 Technologies, just announced that it would hold its annual management meeting at the resort. A spokeswoman said the company chose Doral for a variety of logistical reasons unrelated to politics.

Last Tuesday, at Trump’s club in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia, there was a tournament that epitomized the old business model for his events business. A charity tied to the Philadelphia Flyers hockey team held a celebrity golf tournament, with players teeing off and then gathering for fancy food.

It was the seventh year in a row the Flyers’ charity had come there.

It might be the last.

“We’ve made the decision that we will explore other options” for 2018, said Scott Tharp, the president of the Flyers’ charity, the Ed Snider Youth Hockey Foundation. He was worried about the tournament being seen as a political statement.

Next year, Tharp said, “It’s going to be very hard to replace this venue.”

I hope he keeps losing these lucrative events.

[GreyhoundFan]

I think so: "Trump’s Hillary Clinton tweet: Does it violate Twitter’s rules on violence?"

Spoiler

Sunday morning: Church bells and bird calls. Coupon-stuffed newspapers. “Meet the Press.” And, in America in 2017, a tidal wave of bizarre Internet activity courtesy of the leader of the free world.

True to form, President Trump jump-started his week Sunday with a string of 140-character thought-bursts aimed at his 38.5 million followers. The lineup included minting a nickname for North Korea’s dictator (“Rocket Man”) and outlining his schedule (“Important meetings and calls”).

The president’s thumbs also found the “retweet” button for a few memes created by supporters, including one that has now ignited its own controversy. Posted from user CNN SUCKS, the short clip welds footage of Trump teeing off on a golf course to an image of Hillary Clinton stumbling while walking onto an airplane in 2011. Due to a manipulated image of a golf ball bouncing off the former presidential candidate’s back before her tumble, the GIF suggests Trump’s long ball knocked Clinton down.

...

The retweet immediately fired up accusations that the president was promoting violence against women. It also was reminiscent of an earlier Sunday morning Trump retweet with an overtly violent theme — in July the president shared a doctored professional wrestling clip depicting Trump body-slamming CNN. Although that GIF was blasted by both the network and Democratic lawmakers (“crude, false, and unpresidential content”), the president still shared — then quickly deleted — a cartoon image of a “Trump train” plowing into a CNN reporter only three days after a man attending a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was accused of driving his car into a counterprotest group and killing a woman.

While those earlier violent depictions could arguably have been said to be aimed at an institution, not an individual, the Clinton GIF was clearly a shot at the president’s former campaign rival. But Clinton is also on a highly visible book tour. A federal judge was mindful enough of that fact to revoke pharma-bro Martin Shkreli’s bail after the convicted hedge fund manager promised $5,000 to any Facebook follower who could get a strand of her hair. An actual possibility of violence was tied to that tweet. The tweet might also be the first instance in U.S. history where one Secret Service-protected individual suggested violence against another Secret Service-protected individual.

...

Yet the response to Sunday’s retweet has been relatively muted. Some believe Trump’s Twitter account has jolted sensibilities so often — from ghastly attacks on cable talking heads Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski to baseless accusations about Trump Tower wiretaps — that outlandish is the new reigning norm. But GIF-gate is another opportunity to return to a question that has been rumbling online for more than a year: What exactly does Trump have to do to get kicked off Twitter?

Twitter’s boundaries on what is and what is not appropriate on the platform have been murky since the beginning. Company leadership is famously reluctant to step into debates concerning censorship. “Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content,” Biz Stone, the company’s co-founder, said in 2008 in response to early complaints. “We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform and we’ve sucked at it for years,” Twitter CEO Dick Costolo wrote in an internal company memo in 2015, according to the Verge.

The company has since clarified their terms of service. Today, the rules are pretty clear, particularly on “abusive” behavior: “In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.” The terms also prohibit “Violent threats (direct or indirect)”: “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

The guidelines additionally ban “hateful conduct”: “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.”

In practice, however, the company’s decision-making goes on behind a curtain. Twitter does not comment on specific account activity, creating confusion about what exactly prompts Twitter to act.

