Trump 40: Donald Trump and the Chamber of Incompetence

[AmericanRose]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-threatens-executive-privilege-over-mueller-report-if-dems-carry-out-contempt-vote/ar-AAB3BJU?ocid=spartanntp

Spoiler

The Justice Department says it will ask President Trump to invoke executive privilege over the Mueller report if the House Judiciary Committee goes through with its threat to vote on whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd in a letter on Tuesday told Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) threatened to turn to the presidential power on the eve of the contempt markup before his panel, a move that is certain to deepen the agency's feud with Capitol Hill.

"In the face of the Committee's threatened contempt vote, the Attorney General will be compelled to request that the President invoke executive privilege with respect to the materials subject to the subpoena," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in a Tuesday letter to Nadler, which The Hill obtained.

"I hereby request that the Committee hold the subpoena in abeyance and delay any vote on whether to recommend a citation of contempt for non-compliance with the subpoena, pending the President's termination of this question," he added.

A committee aide told The Hill that Nadler plans to go forward with the contempt proceedings on Wednesday.

The letter and the contempt vote are both moves that will further escalate the battle between Capitol Hill and the DOJ over access to redacted information that intensified after special counsel Robert Mueller released his long-awaited report on Russian election interference last month.

Negotiations between the two parties failed on Tuesday. Despite representatives of the committee staff and the DOJ meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the possibility of additional access to the Mueller report, the two sides were not able to reach an agreement -- instead any progress appears to be lost.

Boyd listed a series of accommodations the DOJ offered Nadler in order to reach a compromise, including allow

"The Department offered to expand the number of staff members who may review the minimally redacted report; to allow Members of Congress who have reviewed the minimally redacted report to discuss the material freely among themselves; and to allow Members to take and retain their notes following their review," Boyd wrote to Nadler.

Boyd also expressed disappointment Democrats still refused to review a less redacted version of the report, an offer Democrats rejected because they said it was too rigid in only allowing a dozen to review such information and not allowing them to discuss it.

According to the committee aide, Democrats counter offered. They asked Barr to work with the committee to obtain grand jury material by either going to court with them or not opposing their efforts to go to court -- information Barr has maintained he will not give to Congress.

They also requested that all members on the Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees have access to this less redacted version, rather than just House and committee leadership; they requested three staffers from each side rather than two, as the DOJ proposed; and that the DOJ agree to a meeting as early as this week to provide members with access to underlying evidence in the report.

Republicans blasted Democrats for rejected Barr's accommodations and thereby thwarting their own chances to gain access to redacted information.

"It appears that the more access to information Democrats receive, the less interested they are in actually examining those facts," Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the top Republican of the Judiciary panel, said in a statement.

"Chairman Nadler, however, rebuffed the olive branch and plowed ahead with his plan to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt for upholding the law. I can't imagine a more illogical hill for a legislator to die on," he continued.

I'm super confused as to how there can be an investigation into the President... and he gets control over who sees the results. Never mind how suspicious that looks; who thought this was a good idea???

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s early financial losses were so steep that he did not pay income taxes for eight years, according to new report"

Spoiler

President Trump reported $1.17 billion in financial losses to the IRS between 1985 and 1994, a massive run of red ink that kept him from paying income taxes during most of that period, according to a report published late Tuesday in the New York Times.

The Times said it had documented those losses by obtaining official IRS tax transcripts for those years, showing the figures Trump reported on his IRS Form 1040 returns. The scope of those losses was such that, “year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer,” the Times said.

The Times report comes a day after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he would not comply with a request from a House committee to turn over copies of more recent Trump tax returns. A 1924 law gives Congress the explicit power to request such returns, but Mnuchin said their request lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose,” a stance that is expected to be challenged in court.

The White House and the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent Tuesday evening. The Times said a private attorney for the president, Charles Harder, had called its report “demonstrably false,” but had not cited any specific errors.

Until now, Trump’s early career in real estate was believed to have reached a peak in the late 1980s, when Trump wrote the “The Art of the Deal” — and then collapsed into loss and debt in 1990 and 1991.

The Times story shows, however, that Trump’s losses began earlier. In 1985, the future president reported $46.1 million in losses from his casinos, hotels and other businesses, according to the report.

Those losses got worse in 1990 and 1991, as Trump’s big bets on casinos, hotels and an airline all went bad.

