Trump 28: He's a "stable genius" with a "big & powerful button"

[GreyhoundFan]

[Rachel333]

Wow, Trump tried to fire Mueller last June.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

[hoipolloi]

Maybe Jimmy can ask her about tRump's weight!

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[hoipolloi]

An account of tRump testifying under oath in 2007: 

Quote

Trump's poor performance stemmed in part from the fact that he was being interrogated by shrewd attorneys wielding his own business and financial records against him. But there were lots of other things that went wrong as well....Trump is impatient and has never been an avid or dedicated reader. That’s OK if you’d rather play golf, but it’s not OK when you need to absorb abundant or complex details....Trump also has a well-known inability to stick to the facts and a tendency to dissemble and improvise. While under oath, he’ll try to avoid saying that he’s lied in the past until he’s presented with documentation proving otherwise....Trump has also courted the spotlight for so long that there’s an ample public record going back decades of statements he’s made on a wide array of subjects. That’s not true of most people sitting for a deposition, but it’s true for Trump and it’s a problem for him.

 

[fraurosena]

By the very fact he's declaring it fake news, we know it's true.

Trump-Russia inquiry: President denies trying to fire Robert Mueller

Quote

US President Donald Trump has described as "fake news" a report that he ordered the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller last June, but backed down when his own lawyer threatened to resign.

White House counsel Donald McGahn said the sacking would have a "catastrophic effect" on the presidency, the New York Times reported.

Mr Mueller is leading an inquiry into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia to influence the US election.

Both Moscow and Mr Trump deny this.

"Fake News. Typical New York Times. Fake Stories," Mr Trump said at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss town of Davos, where he is due to give a speech later.

He has also been speaking about other issues:

Russian news agency Tass quoted Mr Trump as saying he "hoped" for more dialogue between the US and Russia

White House officials said Mr Trump was open to rejoining the Paris climate change agreement, if better terms for the US could be agreed

In a CNBC interview, Mr Trump also said he was willing to look again at joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal "if we were able to do a "substantially better deal"

Mr Trump will say in his speech that he is in favour of "fair and reciprocal" free trade but will not tolerate trade abuses and intellectual property theft, according to US officials

Mr Mueller, a former FBI director, was appointed special counsel last May to look into the collusion allegations.

His appointment came after Mr Trump had fired FBI director James Comey, saying in an interview it was because of "this Russia thing". Mr Mueller is also looking into whether that represented an obstruction of justice.

Of course, he's also hoping for more dialogue between US and Russia.

Apparently the blowback from leaving the Paris agreement has had its effect, as he now says he might want to rejoin. Plus Trudeau's new trans Pacific trade agreement seems to have made him feel left out, and he wants to join the TPP again as well. 

Putting all that together with his 'apology' about retweeting those Britain First videos, methinks the presidunce is having to grovel quite a bit over there in Davos, in order to fit in with the rest of the world leaders. I wonder what the repercussions of that are going to be...

[fraurosena]

Crowd boos after Trump attacks media at Davos

Quote

The crowd at a Q&A session with President Trump at the World Economic Forum booed after he attacked the media.

“It wasn’t til I became a politician that I realized how nasty, how mean, how vicious and how fake the press can be, as the cameras start going off in the back,” Trump said at the session Friday.

The crowd at the event then booed.

“But overall the bottom line, somebody said, ‘But they could have been that bad because here we are, we’re president,’” Trump continued.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the press throughout his presidential campaign and into his administration.

He has blasted reports about him and his administration as “fake news,” and named CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post among the winners of his “Fake News Awards” earlier this month.

Trump also called a report that he attempted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller last year but was blocked by the White House counsel as “fake news” earlier Friday.

The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab was also booed on Friday after he said Trump's leadership was victim to "biased interpretations."

 

[onekidanddone]

Friday giggle

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation has never looked more like a coverup"

Spoiler

President Trump didn't just consider the most drastic conceivable response to the Russia investigation; he actively tried to do it — until someone stopped him.

During a month in which the Russia probe has steadily crept closer to the president and new details about Trump's attempts to manipulate law enforcement keep coming, we just found out he once tried to remove the man running the show. Yep, all those stories back in June about how Trump might fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III? They weren't just idle speculation, as the president and his team assured us, but rather the result of serious deliberations and an actual, eventual attempt to do the deed.

