Trump 33: Making Norman Bates Look Like a Choir Boy

[JMarie]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

What's even more screwy is that Brit Hume works for Fox News.  He's not trying to cover up the oh-so-obvious.

[GreyhoundFan]

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Is Donald Trump even in charge of this government?"

Spoiler

Some countries have a head of state and a head of government, one official whose role is largely ceremonial and one who actually runs things. Before he took office, Donald Trump apparently believed the presidency was more the former; he admitted that he thought holding the most powerful position on Earth would be less work than running a midsize real estate and brand licensing company.

A year and a half into his presidency, one has to ask if we’d be better off if we all agreed to have Trump do some ribbon-cutting, hold rallies for his rabid supporters and leave the governing to people who have some clue what they’re doing.

In fact, in some ways that’s already happening. NBC News has a good piece documenting the remarkable number of Trump administration officials who have publicly contradicted the president on matters related to Russia in the past couple of days. This includes the FBI director, the director of national intelligence and the U.S. ambassador to Russia.

That is, to put it mildly, highly unusual, but it’s the kind of thing that is becoming familiar. If you’re a top Trump official, it has become a significant part of your job to to assure people that they can ignore the insane things that come out of your boss’s mouth on any given day.

When they do that, they’re essentially trying to head off the tragic consequences of Trump’s ignorance, incompetence, malice and bad faith — consequences that in many cases are still hypothetical. For instance, Trump has made clear his utter contempt for NATO, arguably the most successful military alliance in human history, which has required administration officials to repeatedly take steps to reassure our understandably unsettled allies that we won’t be withdrawing any time soon. But for the moment the alliance still stands, and Vladimir Putin has not yet attempted to test it by invading a member nation.

In some cases, perhaps Trump’s aides should just let Trump say what he wants but not treat his statements as requiring any kind of action on their part. When Trump demands a private meeting with Putin without any aides present, and then the Russians say afterward that Trump made “verbal agreements” on some kind of military cooperation, the best answer for American officials might not be to scramble to figure out what the hell Trump agreed to, but just to act as though the whole thing never happened. Chances are that he’ll forget about it in a day or two anyway, once a celebrity says something on Twitter that gets him mad.

Another example: When Trump ludicrously claims that he has been tough on Russia, there’s a way in which he isn’t wrong. He has personally been a pathetic supplicant to Putin, but the administration has taken steps to punish Russia for its transgressions, imposing sanctions and expelling Russian diplomats. These steps have sometimes taken place over Trump’s objections, but they did occur.

So what we see is a constant tug-of-war between Trump and many of the people who work for him, in which they try to get him to read a briefing book or moderate his fawning over Putin, which he resists, but they often find ways to do the same things on policy that they would have done even if the president himself were more reasonable.

Just to be clear: I’m not arguing that this means everything is fine. In many areas, Trump’s rancid impulses are being put into direct practice. On immigration, for instance, the administration is enacting a series of policies to restrict legal immigration, shut America’s doors to asylum seekers and treat immigrant families with uncommon cruelty. These are expressions of Trump’s white nationalist philosophy, and they’re happening partly because it’s one of the few policy areas he actually cares about and demands action on, and partly because the people constructing those policies, like Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller, are just as hostile to immigrants as Trump is, if not more.

Not only that, there are areas where Trump’s indifference to the task of governing means that policies wind up being more extreme than they would otherwise have been. For instance, in previous Republican administrations it was common practice to find a moderate Republican who enjoys walks in the woods to lead the Environmental Protection Agency; while there would certainly be a deregulatory agenda carried out, they would attempt to show voters that they weren’t actively trying to poison our air, land and water. There may have been doctrinaire anti-environmentalists installed in the agencies, but the president’s broader political concerns would have provided at least some moderating influence.

But since Trump doesn’t care one way or other what the EPA does, the ideologues are left to do whatever they want. So first Scott Pruitt was installed to lead the agency; he lost his job only because his small-time corruption became an embarrassment to the president. He was replaced by acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, a coal lobbyist whose first major action was to ease rules on the storage of highly toxic coal ash, because who really needs to know if there’s mercury, cadmium and arsenic in your drinking water? The chances that Trump even knows that’s what the EPA is doing are somewhere between small and none.

