Trump 31: Parody of a Presidency

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

I may be wrong, but to me it looks like his name is bigger than "Embassy United States of America" as well. At minimum it's the same size.

Why is his name even on there?

Apart from the fact that he loves putting his name on buildings that is...

[fraurosena]

Today is the last day for the presidunce to disclose his personal financial report. Glory be to Rufus if this were to happen, but sadly I think he will ignore it and worse, won't be held accountable for it.

Out of loopholes, Trump must disclose Stormy Daniels debt in next financial report

Quote

President Trump has a big decision to make. Unless he requests an extension, his personal financial disclosure report is due Tuesday.

Under the Ethics in Government Act, he has to disclose all liabilities that exceeded $10,000 at any time during calendar year 2017, even if he repaid them later that year. That includes his debt to Michael Cohen for the $130,000 payment Cohen made in October 2016 to adult film star Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford).

The question is whether Trump will disclose that debt, as well as any others he might have omitted.

The answer should be easy, but the president is in a difficult position. He left out the Daniels-related debt in the financial disclosure report he filed on June 14, 2017. Disclosing it now means acknowledging that he should have disclosed it last year. Disclosure may also lead to damaging revelations if he omitted other liabilities from any past financial disclosure reports or incurred new ones since June. As a result, the president’s team could be looking for a way to justify the omission.

Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, seemed to be trying out a loophole when he called the payment to Daniels an “expense.” Giuliani questioned the applicability of the Ethics in Government Act to the reimbursement of expenses. Even ignoring the disingenuousness of calling the payment an expense, however, there is no exception for expenses.

The law comprehensively requires disclosure of “the total liabilities owed to any creditor.” The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has explained that “nowhere in the statute or its legislative history can we find any indication that the terms 'liabilities’ and ‘creditor’ were intended to be limited to cash loans or to be defined in a manner other than their ordinary usage.”

Both Giuliani and his client seemed to work a related angle by characterizing the president’s payments to Cohen as a “retainer.” Giuliani claimed the president started making installment payments to Cohen in early 2017 in order to reimburse the Daniels payment and other items, with the understanding that Cohen could keep any excess as “profit.”

In describing the billing arrangement this way, Giuliani might have hoped that the president could avoid the requirement to report his debt for the Daniels payment by blurring the line between that payment and any fees for Cohen’s services. (OGE once said legal fees have to be reported but, in practice, applies this requirement only when the fees are overdue.) Nevertheless, bundling the Daniels payment with Cohen’s legal fees doesn’t make that payment a legal fee. The Daniels payment remains a reportable liability regardless of the billing arrangement.

The search for loopholes might lead to the exception for campaign expenditures, which Trump does not have to include in his OGE financial disclosure report. But Giuliani foreclosed that option when he denied that the Daniels payment was campaign-related.

If it had been campaign-related, the Trump campaign would have had a duty to report both the Cohen reimbursement and the underlying Daniels payment to the Federal Election Commission. The Trump campaign filed no such report, and a knowing failure to report that kind of campaign-related payment would be a criminal offense.

Another dead end in the search for loopholes is OGE’s exception for debts owed by a business. There are several reasons why this exception doesn’t fit the bill: 

►The president would have to claim that making hush money payments to adult film stars relates to the operations of the Trump Organization.

►Cohen denied that the Trump Organization reimbursed him.

►Claiming that the Trump Organization paid to silence Daniels just before the election could lead to criminal prosecution under a century-old law banning corporate contributions to federal candidates, if prosecutors believed that the Trump Organization was trying, even in part, to help Trump get elected and coordinated the payment with him.

Lacking a suitable loophole, Trump should cut his losses. He may already be in trouble for omitting his debt to Cohen from last year’s report. If that omission was knowing and willful, the president may have violated a law that comes with civil and criminal penalties — more than one law in fact.

There is room to wonder whether the omission was knowing and willful. Giuliani inconsistently asserts that the president was unaware of the debt when he filed his June 2017 report but that he began repaying the debt months earlier.

It seems implausible that the president didn’t know of a debt he was repaying, all the more so when one considers the highly personal nature of the matter; the duty of attorneys to communicate with clients about settlement offers; the Trump team’s shifting stories; and the degree to which it would have been unusual (maybe unethical) for Cohen to front the money without consulting his client. 

Under the circumstances, the Justice Department should investigate last year’s omission. For his part, Trump should avoid giving Justice another potential violation to investigate when he files his next financial disclosure report.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Good grief. What a certain tv-show host did in (semi) jest, has now become reality. Businesses are going to attempt influencing the presidunce by using ads on Faux News. 

To Sway Trump on Trade, Businesses Turn to Cable TV

Quote

When President Trump tunes into “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning, he may see a familiar face delivering a gentle warning that tariffs are “B-A-D economics.”