The only thing that stopped him, according to The Post's reporting, was White House counsel Donald McGahn declining to carry out Trump's orders and saying he would rather resign. And the president backed down. (The news was first reported by the New York Times.)

All signs since then are that Trump and the White House have made their peace with the idea that Mueller would conclude his investigation. They brought on a lawyer, Ty Cobb, who has known Mueller for decades, and their tone turned to one of mostly cooperation — albeit with law enforcement conspiracy theories increasingly sprinkled into the mix.

Still, it's worth emphasizing that this is not something Trump decided against; instead, it's a reality he's been forced into. And the only thing standing in the way of going nuclear and firing Mueller was the prospect of a staff defection that would make the already highly questionable decision — which even GOP senators warned against — look like even more of a PR nightmare. The reporting makes clear that Trump made this decision before it was rendered completely impractical by McGahn. Firing Mueller and then losing McGahn (and possibly Justice Department officials tasked with signing off on it) would have been viewed as pure desperation from a floundering White House.

And in that way, it follows the pattern of so many other attempts by Trump to manipulate law enforcement and those overseeing the Russia probe. He fired then-FBI Director James B. Comey, who was overseeing the investigation at the time, only to have it lead to the appointment of Mueller. He clearly wants to be rid of Attorney General Jeff Sessions — whose recusal from Russia-related matters paved the way for Mueller's appointment — but firing Sessions would clearly be a disaster. He has tried to remove Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, only to be rebuffed by Comey's replacement, Christopher A. Wray. There are a bunch more examples.

And in a really telling paragraph in its report Thursday night, the Times noted that Trump also considered firing someone else at the top of the Russia probe: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, the man who appointed Mueller and who Trump has suggested is a Democrat, so that the No. 3 person in the Justice Department could take oversight of Mueller's probe.

Another option that Mr. Trump considered in discussions with his advisers was dismissing the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, and elevating the department’s No. 3 official, Rachel Brand, to oversee Mr. Mueller. Mr. Rosenstein has overseen the investigation since March, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.

The combination of that and Mueller's attempted firing, plus everything else, looks like an attempt to install more sympathetic law enforcement officials and possibly even cover up something nefarious. At the very least, it betrays a concern about what these people might find or accuse you of.

And you know what else makes all of this look rather underhanded? The fact that Trump denied even considering firing Mueller.

“I haven't given it any thought,” he told reporters in New Jersey back in August, two months after he not only gave it thought, but decided to do it. “I've been reading about it from you people. You say, 'Oh, I'm going to dismiss him.' No, I'm not dismissing anybody.” Trump was joined in his denial by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, who said around the same time that the White House hadn't “even discussed” the idea of firing Mueller.

Perhaps Conway was out of the loop somehow. But Trump's denial is ironclad and diametrically opposed to what we now know he had decided to do just two months prior.

And if the rest of it didn't smell like a coverup, that sure does.

The more he tries to cover up, the guiltier he looks. He is like the three year old who, when asked if he took a cookie without asking, says no, as he's is hurriedly trying to jam the cookie in his mouth and swallow it.

[fraurosena]

But Faux will be touting this as the bigliest win ever, as they are turning ignoring facts about Obama achievements into an art-form.

 

[fraurosena]

The prevaricating presidunce propagating preposterous pretenses. 

AP FACT CHECK: So where’s Trump’s 3 percent growth?

Quote

President Donald Trump on Friday hailed an America that is “roaring back” just as his government was releasing figures showing a year of economic growth well short of what he told people to expect.

Trump’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, overstated U.S. economic performance on several fronts. A look at several of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

TRUMP: “Since my election, we’ve created 2.4 million jobs. And that number is going up very, very substantially.”

THE FACTS: Actually, job growth is going down.

Looking at annual totals, rather than since the November 2016 election, U.S. companies and other employers added 2.1 million jobs in 2017. That was actually the lowest job growth in seven years. It’s not surprising that job gains are slowing, which typically happens when unemployment has fallen to very low levels and there are fewer people to hire. Right now, it is 4.1 percent, the lowest in 17 years. Still, Trump’s assertions that hiring is picking up is wrong.

___

TRUMP: “After years of stagnation, the United States is once again experiencing strong economic growth.”

THE FACTS: This is an exaggeration. The economy is doing better by some measures but data released right as Trump finished speaking shows it hasn’t yet accelerated meaningfully since his inauguration.