All that being said, we still have a system in which the president is supposed to be running the government. As time goes on, more and more people in this administration may decide that they can ignore what the president says or does and carry out whatever policy they think is best. There are times when that could save us from catastrophe, and times when it could make things much worse.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Uh-oh, where would all the people sucking up to/paying tribute to the orange menace get their libations? "Could the Trump hotel lose its liquor license because of the president’s character?"

Spoiler

Last week, an Advisory Neighborhood Commission voted unanimously to support a petition that seeks to revoke the Trump International Hotel’s liquor license on the grounds that its owner — you know, the president of the United States — is not of “good character.”

The ANC is not even the one where the luxury hotel is located.

During its July 11 meeting, the commissioners of ANC 4C — which represents Petworth, Columbia Heights and other neighborhoods north of Trump’s downtown property — voted 8 to 0 to support a complaint that looks to strip the hotel of its liquor license. In June, a group of religious and judicial leaders petitioned the D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to force the Trump hotel to justify why it should keep its alcohol permit when D.C. law states that license applicants must be of “good character and generally fit for the responsibilities of licensure.”

“It is our considered view that Donald Trump, the true and actual owner of the Trump International Hotel, is not a person of good character, doesn’t meet the D.C. Code … requirements and therefore the license should be revoked,” ANC 4C chairman, Bennett Hilley, and vice chair, Charlotte Nugent, wrote in a letter to the director of the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration. (The emphasis, incidentally, was the authors’.)

Zach Teutsch introduced the resolution to his fellow ANC 4C commissioners. He says that it’s “correct and very important” that D.C. law requires liquor license applicants to be of good character. “And this is a way to see how serious we are about it as a community,” he adds.

According to ABRA spokesman Max Bluestein, anyone or any civic group can file a complaint against a licensee, at any time during the license’s period, but an ANC cannot file an official protest against a license if the business is not located within 600 feet of its jurisdiction. What’s more, an official protest can be filed only when a liquor license is first being considered by the ABC board or when it’s up for renewal, which in the case of the Trump hotel will be in 2019.

The ABC board is required to respond to all complaints, such as ANC 4C’s letter, within 90 days, Bluestein says.

Seven District residents — three reverends, two rabbis and two retired judges — filed the original complaint to the ABC board in mid-June. The complaint lays out in granular detail what Americans have been reading for months about President Trump: the accusations of sexual misconduct, the contractors who claim that Trump’s businesses haven’t paid them, the fraudulent practices of the now-defunct Trump University, the pattern of lies and deceptions and other allegations.

“This is not a political stunt,” says Joshua Levy, the attorney who filed the complaint on behalf of the seven residents. The petition, Levy says, is funded by the Campaign for Accountability and Transparency Inc., a nonprofit group so new it does not yet have a Web presence. The group is backed by Jerry Hirsch, an Arizona Republican who practiced law and operated real estate and technology companies before turning his attention to philanthropy.

The complaint argues that even though the president put his business holdings, including the hotel, into the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, he is still the “true and actual” owner of the hotel and its liquor license. News reports have already noted that Trump can withdraw money from the trust, which is controlled by his adult sons.

Trump, the complaint says, “is subject to the same good character requirement that applies to all other licensees. There is no statutory exception for the rich or the powerful.”

ANC 2C, the commission that covers downtown Washington, including the Trump hotel, has no plans to weigh in on the June complaint, says Chairman John Tinpe. The ANC, Tinpe adds, supported the hotel’s liquor license when it was initially before the board for approval. Multiple sources say that an ANC’s support is given great weight by the board when making a decision on whether to approve a license, although the body can act independently from a neighborhood commission’s recommendation.