For example, in July 2016, the company booted right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos after the former Breitbart editor incited his Twitter followers to harass “Ghostbusters” star Leslie Jones. Many of the attacks were outright racist. The company, however, only jumped into the situation after Jones herself complained online. “Twitter I understand you got free speech I get it. But there has to be some guidelines when you let spread like that,” the actress posted on her account.

In August 2016, YouTube star Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg was suspended from Twitter after posting a tweet about having “joined isis.” The posting, however, was in reference to an Internet joke. Once BusinessInsider published a piece pointing that out, Twitter reinstated the account.

And in September 2017, BuzzFeed reported one account —@themoodforluv — was suspended after one of the user’s tweets went viral. According to an image from the user, Twitter claimed the account had violated the terms of service regarding “targeted abuse.”

The offending tweet?

A light dig at pop star Taylor Swift: “no offense but is taylor swift ever gonna grow out of her ‘i wrote your name in my burn book’ phase she’s a grown ass woman.”

Under such a capricious system, Twitter has the wiggle-room to issue passes when it sees fit, or to ignore the behavior of high-profile users that may be in conflict with the terms of service.

“Banning is definitely a conversation that people are having, but only because we have to have the conversation,” an unnamed Twitter employee told the Verge in January. “It would take something really deplorable for a ban, and I highly doubt even Trump is that stupid.”

For some, however, Sunday’s Clinton GIF was deplorable enough.

... < excellent tweet >

I wish Twitter would ban him. Life would be so much better all around.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oops: "Trump lawyers spill beans thanks to terrible choice of restaurant — next door to the New York Times"

Spoiler

It is every Washington reporter’s dream to sit down at a restaurant, overhear secret stuff, and get a scoop. It rarely happens.

Still, everyone in town important enough to have secrets worth keeping knows that secrets are not safe on the Acela train and in Washington restaurants.

This is especially true in eateries next door to a major newspaper.

Yes, Ty Cobb and John Dowd, lawyers for President Trump, we’re talking to you.

But it’s too late now.

Dowd represents Trump but does not work at the White House. Cobb is a White House employee who is instantly recognizable to many because of his handlebar mustache.

Together, they went for what appears to have been a working lunch at BLT Steak, 1625 I St., NW in Washington. It’s close to the White House and very convenient.

It’s also next door to 1627 I St., NW, which happens to house the Washington Bureau of the New York Times.

...

Sitting at the next table, according to the Times, was one of Washington’s most skillful investigative reporters, Kenneth Vogel. Vogel is former reporter for Politico, which is based in Virginia, who arrived at the Times just in time for the Russia investigation and, as it turned out, just in time for lunch.

Vogel overheard them talking about White House counsel Donald F. McGhan II and Jared Kushner, president Trump’s son-in-law, as well as the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Here’s a sample from the article bearing the bylines of Vogel and Peter Baker:

Mr. Cobb was heard talking about a White House lawyer he deemed “a McGahn spy” and saying Mr. McGahn had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he seemed to suggest he wanted access to. He also mentioned a colleague whom he blamed for “some of these earlier leaks,” and who he said “tried to push Jared out …”

The White House Counsel’s Office is being very conservative with this stuff,” Mr. Cobb told Mr. Dowd. “Our view is we’re not hiding anything.” Referring to Mr. McGahn, he added, “He’s got a couple documents locked in a safe.”

… Mr. Cobb also discussed the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting — and the White House’s response to it — saying that “there was no perception that there was an exchange.”

...

Vogel took their picture and tweeted it. That looks like a big bottle of Perrier on the table.

Of course, it took some further reporting to get a sense of what this might have meant. You can read about it here, under the headline “Trump Lawyers Clash Over How Much to Cooperate With Russia Inquiry.”

Dowd was in the news in April for forwarding a conspiracy-theorist’s email to government officials, conservative journalists and others equating Robert E. Lee with George Washington, and Black Lives Matter with “terrorist groups.” The Times broke that story. too. (Fool me once …)

According to The Times, the breach did not sit well with White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly who, after being contacted by the Times, “privately erupted at Mr. Cobb.” Whether he also erupted at Dowd is not known.

Trump and his aides have complained bitterly and often about leaks, including leaks from the White House.

But who needs leaks when lunch reservations will suffice?

 

[sawasdee]

I'm about to commit heresy here.