Since the Great Recession ended in 2009, the economy has expanded at an average annual pace of 2.1 percent, which makes it the slowest recovery since World War II. The Commerce Department said Friday the economy grew 2.3 percent in 2017, Trump’s first year in office. Most economists expect better in 2018. But the United States hasn’t yet entered a sustained period of faster growth.

Trump was gunning for 3 percent or better — and crowing about his chances. He reached that goal in two quarters and frequently pointed out that President Barack Obama never saw 3 percent growth for a year.

“It was not like that in your last administration,” he told a Pensacola, Florida, rally on Dec. 8. “Economic growth last quarter surged to 3.3 percent. You know where it was, right? When we started —you know where it was? Bingo. (Now) 3.3 percent and it’s going a lot higher. You know, I used to hear, you’ll never hit 3 percent. You’ll never hit two and half. You figure maybe 2.3 percent, 2.4 percent.”

Those skeptics figured correctly — it was 2.3 percent.

___

TRUMP: “The tax cut bill is expected to raise the average American’s household income by more than $4,000.”

THE FACTS: Most mainstream economists are skeptical of this figure. The average household will see its income rise $1,610 in 2018 because of cuts in income tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The $4,000 figure refers to an estimate by White House economist Kevin Hassett that the cut in the corporate tax rate, to 21 percent from 35 percent, will lift household income by that much on average. This is based on the idea that companies will use their higher profits to invest more in machinery and other tools that will make workers more productive and therefore able to demand higher pay. That may happen, but it would take years to occur and most economists expect the benefit, if any, for most workers will be smaller.

___

TRUMP: “The world’s largest company, Apple, announced it plans to bring $245 billion in overseas profits home to America. Their total investment into the United States economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years.”

THE FACTS: This is misleading: It’s not clear from Apple’s statement that it is actually increasing investment in the U.S. from its current levels.

Under the new tax law, the company is paying $38 billion in taxes on profits it held overseas — taxes it had previously avoided paying by keeping the money offshore. That’s included in the $350 billion. It also said it will continue to purchase goods and services from U.S. suppliers at its current pace, which would equal $275 billion over five years.

Finally, it said it would invest $30 billion over the next five years in a new campus and other buildings, computers, and other equipment. Yet based on the company’s annual statements, it’s not certain this is an increase, either. The company doesn’t specify how much of its investment is in the U.S. and how much overseas. Apple invested more than $13 billion worldwide in 2017.

[fraurosena]

Stark, confronting facts.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[47of74]

 

Jumping Jacked Up Josephat Jesus Fornicating Christ! I think I’m just gonna staple my palm to my face at this point.

And no. Fornicate Face does not work for his country Joe.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Did he actually say "Yeah, we work for our country, I'm saving it"? He just can't let an opportunity to toot his own horn go by, can he?

[GreyhoundFan]

"Federal judge appears receptive to emoluments lawsuit against Trump"

Spoiler

A federal judge on Thursday appeared skeptical of an effort by the Justice Department to throw out a lawsuit against President Trump alleging his company’s business with state governments and foreign countries violates the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte seemed receptive to arguments from the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, who said that payments to Trump properties from those entities could amount to illegal gifts.

The Justice Department, which is defending Trump, called the suit politically motivated and said the Democratic attorneys general wanted to conduct a “fishing expedition” in the private files of the president’s business. The department’s lawyers also argued that the District and Maryland lacked standing to sue Trump in the first place because they wouldn’t suffer any specific injury.

But Messitte repeatedly challenged the Justice Department’s assertions, giving the plaintiffs the impression that the judge would rule in their favor.

“We came in confident. We leave more confident,” D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine said after the hearing. He called the Trump International Hotel in the District — his own jurisdiction — a “den of iniquity” because, he alleged, it was seen as a place where money could buy influence.

Thursday’s hearing was the beginning of just one legal fight centering on how Trump balances his duties as president with the business empire that bears his name.

Although Trump resigned from his management position in the company when he entered the White House, he still benefits financially from his businesses, which include residential, office, hotel and golf properties in the United States, Europe and South America.

The Trump Organization has referred questions about the case to the government.

The case heard Thursday centers on two little-tested constitutional provisions known as the emoluments clauses. Written to stop officials of early America from being swayed by gifts, they bar the president from taking so-called emoluments from either foreign governments or individual states.