Tinpe says ANC 2C stands by its original decision. “We do not take into consideration politics,” Tinpe says. “It would be overreaching to comment on the character of somebody.” He says it’s a slippery slope should an ANC decide to take the measure of a licensee’s character. Such action could lead to a rush of similar protests about other owners.

“Now, if there is criminal activity, that is different,” Tinpe adds. “But the subject of character is something different.”

ABRA’s enforcement division is still investigating the June complaint, Bluestein says. Once investigators submit their findings to the ABC board, the body will have 30 days to schedule a “show cause” hearing in which the Trump hotel would have to justify why it should still hold a liquor license.

Bluestein says ABRA is still researching past cases to see if a liquor license has ever been revoked or denied because of an owner’s character.

 

[Cartmann99]

*waves to everyone*

Holy hell, what a week! I can't believe Trump's playdate with Putin was only a few days ago. C'mon Mueller, drop a bunch of indictments tomorrow! 

[Howl]

Thanks for the reminder!  Friday!  Hubs is pretty sure that at this point Mueller is dropping indictments strategically. 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Thanks for the reminder!  Friday!  Hubs is pretty sure that at this point Mueller is dropping indictments strategically. 

The big news is my daughter coming home after being at camp for four weeks. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The surreal world -- Vladimir Putin has his own version of reality. And President Trump believes it."

Spoiler

When they emerged after more than two hours in private Monday at their summit in Helsinki, President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin indulged in some of their favorite conspiracy theories. Trump spoke of “the Pakistani gentleman,” echoing false right-wing media reports about a Democratic IT worker, and reprised the debunked theory that the Democratic National Committee withheld its servers — and critical information — from law enforcement. Putin went down the George-Soros-as-puppet-master rabbit hole and claimed, falsely, that a London-based antagonist of his had given Hillary Clinton $400 million. Predictably, the two agreed that the narrative of Russian meddling in the 2016 election — supported by a body of evidence that seems to swell by the day — could not possibly be true because, as Trump said, “I don’t see any reason why it would be.” (Of course, he insisted the next day that he’d meant to say the exact opposite.) Putin gave Trump a soccer ball commemorating the World Cup, but the two may as well have exchanged tinfoil hats.

The summit had official Washington in shock for days, seeking some explanation for Trump’s refusal yet again to confront, or even criticize, Putin. Whatever it may have shown about Russian kompromat or Trump collusion, at a deeper level the meeting was even more revealing. Putin, it turns out, is no longer alone in the world. After years of churning out fabulist explanations for Russian actions that always exonerate the Russian government, the Kremlin has finally found a willing audience for Putin’s version of reality: the leader of the free world.

“It’s hard for me to imagine their conversation,” says political consultant Gleb Pavlovsky, who served as a Putin adviser during his first decade in power. “They’re both very strange people.”

Putin’s government has long insisted that its actions are not to blame for the sad state of the Russian-American relationship — not Russia’s grant of asylum to Edward Snowden, not its annexation of Crimea, not the war in eastern Ukraine, not the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and the deaths of the 298 people on board, not the mix of indiscriminate bombing of Syrian cities and targeted strikes on aid convoys trying to help them, not the support for far-right candidates in Europe. And certainly not the hacking of the U.S. presidential election in order to kneecap Hillary Clinton and boost Trump.

Whenever he is confronted with these allegations, Putin demands proof. When he is given proof, he claims it is fake. Anything that proves him to be at fault is publicly labeled a provocation — Russian for “fake news” — and anything that proves him innocent is truth, no matter how baffling, bizarre or downright impossible.

And now, the Kremlin has a U.S. president whose understanding of truth aligns so well with the Russian one that it’s become increasingly difficult to tell them apart. On his way to meet Putin in Helsinki, Trump tweeted what Russians have long insisted: This state of affairs is all Barack Obama’s fault. “It’s nice to hear that Obama is at fault for everything,” Pavlovsky says of how the tweet went down in Moscow.

Alexey Pushkov, a prominent Russian senator, tweeted the same. “The unreasonableness and stupidity of the USA (read — Obama) plus the ‘witch hunt’ are the reasons, according to Trump, for the terminally ruined relations with Russia,” Pushkov wrote. “These words will bring out insanity in his enemies, but this is the declaration of a realist. We can only hope that realism will prevail.”