Trump reported $517.6 million in combined losses during those years, the Times said. Because of his losses, the Times said that Trump had not been required to pay income taxes for eight of the 10 years it examined.

Trump’s most profitable business during this period, the Times reported, was not in real estate but in the stock market. As the Times described it, Trump would buy stock in a company, then make public statements that indicated he was contemplating a hostile takeover of that company. The publicity would make the stock price rise, and then Trump — rather than buying more shares to make good on his takeover threat — would sell his stocks at a profit.

That sort of faux takeover talk earned Trump $57 million by 1988, the Times reported. But eventually, investors stopped falling for it: When Trump bought stock in American Airlines and talked about a takeover, the market didn’t bite. Trump lost $34.9 million on short-term stock trades that year, the Times said.

 

[fraurosena]

The presidunce is pretty shook by the NYT revelations of his business acumen --- or lack thereof.

 

[Alisamer]

18 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

The presidunce is pretty shook by the NYT revelations of his business acumen --- or lack thereof.

 

"Everybody tried to pay as little tax as possible back then! It was a game! Everybody did it! But it's Fake News, I didn't do it. But everybody did so it's OK if I did! Even though I didn't! And it was a long time ago!"

It's like he puts out an excuse, halfway through hears his mom in his head saying "If everyone jumped off a cliff..." and then decides to switch to a denial. He's genuinely operating at a preschool level. I'm sure it'd be fascinating to researchers if it wasn't so dangerous for the whole world.

I used to think it would be a good idea to get someone running the country who knew how to run a business. But I meant a SUCCESSFUL business. Not taking a huge inheritance and somehow managing to make less money from it than you would have if you'd just stuck it in a savings account to earn a little interest. So far the only thing Trump has been proven successful at is self-promotion.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

Everybody tried to pay as little tax as possible back then! It was a game! Everybody did it! But it's Fake News, I didn't do it. But everybody did so it's OK if I did! Even though I didn't! And it was a long time ago!"

Ha - Poor Donnie.  I did things in he 80s I wouldn’t want in the NYT too but....

i was a teenager, I am not the president, and no one got hurt.

Poor embarrassed asshole in chief ?

[Cartmann99]

10 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Ha - Poor Donnie.  I did things in he 80s I wouldn’t want in the NYT too but....

i was a teenager, I am not the president, and no one got hurt.

Poor embarrassed asshole in chief ?

Reason number 89076532 why I'd never run for president. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

48 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Reason number 89076532 why I'd never run for president. 

To shamelessly plagiarize Jon Stewart:   “there are photos of me in a shoe box that preclude me from working at the post office.”

[GreyhoundFan]

49 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Reason number 89076532 why I'd never run for president. 

And reason number 324,333,595 why I'm glad there were no cell phones, digital cameras, or social media in the 1980s.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

And reason number 324,333,595 why I'm glad there were no cell phones, digital cameras, or social media in the 1980s.

 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

To shamelessly plagiarize Jon Stewart:   “there are photos of me in a shoe box that preclude me from working at the post office.”

I'm really relieved to discover that nude drag racing while listening to The Dead Milkmen was a thing throughout the United States in the 80s.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

that nude drag racing

Nude is going a bit too far. Nude but for a pair of high spiked Candies mules however is wholesome alL American fashion

[GreyhoundFan]

I love the snarky Alexandra Petri: "Some math problems for Donald Trump’s tax returns"

Spoiler

The New York Times recently revealed that while he was appearing on Forbes’s list of the world’s wealthiest people, boasting about his real estate ventures and building a career on his business acumen, Donald Trump actually reported to the IRS millions of dollars, sometimes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, in annual losses.

In 1991, his reported losses were $418 million, which was literally 1 PERCENT of all the losses by all individuals in that year. A full percent! How to reconcile this? Fortunately, he has a great brain. We must catch up.

Here are some Trump math problems:

Q: If you have $1 million and then you lose $55, how many dollars do you have to live on?

A: Whatever my father, Fred Trump, has.

Q: If you are $418 million in the red, do you have more money or less money than someone who has zero dollars?

A: More, $418 million more!

Q: If you have $5 of debt and someone else has zero dollars, who has more money?

A: I definitely have more money than the loser with zero dollars.

Q: It costs $0.08 to buy a banana. You have -$0.05. Can you afford to buy a banana?

A: I don’t know, let me ask Deutsche Bank.

Q: It costs $0.08 to buy a banana. Someone else has $0.16. Can she afford to buy a banana?