No court has considered the merits of an emoluments case previously, and attorneys for the plaintiffs say they believe the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately weigh in regardless of the outcome at the district court level.

The question of standing — whether the two jurisdictions have the right to bring a case — was central to Thursday’s hearing, which was called to deal with the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss. If Messitte sides with Trump, the case will be thrown out.

But if he sides with Maryland and the District, the case could proceed to a discovery phase, meaning that the plaintiffs could seek records from Trump’s businesses, including his hotel in downtown Washington.

In his arguments, Brett Shumate, the attorney for the Justice Department, contended that the lawsuit’s true intent was to give the attorneys general access to internal Trump Organization documents, in the legal discovery process that would follow if Messitte allows the case to continue.

“What we have here is an abstract political disagreement with the president’s conduct, without any concrete impact on the state,” Shumate said. “They don’t get to do a fishing expedition, with discovery, of the president’s businesses.”

In his questioning of Shumate, Messitte challenged the Justice Department’s argument that it was only speculation that Trump’s business had drawn clients away from others. He cited two embassy parties mentioned in a Washington Post story: Bahrain and Kuwait held expensive embassy parties at Trump’s D.C. hotel after the election.

“You have diplomats from certain Arab countries that are declaring that they are taking their business [to Trump’s hotels] in order to curry favor with the president,” Messitte said. “Do you need a number on that” loss of business to pursue the case further?

He also sounded skeptical of the idea that this lawsuit was merely a political argument cloaked in the form of a lawsuit.

“What’s the political angle for suing the president for taking money from a private business?” the judge said.

And he repeatedly questioned Shumate on the standing question, asking: If Maryland and the District can’t sue, then who can?

“Does anybody ever have standing, based on your argument?” Messitte said.

At the hearing’s conclusion, Messitte asked both sides what they would do next if he was to rule against Trump and let the case proceed. Attorneys for the District and Maryland said they would want to examine Trump Organization business records — from the D.C. hotel, but also from other Trump properties — to get details on payments from foreign governments and states.

Thursday’s hearing barely touched another key question: What counts as an emolument? Trump’s attorneys have argued that the term should not cover business transactions, where a foreign client paid Trump’s business for something like a round of golf or a banquet room.

In dueling court papers, the two sides offered competing visions for what the country’s founders intended the emoluments provisions to mean — and to prevent.

Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh argued in filings that when Maryland joined the United States, it did so with the understanding that it would be free from “uncertainty about whether the President is acting in the best interests of the American people.”

“The theory underlying the clause, informed by English history and by the Framers’ experience, is that a federal officeholder who receives something of value from a foreign government can be imperceptibly induced to compromise what the Constitution insists be his only loyalty: the best interest of the United States of America,” the filings said.

The plaintiffs also argued that competing hotels in Maryland and the District have been harmed by Trump’s D.C. hotel and that the U.S. General Services Administration, which handles federal real estate, wrongly allowed Trump’s company to continue to lease the Old Post Office building (where the hotel operates), even though a clause in the contract said no elected official could remain on the lease.

Justice Department attorneys responded with their own view of the framers’ intentions. In asking that the case be dismissed, they raised the example of George Washington, newly elected as president, buying several plots of land from the then-territory of the District of Columbia, through a sale Washington had approved as president. Justice attorneys argued that at the time “no concern was raised that such transactions conferred a benefit, and thus a prohibited emolument, on Washington.

A similar court case, brought by a nonprofit group in the District, was dismissed by a federal judge in New York who ruled that the Founding Fathers had intended Congress, not the courts, to enforce this rule against the president.

In his questioning on Thursday, Messitte sounded as if he did not think that the previous ruling settled the issue. “I searched it carefully. I just couldn’t see what the rationale was,” he said.

A judge has not yet ruled on a suit from nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress, filed in March. A judge in a third suit, brought on behalf of Cork Wine Bar in Northwest Washington, ruled Jan. 2 that the case would be heard in federal court and not D.C. Superior Court, making it more likely that it could be dismissed as well.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Amen

[GreyhoundFan]

This is so freaking true:

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Mar-a-Lago serves caviar on plastic spoons, with a side of social media fury"

Spoiler

She’s clearly well-traveled. Her Instagram account offers a glimpse of a lifestyle that most people will experience only through the images of Hollywood and Madison Avenue. There’s the shot of a boat gliding across impossibly blue waters off the coast of Greece. There’s the video of her at a hotel on the island of Capri, summoning a server with a tiny silver bell. There’s the beachfront house that looks onto an endless ocean at sunset.