Other presidents have responded by either rebuking and lecturing Putin (as George W. Bush did in 2005) or simply waiting out the tirades from Putin and his foreign minister at the start of every meeting and phone call, a ritual that Obama officials called, derisively, “the airing of grievances.”

So the most significant victory for Putin is that he finally has a partner in the White House who believes his version of events without having to be convinced. Putin has been playing a game of epistemological chicken with the United States, and finally, the United States, in the person of Trump, has blinked. Who needs to air grievances when you agree on them? Says Igor Yurgens, a political consultant once close to Putin, “From what they showed us, he was speaking rationally.”

To Russian observers, it seemed like nothing else really happened at the summit. No agreement was signed, and apparently, no issue of substance was discussed: not Syria, not Ukraine, not human rights. (Still, the Russian Ministry of Defense jumped on the vague talk of cooperation, saying Tuesday that it was ready to implement Trump and Putin’s vision of national security.) But the news conference after the meeting showed that Trump is an ally on the most fundamental level. This is why, the day after the summit, the Russian mission to the United Nations issued a tweet asserting disproven information about the MH17 disaster. The Kremlin was clearly feeling good about its truth.

“We were right about everything all along, and all we needed was some patience for everyone else to realize it,” Moscow political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann says of how this turn of events is perceived in Russia. “Life is just a string of confirmation of our wisdom and vision. You just need to see it the right way.”

This isn’t an academic question of interpretation. Seeing it the right way — or the wrong way — has real policy implications. If America is at fault for everything that’s gone wrong in its relationship with Russia, as Trump seems to agree, then why do we impose sanctions on Russian officials and companies? This has been Russia’s position all along. Even before Trump’s inauguration, his then-national security adviser Michael Flynn was planning on unwinding Russia sanctions unilaterally. This suited the Russians just fine. In public statements, the Kremlin made clear that sanctions imposed by Washington could be undone only by Washington; Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it. You imposed the sanctions for no reason, the logic went; you remove them for no reason. To do anything else would be to admit fault, and this is something Putin, the consummate zero-sum man, does not do. It shows weakness, it paves the way to defeat.

Now Putin has what he wanted: a man in the White House who really understands him, who sees things from the same perspective, who sees things the right way. As Putin put it Monday: “Yes, I did [want Trump to win]. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.” He meant, of course, what Russia defines as normal. After Helsinki, it’s clear that Trump’s definition is just about the same.

 

[47of74]

I cannot remember any President doing to a former President what fuck face did just now.

Quote

President Trump is claiming he's been "far tougher on Russia than any president in many, many years, maybe ever," even as he continues to fend off criticism for appearing too friendly to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their summit in Helsinki. In an interview on CNBC, Mr. Trump pointed to examples of his actions against the Kremlin, actions that he claimed his predecessor never took. 

"Look at all the things that I have done. Nobody else did what I have done," he said in an interview with CNBC's Joe Kernen on "Squawk Box." "Obama didn't do it. Obama was a patsy for Russia. He was a total patsy."

Mr. Trump held up as an example "the big fight I have with Germany over the fact that they're taking natural gas, they're taking energy from Russia. Paying them billions of dollars." And he recalled telling Chancellor Angela Merkel, "I said, 'Wait a minute, we're supposed to be protecting you from Russia, and you're paying them billions of dollars. What's that all about?'" 

During the NATO summit, the president criticized Merkel over a natural gas pipeline deal with Russia and over Germany's defense spending.

To that White House Squatter I only have this to say: Fuck you, Asshole.