A: With just $0.16, she should not be wasting money on luxuries such as bananas. She should be working.

Q: What does it mean to be in the red?

A: It means you have won roulette. Thank you for playing at a Trump-branded casino!

Q: You have two apples. You owe someone five apples. They take two. How many apples do you still owe them?

A: If we had a wall, they would not have been able to take those apples from me. I would probably have 30 apples by now. We need to build a wall.

Q: Two trains are on their way to Atlantic City. One of them keeps going without stopping at a Trump property. Are you bankrupt?

A: Yes, always.

Q: You have lost more than $1 billion over the course of a decade. You have retained Michael Cohen as your attorney, and Michael has gotten hold of at least one personal photograph of Jerry Falwell Jr.’s. What do you have?

A: Jerry Falwell Jr.’s endorsement!

Q: You have three sons, two daughters and one son-in-law. Two sons are still involved in running your business, but your son-in-law wants to help with the government. He is initially refused a security clearance because his past business entanglements seem risky, and one of his first moves is to try to bond with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. How many security clearances should this section of your family receive, in total?

A: Zero, but the answer is two!

Q: There are five apples. You do not own any of the apples, but you write your name on them. Now how many apples do you have?

A: Five, and they are much more valuable apples than before and, better yet, I am no longer personally liable if they fail.

Q: You are one-sixteenth of the candidates for the Republican nomination. What fraction of the party will still speak against you once you have been elected to office?

A: Surprisingly, zero.

Q: Hillary Clinton has 65.8 million votes. You have 63 million votes. Who had the most votes?

A: The electors.

Q: What is an imaginary number?

A: The number of people who attended my inauguration.

Q: What does PEMDAS represent?

A: Please Excuse My Depreciated Assets, Senators!

Q: If you have zero dollars but feel like a million dollars, how much are you worth?

A: $6 billion, maybe seven.

Q: The arc of the universe is long but bends toward justice.

A: False.

Q: Will we continue like this forever? Is there no limit to your brazenness, to your depravity, to your venality?

A: The limit does not exist.

 

[smittykins]

All your base are belong to us.

[Dandruff]

I have a question.  If the Mueller report (according to the orange one) proves the accusations against him are false, then wouldn't he be pushing to have it released, in full, yesterday?

[GreyhoundFan]

"The White House revoked my press pass. It’s not just me — it’s curtailing access for all journalists."

Spoiler

For the past 21 years, I have had the high privilege of holding a White House press pass, a magical ticket that gives the bearer a front-row seat to history.

I was in the White House the night Bill Clinton admitted his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the day he was impeached. I was there on Sept. 11, 2001, and the fearful days thereafter, when we were trained to use escape hoods. I watched George W. Bush make the case for the Iraq War and Barack Obama pitch his remedies for the market crash. There, too, I have witnessed the carnival-like briefings and high histrionics of Donald Trump’s presidency.

But no more. The White House eliminated most briefings and severely restricted access to official events. And this week came the coup de grace: After covering four presidents, I received an email informing me that Trump’s press office had revoked my White House credential.

I’m not the only one. It was part of a mass purge of “hard pass” holders after the White House implemented a new standard that designated as unqualified almost the entire White House press corps, including all six of The Post’s White House correspondents. White House officials then chose which journalists would be granted “exceptions.” It did this over objections from news organizations and the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The Post requested exceptions for its six White House reporters and for me, saying that this access is essential to our work (in my case, I often write “sketches” describing the White House scene). The White House press office granted exceptions to the other six, but not to me. I strongly suspect it’s because I’m a Trump critic. The move is perfectly in line with Trump’s banning of certain news organizations, including The Post, from his campaign events, and his threats to revoke White House credentials of journalists he doesn’t like.

White House officials provided me no comment for the record.

I’m not looking for pity. Trump’s elimination of briefings and other changes have devalued White House coverage anyway. But there’s something wrong with a president having the power to decide which journalists can cover him.

Now, virtually the entire White House press corps is credentialed under “exceptions,” which means, in a sense, that they all serve at the pleasure of press secretary Sarah Sanders because they all fail to meet credentialing requirements — and therefore, in theory, can have their credentials revoked any time they annoy Trump or his aides, like CNN’s Jim Acosta did.

Last year, Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, ordered the White House to restore Acosta’s press credentials, saying that the White House’s process for revoking his access (after Acosta had aggressively questioned Trump) was “shrouded in mystery.”