But the Instagram image that cemented vacayinbae’s 15 minutes of fame was something less breathtaking: It was a quick snap posted last weekend from Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Fla. Trump had to skip a fundraiser at the resort, known as his Winter White House, marking the first anniversary of his presidency to wait as lawmakers tried to jump-start the government. The photo in question showed a silver caviar server with a pair of plastic spoons perched awkwardly on the edge.

Vacayinbae, whose Instagram account lists the name “Maria Rogers,” laid out the horrors at Mar-a-Lago:

... < instagram picture and commentary >

Rogers didn’t stop there. She was also put off by Mar-a-Lago’s caviar accompaniments, which looked to be crackers pulled straight from a box.

... < more instagram pictures and commentary >

Well, that’s all the Internet could take. Vacayinbae was soon spoon-fed an extra large serving of hate. It came from every corner of the known media world. From Instagram. From Twitter. Even from Stephen Colbert, who mocked every one of vacayinbae’s hashtags with a tone that dripped #firstworldproblems.

... < Stephen Colbert video >

“I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Donald Trump might not be the worst person at Mar-a-Lago,” Colbert quipped.

A few kind souls tried to do the impossible: They tried to offer some perspective to the Instagram commentariat, which either foamed at the mouth at the idea of patronizing a Trump property or offered their “hopes and prayers” and “thank you for your service” gibes. But sweet corinmeow decided vacayinbae had all the shade she could take:

I’m not rich. But I luv good food. Those also the ugliest worst plastic spoons ever lol… like if you r gonna serve caviar…. people are so self righteous.. i. Sure everyone mocking this post isn’t as humble and thrifty as they preach. like shut up, it’s caviar! It’s a treat! Gotta do it perfect! Especially since Trump puts himself on such a pedestal as a host!

You could argue that the kangaroo court of Instagram did spare vacayinbae the cruelest fate: telling her that plastic spoons are perfectly acceptable utensils for serving caviar. They’re not the preferred instruments, perhaps, at an exclusive resort that charges $200,000 for new members. But plastic spoons are sanitary (a consideration for a Mar-a-Lago kitchen that was recently dinged with 15 health violations), and they don’t interfere with the natural flavors of the pricey fish roe, which can cost $200 or more an ounce for imported caviar.

“The plastic suffices,” says Jeff Black, the restaurateur behind Black Restaurant Group, including BlackSalt Fish Market and Restaurant in the Palisades, which sells caviar for both diners and market shoppers. “If the end goal is to get caviar from the bowl to your mouth, that certainly does the purpose.”

But Black says it’s more complicated than that. There is the context of serving caviar at a fine-dining restaurant inside a private resort. Plastic is just tacky. Or as Black says, “It would be like putting Bondo on a Rolls Royce.” Bondo, for you non-car geeks, is the filler used to repair holes and dents in vehicles. It can make a car look like a liver-ticked German shorthaired pointer. A resort like Mar-a-Lago should use the traditional mother-of-pearl spoons, Black says, which won’t alter the flavor of the caviar like metal utensils can.

More important, though, is the issue of plastic itself. There is literally a ton of plastic for every person on Earth, and it has major environmental impacts. “I’m an anti-plastic person,” Black says. “I try to use as little plastic as possible, but it’s impossible to get plastics completely out of our lives.”

The president is not exactly known as a tree-hugging environmentalist. I called Mar-A-Lago to try to get to the bottom of this. Certainly the kitchen had some justification for the plastic spoons and commercial crackers, right, even if it’s just a matter of tight food costs? (Otherwise known as cheapness.) But Mar-a-Lago wasn’t taking my call. I couldn’t get past the receptionist.

“I wouldn’t be able to help you with that,” she said. “We reserve any comment or explanation for things on social media. We prefer not to comment.”

I like the 15 health code violations in the restaurant owned by the germophobe-in-chief.

[47of74]

Fuck Face won't visit the UK unless they bar protests of His Highness...

Quote

Donald Trump is refusing to visit the UK unless Theresa May can ensure that he is not met with protests.