[GreyhoundFan]

Gee, I guess it's "executive time" until he leaves at 3:30 to go golfing:

 

[AmazonGrace]

Narrator: His taxcuts added quite a bit to the debt

[Cartmann99]

*snickers loudly*

Quote from article:

"The former model, Karen McDougal, says she began a nearly yearlong affair with Mr. Trump in 2006, shortly after Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania, gave birth to their son Barron. Ms. McDougal sold her story to The National Enquirer for $150,000 during the final months of the presidential campaign, but the tabloid sat on the story, which kept it from becoming public. The practice, known as “catch and kill,” effectively silenced Ms. McDougal for the remainder of the campaign."

 

[Howl]

Oh, Lordy.  *sits on couch and fans self with a magazine* THERE ARE TAPES!!!!!!!!!!!

Um, Mr. Cohen, might there be other tapes?  Asking for a friend.

ETA:  If Cohen has tapes of Trump discussing an abortion and payout money.....Oh, Lordy...

[AmazonGrace]

Ah remember when Hope Hicks denied that there was an affair. Good times. 

[Drala]

Enough already with the 'Trump Voters Still Like Trump' stories.  He is one of the most disliked presidents in history.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-berlatsky-trump-coverage_us_5b50ee0ae4b0b15aba8cea6b

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Gee, I guess it's "executive time" until he leaves at 3:30 to go golfing:

I thought he was having trouble getting porn into the White House? 

[Cartmann99]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[fraurosena]

It's almost as if he's doing everything in his power to get a Dem Congressional majority in the midterms so he'll be impeached...

Trump's new midterm threat: A trade war smacking voters

Quote

President Donald Trump’s trade wars could become a major political drag for Republicans, with job losses and price increases piling up just as voters head to the polls in November.

Trump jolted markets once again early Friday when he said he’s prepared to impose penalties on some $500 billion in Chinese goods regardless of the consequences that might ensue, economic or political. “Look, I’m not doing this for politics,” the president said on CNBC. “I’m doing this to do the right thing for our country.”

But market analysts, industry experts and economists warn that the economic fallout of the president’s tariffs — those that are already in effect and those he’s threatening to impose — is only going to intensify over the coming months and could reach a peak around election time.

“We’re already hearing complaints now from companies, so by the time we get to the midterms, you’re going to be hearing governors, mayors, Congress complaining about jobs, about cost increases, about problems,” Carlos Gutierrez, the former Commerce secretary under President George W. Bush, told POLITICO. “The question is: Will that be strong enough to offset the idea that we have to get tough on our trading partners, and that our jobs are being stolen overseas?”

It takes months for most consumers to feel the impact of tariffs, but as the fall approaches, everything from groceries to appliances could start to cost more at major retailers across the country. Democrats could use these price increases as a political cudgel against Republicans in swing districts as they try to take back control of Congress.

Trump has so far suffered little political blowback for his tariffs and trade threats, saying that he is simply following through on promises he made during the campaign to crack down on trading partners, even close allies, and put America first. Since March, he has imposed blanket tariffs on nearly all imports of steel and aluminum and placed penalties on $34 billion in goods from China, a total likely to increase to $50 billion next month and into the hundreds of billions later this year.

In return, countries have retaliated with tit-for-tat duties on everything from U.S. agricultural goods to Kentucky bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorcycles, aiming to sway top Republican lawmakers by hurting constituents in their districts.

But Trump and his party could soon begin to face consequences as companies in the coming months start reporting lower earnings, reassessing their supply chains and holding back on investment, all of which will begin to ripple throughout the economy and could lead to a slowdown or full-blown recession, experts say.

If all of the tariffs that have been proposed take effect, they would bring down long-run U.S. GDP by 0.47 percent — about $118 billion — in the long term and cost more than 364,000 jobs, a new analysis from the Tax Foundation shows. The International Monetary Fund also warned this week that trade tensions could cut global output by some $400 billion by 2020, and that the U.S. is "especially vulnerable" to effects of an international slowdown.

Price increases would vary by product, ranging anywhere from a few cents on a can of beer or soup to around $6,000 on a family car, if the administration moves forward with auto-specific tariffs it has threatened.

Even if Trump doesn't move forward with any additional duties, the uncertainty caused by his policies and rhetoric is leading some companies to begin pulling back investments in research and development. They're afraid that if they develop products for foreign markets, those markets might no longer be accessible to them in six months or a year.