The more I watch the present shenanigans, the more I am beginning to feel that Hillary losing was not the greatest tragedy. Don't get me wrong, she would have been light years better than the TT, and she actually had workable policies which would have benefited most people.

BUT - the GOP would have blocked her, just as they did Obama, without his advantage of controlling the House for the first two years of her term. She would have been able to issue executive orders, but pass, probably, little or no legislation.

Yes, every action by the TT undoes something good, and his effect on  US standing in the world has been catastrophic.

However, his appalling behaviour has energised the Dem base in a way not seen in recent history. Independents are retreating in hordes from the Repugs. The number of State seats falling to the Dems is encouraging, and we have the hope of a "wave" election in 2018 which could take back at least the House, and maybe several state houses. Several governorships may also change hands.This would certainly not have happened if Hillary had won - instead we would be seeing a news cycle dominated by emails (still!) and the Clinton Foundation - which House Repugs would definitely have aggressively investigated. The Dems would probably have lost MORE seats in 2018. It is important to have control of state houses and to a degree Congress in 2020 because that's when voting districts are redrawn. It was 2010 that ,in the wake of tea party gains, the present egregious gerrymandering took place: so bad that Dems can win considerably more votes than the Repugs, and also considerably fewer seats. 

He is so divisive that the Repugs cannot govern, and cannot control their own caucuses. The party is in self destruct mode  at the moment, and being helped in that endeavour by the TT.

So - though I wept when she lost, and couldn't speak to anyone for days - maybe, just maybe, in the long run, it may have been for the best?

(If only Obama had got Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS - that's the big fly in the ointment.)

[onekidanddone]

3 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

He is so divisive that the Repugs cannot govern, and cannot control their own caucuses. The party is in self destruct mode  at the moment, and being helped in that endeavour by the TT.

So - though I wept when she lost, and couldn't speak to anyone for days - maybe, just maybe, in the long run, it may have been for the best?

(If only Obama had got Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS - that's the big fly in the ointment.)

From your mouth to Rufus's ears. I knew if Clinton won there would be gridlocked nothing for at least two year, but at least the agencies would be in capable hands and not have people like Carson and Pruitt at the helm. Watching the ReThugs fall apart and fight each other is encouraging, I just hope our nation can fix the destruction done so far and the destruction yet to come.  

[sawasdee]

11 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

at least the agencies would be in capable hands and not have people like Carson and Pruitt at the helm.

That's the other fly. The number of highly qualified career civil servants leaving the agencies is extremely disturbing - I think the State Department alone will take years to rebuild.

[GrumpyGran]

@sawasdee, I greatly respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. There's gridlock and then there's moving backwards so fast it takes your breath away. While I don't think Hillary was the best candidate, at least she didn't tell Americans it is okay to sexually assault women. While Republicans may not have liked her, she would have been there as the gatekeeper and they would have always known she had the veto. Now there is no gatekeeper. Just a lunatic whipping the animals into a frenzy.

It's a nice thought that we may be encouraged to try to do better in 2018 but the presence of Trump as president has also allowed the existence of Kobach's ridiculous cabal hellbent on making sure Democrats can never again regain power. Even those Republicans in Congress who have morals will support whatever harebrained scheme Kobach comes up with because it serves their purpose.

And don't get me started on the rapid destruction of our environment with deregulations, the dismantling of public education and the assassination of our country's reputation world-wide.

I'm not sure you can go back from where we will be in 18 months if things continue at this rate. 

[sawasdee]

I understand exactly what you are saying, @GrumpyGran, because I feel the same, and share your concerns.

But I think that the dangers of continued Repug control of the individual states, with ALEC in the background - could lead to some terrible constitutional amendments. I think they need 38 states? They're too close.

At least in the present situation, there is a chance of retrieving some states, and staving off ALEC. And enough seats, maybe we will see the gerrymandering undone. Pollyanna here even hopes that both parties will recognise that the redrawing will disadvantage as well as advantage them, as election cycles swing, and agree to districts being drawn by a computerised programme that doesn't take party affiliation into account.

With Hillary in office, I think - sadly - that the usual Dem apathy at mid terms would apply, and we could end up with permanent Repug rule in the US. He is at least the cause of a wave of activism which has a chance of changing things. And usually a sitting president loses support in the mid terms.