Bloomberg revealed that Trump complained in a phone call to May about the "negative coverage" he has received in the British press.

May told the US president that that was how the UK media operated and she could do little to change it.

Trump went on to say that he would not visit the UK unless there were guarantees that he would not be met with protests.

 

[fraurosena]

To be fair, he may just have liked the article itself, but the optics of this... 

 

[GrumpyGran]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

To be fair, he may just have liked the article itself, but the optics of this... 

 

Either someone, that person in the WH who's always trying to get him in trouble, did this, OR he literally only saw the picture and the name and hit "like", which is stupid for someone in his position.

[fraurosena]

8 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Either someone, that person in the WH who's always trying to get him in trouble, did this, OR he

I think that may be one and the same person... 

[GreyhoundFan]

WTDH? "Air Force One’s new refrigerators will cost taxpayers $24 million"

Spoiler

Air Force One is upgrading its refrigerators, and the cost to taxpayers will be a cool $24 million.

Under a new government contract awarded to Boeing, the U.S. Air Force will pay the aeronautics behemoth $23,657,671 to replace two of the five chiller units on the plane used by President Trump.

Both of those units, which are used to store food, were installed on the plane when it was originally delivered in 1990, according to the Air Force. Increasingly, however, the plane has needed additional cold food storage space “to support onboard personnel for an extended period of time, without having to restock while abroad,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in an email.

“The [old] units were based on the technology at the time and designed for short-term food storage,” Stefanek said. “Although serviced on a regular basis, reliability has decreased with failures increasing, especially in hot/humid environments. The units are unable to effectively support mission requirements for food storage.”

The new refrigerator units will have nearly 70 cubic feet of storage space, she said.

The $24 million will also cover the cost of testing and certification by the Federal Aviation Administration, according to the contract. Work related to the upgrade will be carried out in Oklahoma City, San Antonio and other cities, and the work is expected to be done by the end of October 2019, the contract stated.

The high-cost upgrade was first reported by Defense One, which detailed the unique needs of the presidential aircraft — the plane reportedly needs refrigerated storage space for about 3,000 meals — as well as the White House’s and Air Force’s strict requirements for “bespoke equipment” when it comes to Air Force One.

“It’s not a contractor issue; it is a requirements issue,” Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at the Teal Group consulting firm, told the defense and national security news site. “It’s not getting people rich.”

However, Eric Schultz, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama, reacted to the news by tweeting that “we would have been impeached” if the previous administration had carried out such an upgrade to Air Force One.

Schultz declined an interview request Saturday morning.

Air Force One has two galleys where up to 100 meals can be prepared at a time, according to ABC News. An ABC slide show captured an array of “incredible” dishes that have been served on board, from beef tenderloin and lasagna to kebabs and tiramisu. (The president can request pretty much anything, CBS News once reported, with a caveat that Air Force One french fries tend to be “a bit soggy” because of the lack of a fryer on the plane.)

“During international trips, chillers in the belly of Air Force One keep food for daily meals fresh,” ABC News reported. “The crew never procures food overseas to serve on the plane as a safety precaution.”

It’s unclear whether the Air Force considered other, less expensive alternatives to replacing the two chiller units in question, or whether the replacement would take the plane out of commission for an extended period of time. Stefanek said the Air Force was not able to answer additional questions Saturday morning.

In 2015, the Air Force announced that two new Boeing 747-8 aircraft would be used in the presidential fleet, replacing the current plane. But Trump, while campaigning for the presidency, criticized the planned purchase for its $4 billion price tag. He even suggested that his personal private aircraft was better and that Air Force One would be a step down for him.

Even after winning the election, Trump pushed back against the expense, tweeting that the United States should cancel an order for a new presidential 747 because “costs are out of control.”

A subsequent fact check by The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler highlighted some of the inaccuracies in Trump’s tweet. But he continued to make the claim.

“I refuse to fly in a $4.2 billion airplane,” Trump told a crowd last February in Florida. “I refuse.” But at the rally, he also claimed to have negotiated the deal down with Boeing, reducing the cost by $1 billion. (Air Force officials would later say they did not know of any such negotiations or savings.)

Still, it only took a few days in office and a trip on the plane for Trump to change his opinion of Air Force One.

“Beautiful, a great plane,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One after his first trip. “Terrific.”