In a last-ditch attempt to persuade Mr. Trump to back away from his trade approach, the National Retail Federation has enlisted Ben Stein, the comedic economist famous for his role in the 1980s film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” to offer Mr. Trump economic advice via advertisements that will air on the president’s favorite TV network.

“There’s really an audience of one in this decision making,” said David French, chief lobbyist of the National Retail Federation, which represents the retail industry. “For the president, this will seem like a winning strategy for a long time until it isn’t.”

Mr. Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs and his threat of levies on Chinese goods have spurred concern across industries, including agriculture, automobiles and retailing, which worry they will be caught on the losing end of a trade war. Businesses say Mr. Trump’s approach risks derailing America’s strong run of economic growth with a self-inflicted mistake on trade, one that will ultimately cause harm to consumers and the economy.

They hope to pressure Mr. Trump at a crucial moment. American companies will have a chance to air their concerns about the proposed tariffs on Chinese goods during three days of hearings that the United States trade representative will hold beginning on Tuesday. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, China’s top economic official, is also expected to visit Washington — possibly as early as this week — for more trade talks with top administration officials. And the White House is in the midst of trying to reach a deal with Canada and Mexico to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal that has become integral to many American industries.

In comments at the White House on Friday, Mr. Trump reiterated that Nafta has been a “terrible deal” and said that Canada and Mexico were disappointed to be losing the “golden goose” that has been the United States. Republican lawmakers have said that the framework of a deal needs to be revealed this month if Congress is going to vote on it this year, putting pressure on the administration to either agree to a revised pact or follow through with Mr. Trump’s threat to abandon the 1994 agreement.

[ad embedded in quote]

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

"Couldn't be bothered to read" should just be "Couldn't read". Much more accurate if you ask me. 

Quote

In Brussels, where the E.U. is headquartered, many are skeptical that any further discussion is possible with the United States.

This last sentence in the article... Brace yourselves, America, it's going to get very cold for you in international politics.

[Audrey2]

49 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Good grief. What a certain tv-show host did in (semi) jest, has now become reality. Businesses are going to attempt influencing the presidunce by using ads on Faux News. 

To Sway Trump on Trade, Businesses Turn to Cable TV

[ad embedded in quote]

May I just say, I love Ben Stein! He's one of the very few (really, only) Conservatives I can stomach. I enjoy the commercial as well. I used to watch Ben Stein on CBS Sunday Morning, and thought he had intelligent things to say. Even the things I didn't agree with had well thought out arguments, unlike anything I've seen on Faux News. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Audrey2]

16 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Yes, that's a way to win the hearts and minds of the world (sarcasm). I just see that as creating many future adults with a vendetta against the United States, with most this time in a country that borders ours.  Trump has no morals, but we knew this anyway. 

[AnywhereButHere]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korea-threatens-to-cancel-summit-with-trump-over-military-drills/2018/05/15/04a15a5e-5878-11e8-8b92-45fdd7aaef3c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b72bd71b56da

Quote

North Korea is casting doubt on next month’s summit between leader Kim Jong Un and President Trump over joint Air Force drills taking place in South Korea, which it says are ruining the diplomatic mood.

North Korea always reacts angrily to the joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises, considering them as a rehearsal for an invasion. But this year, with the sudden burst of diplomacy, had appeared to be different.

The South Korean and U.S. militaries had scaled back and played down the exercises, declining the news media the usual access to the drills. North Korea barely said a word about the drills during the computer simulation exercises that took place through April.

The two-week-long Max Thunder drills between the two countries’ Air Forces, an annual event that began on Friday, have, however, clearly struck a nerve in North Korea.

“This exercise targeting us, which is being carried out across South Korea, is a flagrant challenge to the Panmunjom Declaration and an intentional military provocation running counter to the positive political development on the Korean Peninsula,” the North's Korean Central News Agency said in a report published early.  

...

North Korea suggested that the drills were putting the proposed summit between Trump and Kim, scheduled for June 12, in jeopardy.

“The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-U.S. summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities,” KCNA said.

Kim Jong Un and/or factions in the govt. have always had an agenda behind agreeing to these talks, and I'm sure that this annual exercise factored greatly into it. He's using it in some way to advance his plans, whatever they may be. I can't even begin to imagine, but I can say - Bye bye Nobel Peace Prize you orange hued moron.

[fraurosena]

Why is it news the presidunce learned this from tv? We all know that's where he gets his intelligence briefings -- heck all of his briefings from.

 

[Alisamer]

9 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Why is it news the presidunce learned this from tv? We all know that's where he gets his intelligence briefings -- heck all of his briefings from.