In response, it seems, the White House established a clear — if nearly impossible — standard: No credentials to any journalist who is not in the building on at least 90 out of the previous 180 days — in other words, seven of every 10 workdays. The White House wouldn’t provide numbers, but it appears most of the White House press corps didn’t qualify for credentials under the new standard, including regulars for The Post and the Associated Press. (Trump, who has spent more than 200 days at Trump properties and many more on travel, is barely in the White House this much himself.)

The White House said it would grant exceptions for “senior journalists” who are “consistently engaged in covering the White House” and for those with “special circumstances.” Though the culling properly eliminated some (including at The Post) who no longer needed credentials, the victims hurt most were freelance camera operators and technicians who now could lose their livelihood.

The White House, in rescinding my credentials, told me I had only been in the building seven times in the previous 180 days (two foot surgeries during that period kept me at home, though I never came close to the 90-day standard).

More important is that the White House is drastically curtailing access for all journalists. Briefings have been abolished in favor of unscheduled “gaggles” ( on the record, but impromptu and haphazard) in the White House driveway. The Pentagon and State Department have done similarly.

The White House has also restricted access by allowing only one journalist from a news organization at most events, and by admitting journalists to events only if they register days in advance. This has sharply reduced journalists’ attendance at the White House — just in time for the 90-day attendance purge.

White House officials offered me and others it disqualified a lesser credential called a six-month pass. They say it will grant equivalent access, but for various technical reasons, that isn’t true.

I’ll keep covering the White House, albeit from a distance, and wait for things to return to normal — if they ever do.

 

[JMarie]

CNN and MSNBC are talking about Barr and the potential for impeachment.  Fox News is showing Trump's rally in Florida, and he's claiming Puerto Rico loves him, even though the evil Democrats want more and more money to repair the island.

Aaaaand he just called Marco Rubio "a terrific person" and "a great man."

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s rambling, deceptive Q&A with reporters, annotated"

Quote

President Trump was in rare form Thursday. In a lengthy Q&A with reporters after an event on combating surprise medical bills, Trump took questions on the Mueller report, on a Senate GOP chairman’s subpoena of his son Donald Trump Jr., on North Korea and on other topics.

Many of the claims have been fact-checked as false — and some of them were offered in quick succession. Others were new and raised questions about what Trump has been doing behind the scenes.

Below is the transcript, with annotations and analysis/fact-checking in yellow.

QUESTION:

Mr. President, on the North Korean missiles, what message do you take from that (INAUDIBLE)?

TRUMP:

Well, we’re looking at it very seriously right now. They were smaller missiles, short-range missiles. Nobody’s happy about it. But we’re taking a good look, and we’ll see, we’ll see. The relationship continues, but we’ll see what happens. I know they want to negotiate. They’re talking about negotiating, but I don’t think they’re ready to negotiate because we have to either do — it’s very much like China. The vice premier is coming here today. We were getting very close to a deal, then they started to renegotiate the deal. We can’t have that. We can’t have that. So our country can take in $120 billion a year in tariffs, paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us — a lot of people try and steer it in a different direction. It’s really paid for — ultimately it’s paid for by — largely by China. And businesses will pour back into our country, so instead of making the products, it’ll be the old-fashioned way, the way we used to do it. We made our own product. And I think things are going along pretty well there, but a large group delegation headed by one of the most respective respected men and highest officials of China will be coming in today.

They start at 5:00, and they’ll see what they can do, but our alternative is — is an excellent one. It’s an alternative I’ve spoken about for years. We’ll take in well over $100 billion a year. We never took in $0.10 from China, not $0.10. And it will be a — I think it’ll be a very strong day, frankly. But we’ll see. We’ll see. It was their idea to come back.

QUESTION:

Do you have plans to talk to President Xi, or no, not yet?

TRUMP:

Well, he just wrote me a beautiful letter. I just received it and I’ll probably speak to him by phone. But look, we have two great alternatives. Our country is doing fantastically well. Our numbers at 3.2. Don’t forget, 3.2 — the first quarter is always by far the worst quarter or at least almost always. You look back over the years, first quarters always weak, and we had 3.2 GDP.

Our unemployment numbers are the best in the history of our country, and we are doing well. And our companies are really doing well. Even in Ohio, the great state of Ohio yesterday, General Motors at my very strong urging, to put it mildly, very strong urging, I wasn’t even nice about it, but I appreciate what they did, they sold the — the beautiful plant, Lordstown. They sold that beautiful plant to a very, very good company that’s going to make electric trucks.