Being Pollyanna again, I'm praying to Rufus that SCOTUS is as constitutionally oriented, on the Repug side, as it claims. If so, a lot of what Kobach would like to do won't pass the constitution test.

And with a little bit of luck, in 2018 the Dems will once again have some power to wield.

I have to find some hope somewhere.

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oops: "Trump lawyers spill beans thanks to terrible choice of restaurant — next door to the New York Times"

  Reveal hidden contents

It is every Washington reporter’s dream to sit down at a restaurant, overhear secret stuff, and get a scoop. It rarely happens.

Still, everyone in town important enough to have secrets worth keeping knows that secrets are not safe on the Acela train and in Washington restaurants.

This is especially true in eateries next door to a major newspaper.

Yes, Ty Cobb and John Dowd, lawyers for President Trump, we’re talking to you.

But it’s too late now.

Dowd represents Trump but does not work at the White House. Cobb is a White House employee who is instantly recognizable to many because of his handlebar mustache.

Together, they went for what appears to have been a working lunch at BLT Steak, 1625 I St., NW in Washington. It’s close to the White House and very convenient.

It’s also next door to 1627 I St., NW, which happens to house the Washington Bureau of the New York Times.

...

Sitting at the next table, according to the Times, was one of Washington’s most skillful investigative reporters, Kenneth Vogel. Vogel is former reporter for Politico, which is based in Virginia, who arrived at the Times just in time for the Russia investigation and, as it turned out, just in time for lunch.

Vogel overheard them talking about White House counsel Donald F. McGhan II and Jared Kushner, president Trump’s son-in-law, as well as the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Here’s a sample from the article bearing the bylines of Vogel and Peter Baker:

Mr. Cobb was heard talking about a White House lawyer he deemed “a McGahn spy” and saying Mr. McGahn had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he seemed to suggest he wanted access to. He also mentioned a colleague whom he blamed for “some of these earlier leaks,” and who he said “tried to push Jared out …”

The White House Counsel’s Office is being very conservative with this stuff,” Mr. Cobb told Mr. Dowd. “Our view is we’re not hiding anything.” Referring to Mr. McGahn, he added, “He’s got a couple documents locked in a safe.”

… Mr. Cobb also discussed the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting — and the White House’s response to it — saying that “there was no perception that there was an exchange.”

...

Vogel took their picture and tweeted it. That looks like a big bottle of Perrier on the table.

Of course, it took some further reporting to get a sense of what this might have meant. You can read about it here, under the headline “Trump Lawyers Clash Over How Much to Cooperate With Russia Inquiry.”

Dowd was in the news in April for forwarding a conspiracy-theorist’s email to government officials, conservative journalists and others equating Robert E. Lee with George Washington, and Black Lives Matter with “terrorist groups.” The Times broke that story. too. (Fool me once …)

According to The Times, the breach did not sit well with White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly who, after being contacted by the Times, “privately erupted at Mr. Cobb.” Whether he also erupted at Dowd is not known.

Trump and his aides have complained bitterly and often about leaks, including leaks from the White House.

But who needs leaks when lunch reservations will suffice?

 

I wonder how much of what has 'leaked' came from this very type of setting. I can see these WH people being the kind who like to appear in expensive restaurants and be recognized. Then they sit down and start running their mouths, expecting everyone around them to be impressed that they are very important White House folk. Never a thought that the people around them may not be their friends.

And @sawasdee,I appreciate the optimism, I'm waiting for my party to surprise me with a good plan to organize and take back the House AND Senate. But up to now, I'm underwhelmed. I see almost as much in-fighting with the Dems as I do with the Republicans. 

[GreyhoundFan]

To go with the earlier article: "What’s the matter with Trump’s lawyers?"

Spoiler

They say a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. President Trump isn't representing himself, but sometimes it feels like he has a bunch of Donald Trumps on retainer.

While lawyers generally operate behind the scenes and try to keep their public comments limited and calculated, Trump's lawyers have routinely done things outside the norm. They've gotten into spats with reporters and trolls, talked about internal deliberations and their odds of success and, most recently, discussed the Russia investigation within earshot of a New York Times reporter.