 

I'm really surprised the few with some brains in the administration haven't found a way to secretly broadcast their own Faux - Faux News TV show just for him in during his "executive time". Hire a blonde leggy female host and a random white dude in a suit to read the day's briefing in a Fox and Friends style format, wired directly to whatever TV he's watching (the secret service can hook this up during security checks), and he might actually pay attention to it.

He certainly doesn't seem to READ anything. At all. Except maybe on twitter, but they can't tweet the briefing to him because he'll re-tweet it to the world, with his own misunderstanding leading to a rant.

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, AnywhereButHere said:

Kim Jong Un and/or factions in the govt. have always had an agenda behind agreeing to these talks, and I'm sure that this annual exercise factored greatly into it.

I wonder if part of it was they always wanted to humiliate him because they new he would preemptively brag about solving all the problems in Korea. He fell for the classic blunder, he got deeply involved in a land war in Asia. 

[JMarie]

5 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I'm really surprised the few with some brains in the administration haven't found a way to secretly broadcast their own Faux - Faux News TV show just for him in during his "executive time". Hire a blonde leggy female host and a random white dude in a suit to read the day's briefing in a Fox and Friends style format, wired directly to whatever TV he's watching (the secret service can hook this up during security checks), and he might actually pay attention to it.

He certainly doesn't seem to READ anything. At all. Except maybe on twitter, but they can't tweet the briefing to him because he'll re-tweet it to the world, with his own misunderstanding leading to a rant.

They could always try going with the actual Fox and Friends, but throw in some subliminal messages.

[fraurosena]

The move comes as no surprise. The introduced legislation to restore it is laudable, but subject to Senate approval. It remains to be seen if it will be successful, as they need R's to get it confirmed.

Trump eliminates job of national cybersecurity coordinator

Quote

President Donald Trump eliminated the job of the nation's cybersecurity czar on Tuesday, and Democratic lawmakers immediately introduced legislation to restore it.

Trump signed an executive order rearranging the federal information technology infrastructure that includes no mention of the White House cybersecurity coordinator or of a replacement for Rob Joyce, who said last month that he is leaving the position to return to the National Security Agency, where he previously directed cyber-defense programs.

"Today's actions continue an effort to empower National Security Council senior directors," the National Security Council said in a statement, according to Reuters. "Streamlining management will improve efficiency, reduce bureaucracy and increase accountability."

Politico first reported the elimination of the job on Tuesday. The White House and the National Security Council didn't reply to requests for comment about the decision, which came on the same day a major computer security report again found government systems to be the least secure among all industries.

John Bolton, Trump's new national security adviser, has widely been reported to have sought to eliminate the job as part of a top-to-bottom reorganization of the National Security Council. Joyce and his predecessors reported to the president; the senior NSC directors report to Bolton.

Top Democrats on Capitol Hill reacted harshly to the decision. In a statement, Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized Bolton for "already wreaking havoc on the National Security Council.

"With cyber threats ever-changing and growing more sophisticated by the day, there is no logical reason to eliminate this senior position and reduce the already degraded level of cyber expertise at the White House," Thompson said.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday: "We should be investing in our nation's cyber defense, not rolling it back."

"We also need to articulate a clear cyber doctrine. I don't see how getting rid of the top cyber official in the White House does anything to make our country safer from cyber threats," Warner said on Twitter.

'I don't see how getting rid of the top cyber official in the White House does anything to make our country safer from cyber threats,' Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday.

Two Democratic House members, Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, a co-founder of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, and Ted Lieu of California, a member of the Judiciary subcommittee on homeland security, quickly introduced a bill to restore the position, giving it extra authority as head of a National Office for Cyberspace, subject to Senate confirmation.

In a statement, Langevin and Lieu called Trump's decision "an enormous step backwards to deemphasize the importance of this growing domain within the White House."

Lieu said in a statement: "The decision to eliminate the top White House cyber policy role is outrageous, especially given that we're facing more hostile threats from foreign adversaries than ever before."

Similarly, Chris Painter, the State Department's coordinator of cyber issues during the administration of President Barack Obama — who created the White House position in 2009 — called Trump's move "a tragedy."

"Structure isn't everything but structure speaks to priority and ability to drive decisions and coordinate oft disparate views," Painter said on Twitter. "Every study, commission or other review suggested higher not lower placement."

The Computing Technology Industry Association, a nonprofit trade group with operations in more than 120 countries, also asked Trump to reconsider.

"A cohesive and comprehensive cybersecurity strategy across all agencies within the federal government can only be accomplished when there is one office specifically tasked with coordination," said Elizabeth Hyman, the association's executive vice president.

The decision comes as CA Veracode, a software testing service used by large corporations and numerous federal and state government agencies, released its closely watched State of Software Security report for 2017 (PDF) on Tuesday.