The agricultural industry has been particularly vulnerable: Countries like Mexico have begun to diversify their import markets by buying more corn and soybeans from Brazil instead of the United States, in an attempt to reduce their dependence on a country that could erect new trade barriers at any time based on the president’s whims.

And while the administration has so far taken pains to avoid hitting consumers directly, leaving products like flat-screen televisions and cellphones off the list of products facing tariffs, they will be unable to continue to do so as the list of goods caught in the crossfire begins to expand.

“If this escalates into a full-blown trade war, the innocent victims are going to be American consumers,” said Matthew Shay, president and CEO of the National Retail Federation. “That’s what we’d like to avoid.”

As midterm campaigns heat up, vulnerable Democrats and Democratic super PACs are already using the president’s trade war — and the Republican Party’s reluctance so far to challenge him on it — to frame their opponents as complicit in an escalating trade battle with no end in sight.

The Democrat-aligned group American Bridge launched an effort Thursday aimed at targeting Republican candidates for, as the group says, “failing to stand up to Trump’s trade war.” In one of two launch ads, the group targets Josh Hawley, who is running to unseat Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, for saying that he supports Trump’s goals on trade and feels that the president is doing the right thing.

“Hawley welcomed this trade war,” it reads at the end of a minute-long spot featuring clips of local farmers and manufacturers complaining about the harmful effects of Trump’s tariffs. “Now Missouri families are paying the price.”

The president has so far ignored increasing calls from Republicans in Congress to back down on trade, or at least to begin pursuing dialogue with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The White House insisted this week that trade talks with Beijing are ongoing, but there are no formal discussions on the books and the two sides have not met at the ministerial level since Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross traveled to China early last month. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will have informal opportunities to talk with his Chinese counterparts at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Buenos Aires this weekend, but no formal bilateral meetings are expected.

Instead, Trump has sought ways to expand his tariff crusade: Beyond ratcheting up duties against China, he has directed the Commerce Department to conduct investigations examining whether to impose penalties on imports of cars and car parts, as well as uranium. And he has continued to frustrate Canada and Mexico by refusing to back down from what they see as unreasonable demands in the ongoing renegotiation of NAFTA.

Moving forward with either car tariffs or a NAFTA withdrawal before November elections would be an “enormous political mistake,” said Bill Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If he does that, you’ll see an immediate sharp consumer impact, which I think will translate into a political reaction. Everything else will be like sand leaking out of the bag.”

But even the slow accumulation of economic effects could build up enough by November that consumers will be feeling the pain. It might be difficult for everyday Americans to recognize at this point how the tariffs will affect them, given that many of those proposed are not yet in effect, so in the meantime, the retail industry is working to educate consumers that “there are greater consequences, and price increases and real impacts” that could be coming in the near future, Shay said.

“That’s going to create a lot more attention around the things that right now sound a lot more hypothetical,” he added.

So far, at least, polls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. Roughly the same percentage — or 77 percent — of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents felt the opposite.

But reaction overall is trending increasingly negative: Nearly half, or 49 percent, of all respondents to the Pew poll said they feel tariffs are a bad thing for the country, up 4 percentage points from a similar survey done in May.

The partisan split bodes well for Trump, who has so far shown little willingness to heed anyone’s advice over trade policy beyond his own and who will likely barge into the midterms with the same protectionist messages that helped him win over laid-off factory workers and struggling farmers in 2016.

Democrats might try to point to a worsening economy to say that Trump’s policies are wreaking havoc across middle America, but the White House has already begun to fire back that the long-term payoff will be worth it.

“It’ll be those two competing narratives” during midterm campaigns, said Gutierrez, who now chairs the board of the National Foreign Trade Council. “It all depends on how bad the numbers get and how much pain there is that can’t be offset by simply saying, ‘We’re doing this for the country and we’re getting tough on our trading partners, so it’s worth the pain.’”

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

If at first you don't succeed, maybe skydiving isn't for you.