That last one is the most recent development in the increasingly strange saga of Trump's legal team. The New York Times reported Sunday that they had overheard a conversation between Trump lawyers Ty Cobb and John Dowd last week at Washington's popular BLT Steak restaurant, which is both near the White House and very close to the Times's Washington bureau. Oops.

Cobb and Dowd weren't discussing anything particularly damning, it would seem, but Cobb did chew over some of his differences with White House counsel Don McGahn over how to handle the Russia probe. Cobb apparently wants more disclosure faster in the name of getting a speedy resolution; McGahn is more circumspect about forfeiting the White House's prerogatives. Cobb also suggested another Trump lawyer was a “McGahn spy” and said McGahn had a “couple documents locked in a safe” which Cobb wanted access to.

When word reached McGahn that the Times had been able to eavesdrop on this conversation, he reportedly “erupted” at Cobb, and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly admonished Cobb over the indiscretion.

And understandably so. Whatever Cobb and Dowd were discussing, the fact that they were doing it in public would seem to be a pretty serious breach not just of good sense, but possibly of attorney-client privilege. Imagine if this conversation wound up being consequential in the scheme of the Russia investigation. The fact that it even happened — New York Times reporter or no New York Times reporter — is astounding.

But against the broader backdrop of what Trump's lawyers have been doing and saying publicly, it is far less surprising.

A quick recap:

• Cobb asked a Business Insider reporter if she was “on drugs.”
• He later called the same reporter “insane” and mused about using a drone on her while unwittingly emailing with a prankster posing as a White House official.
• Cobb described himself and Kelly as the “adults in the room” at the White House in emails with a Washington restaurateur. “I walked away from $4 million annually to do this, had to sell my entire retirement account for major capital losses and lost a s‑‑‑load to try to protect the third pillar of democracy,” Cobb told Jeff Jetton.
• When he took the job, Cobb told Law.com that he had “rocks in my head and steel balls.” He added that he took the job because it was “an impossible task with a deadline.” (Side note: So defending Trump from the Russia investigation is an “impossible task,” you say?)
• Now-former Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz threatened a random stranger in an email exchange, telling her, “Watch your back, b‑‑‑‑.”
• Dowd rather strangely confirmed to The Post last week that the legal team had discussed whether Jared Kushner should exit the White House.
• Jay Sekulow denied twice that Trump was involved in Donald Trump Jr.'s initial response to that Russia meeting, only to be directly contradicted by the White House itself.
• Trump's colorful longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, responded to his contradictory denials about being involved with Russians with plenty of bluster. “I feel great,” he told HuffPost. “Which picture did The Wall Street Journal use of me? Was it good?” Cohen added: “I am in many respects just like the president. Nothing seems to rattle me, no matter how bad the hate.”
• Cohen regularly engages with critics and mixes it up on social media. Asked by Vanity Fair what that says, he responded: “It means I’m relevant.”

Any one of these examples is highly unusual for a lawyer, or really any public official. Yet Trump seems to have assembled a legal team that mirrors his own combative style and at-times-unhelpful tendency to spout off in public.

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg question. Are the lawyers acting like this because the White House as a whole plays it so fast and loose? Or were they selected because most established lawyers wouldn't take on such a challenging client? I've said before that being Trump's lawyer may be the second-worst job in Washington — behind being his spokesman — but while some of the team is perhaps a bit more random, Cobb has an extensive pedigree. And this is both the president of the United States and a billionaire; you'd expect him to have the best of the best.

There may be a third contributing factor here: Maybe the job is just so stressful that it lends itself to lashing out and lapses in judgment. But the stakes are so enormous that it's hard to see how this has happened so many times.

Kelly may have instilled some discipline in the White House staff, but those who we might expect to be the most disciplined — the lawyers — have proven anything but. Last week was the first time that seemed to potentially imperil Trump's defense.

I love the opening paragraph. Yes, it seems like he has a bunch of DTs on the payroll.

[apple1]

And meanwhile what happens if WW III (and nuclear WW III at that) happens?

ETA- Not to mention the already-happened coarsening of public discourse and behaviors and the seeming Okay-ing of hateful/ zenophobic/ racist/ insert adjective of your choice public verbiage.