As it has in previous years, the report found that applications developed by government agencies are the least secure when compared to those from all other industries, with almost half of all government programs showing evidence of cryptographic weakness (48 percent) and a form of malicious attack called cross-site scripting (49 percent).

"The numbers for vulnerability prevalence on first scan shows that government was in worst place in nearly every category," said Veracode, a division of CA Technologies, one of the world's biggest systems software companies.

Laura Paine, the company's public and analyst relations manager, said that many agencies are still developing their applications with older programming languages known to be vulnerable and that many of them aren't vigilant about addressing flaws. She cited inflexible government acquisition regulations that "may not always reflect modern best practices" as a possible key explanation

"We continue to see the same trend year-over-year with only slight improvements," Paine said.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller signaled early this year that computer crimes could be a focus of his investigation when he appointed Ryan Dickey, a former Justice Department computer crime specialist, as a member of his team.

 

[fraurosena]

Did I say earlier things would be getting cold for America in international politics? I think I'll have to rephrase that. It's positively frosty already.

Exhibit A:

 

[Howl]

The Trump deal with an Indonesian resort, Chinese loans and the ZTE bailout is simmering along.  Should come to a boil soon, unless some other scandal erupts like a Hawaiian volcano.

Trump Orders Help For Chinese Phone-Maker After China Approves Money For Trump Project  Trump will profit from Indonesian resort project that will get $500 million in Chinese loans in a deal sealed days before before his tweet ordering help for ZTE.

Quote

Trump did not mention in that tweet or its follow-ups that on Thursday, the developer of a theme park resort outside of Jakarta had signed a deal to receive as much as $500 million in Chinese government loans, as well as another $500 million from Chinese banks, according to Agence France-Presse. Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, has a deal to license the Trump name to the resort, which includes a golf course and hotels.

Yup, we're in a post-corruption world. 

[Audrey2]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Did I say earlier things would be getting cold for America in international politics? I think I'll have to rephrase that. It's positively frosty already.

Exhibit A:

 

When Donnie Dummkopf was inaugurated, we submitted ideas for thread titles. Unfortunately, one of my titles is coming true- pissing off the world one country at a time. Sadly, he doesn't understand the benefits of having allies. 

For those Free Jingers in other countries, I'm truly sorry for the idiot in our White House. His opinions and prejudices are not those of all of us. Many of us still believe in being strong allies to your countries.

[formergothardite]

It is going to take us a long time to earn back the trust of other countries after this. This shows that even if we get decent politicians who make good decisions, bad ones can follow who will bread all the promises and agreements. 

[AmazonGrace]

Heads up, the Nobel peace prize committee, the  President has had major success in a tense, fraught summit. 

 

[Howl]

Anonymous person's brilliant comment on a random political thread out in cyberspace; this could go in a number of places in the fj Politics forum, but I'll leave it here. The context is a response to an article about John Bolton ditching the major cybersecurity position, but covers much much more territory. Really helped put things in perspective for me.  

Spoiler

 

So, folks, there's a thing that is obvious to us, so much so that it is implicitly assumed in our snarky comments, that is apparently not obvious to people in the media, even some lefty alternative media. And so, It's up to us to state the obvious thing in public in an obvious way, on social media, wherever, so that it becomes a thing people in the media assume and, more importantly, people who don't pay close attention assume.

Here is the obvious thing:

When Republicans do thing with obvious, foreseeable bad consequences, it's because they want the foreseeable bad consequences, not because they want some totally other thing and the foreseeable bad consequences were either a total surprise or a price they were willing to pay to achieve the totally other thing.

When Republicans do things that make it easier for Russians to hack the next election, it's because they want Russia to hack the next election.

When Republicans refrain from doing things to make it harder for Russia to hack the next election, it's because they want Russia to hack the next election.

When Trump does things that benefit Russia at the expense of the United States and its allies, it's because he wants to benefit Russia at the expense of the US and its allies.

When Trump does things that make war more likely, it's because he wants war.

When Trump implements policies that seem deliberately and gratuitously cruel to minorities and undocumented immigrants, the infliction of gratuitous cruelty is the object, not an regrettable consequence of some totally other policy objective.

When Nunes does things that risk getting our sources in Russia killed, it's because he wants the sources dead.

When Ryan continues to empower him and doesn't stop him, it's because he wants the sources dead too.

If Trump or Javanka do things that look like a payoff for a bribe, it's because they were bribed.

See how this works? It's called "Occam's Razor." It generates answers to questions that should at a minimum create a rebuttal presumption. Yes, sometimes they are just really, really, really stupid. But the burden is on them to prove the reason was stupidity. It's not on us, or the press, to engage in mental contortions to come up with explanations for malign conduct other than malignancy.

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Um, what about the TT's non-government android phone?