And that worked because that was the only thing they could say about our whole economy. Lordstown. They kept saying Lordstown, Lordstown. And when you had all of these great companies spending billions and billions of dollars coming into our country, they couldn't talk about it. They'd only mentioned the one plant that was a GM plant from a very long time ago. And now we have a great company going in going to make electric trucks. Very appropriate. Very interesting idea, actually. Electric trucks. Yes, please.

QUESTION:

Will you allow Robert Muller to testify to Congress?

TRUMP:

Well, I'm going to leave that up to our very great attorney general, and he'll make a decision on that. But I will say this, look, the Mueller report came out, it was done at I got some hearing numbers now close to $40 million with 17 or 18 very angry Democrats who hated Donald Trump and also everything that they could possibly have at their disposal.

There was nobody that was in the history of our country more transparent than me. I said give them every document, give them every person. Let the White House counsel testify. I think he testified for 30 hours. I guess they must have asked him the same question because there wasn't very much to testify about. But I said let him testify and let him — keep him as long as you want.

Actually, when I heard 30 hours, I said that's a long time, but I let him testify. I didn't have to. I have presidential privilege. I could've stopped everything. I didn't have to give them a document. I gave them 1.5 million documents. I gave them White House counsel, I gave them over other law — anybody you want, you can talk to. At the end of the testimony, no collusion and essentially, no obstruction.

Of course, a lot of people say how can you obstruct when there was no crime, when there was no collusion, how can you possibly obstruct? I'll tell you, but it's worse than that. It's not only was there no crime, but the crime was committed on the other side. So we are protecting against the crime committed on the other side. So after spending all of that money, all of that time, two years, they come up with a report.

And Bob Mueller is no friend of mine. I had conflicts with him. We had a business dispute, we had somebody that is in love with James Comey. We like James Comey. They were very good friends, supposedly best friends. May be not, but supposedly best friends. You look at the picture file and you see hundreds of pictures of him and Comey. And with all of that and other things, he wanted the FBI job. I don't know if anybody knows that, but as you know, he was considered for the FBI job, wanted it, and the day after he didn't get it, he became the special counsel. That's a conflict. And we had other things, but those are tremendous conflicts.

Listen to this. Your judge, call him a judge, is a — has a business dispute with me. Your judge has a fantastic relationship with James Comey. Well, he's a part of this. He lied to Congress, he leaked — he's a liar, a leaker. And your judge has a situation where he wanted to become the FBI director. We chose Director Wray instead and told him I'm sorry. That's — those are tremendous conflicts. Those are tremendous conflicts.

And then he puts on his staff almost all Democrats, many of whom contributed to Hillary Clinton. None of them contributed to me. That I can tell you. And it started out at 13, and it went to 18. And these were angry Democrats. These were people that went to her, in one case, went to her what was supposed to be a party and turned out to be a funeral on election evening and was going wild. He was so angry. And this man now is judging me. You had other people made big contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They were angry Democrats in, I think, almost all cases.

One of the people worked on the Clinton foundation as just about the top person at the Clinton foundation. With all of this, they came back no collusion. There is nobody in this room including you if they were — that's you, John. If they looked at you with $40 million, 18 angry people that hated you and all of the other things I mentioned, they'll find something. I don't know, maybe John, not. Go ahead, finish up.

QUESTION:

But Mr. Mueller is also friends with Mr. Barr. And as you’re aware, Mr. Barr told lawmakers that he didn’t have a problem with Mr. — with Mr. Mueller testifying.

TRUMP:

I'm going to leave that up to the attorney general as to whether or not — I think to me it looks like a redo. Here's what happened, the report comes back, it's perfect. It's beautiful. There's no collusion. Nobody even talks about collusion. You know, I haven't heard the word Russia in a long time. There's no more talk about Russia. What happened to Russia? The Russian witchhunt — they don't talk because it was so on collusion, which by the way, is by far — that's the big deal because it was all about Russia. So I haven't heard the word Russia. They don't use the word Russia anymore.

So there's no crime. There know what never was a crime. It was a hoax. It was a witchhunt. So this comes back, and it comes back totally exonerating Donald Trump and a lot of other people. This was a terrible thing that happened to our country.

Now I'll tell you what they are asking. They are asking about how did this whole thing started. That's what people want to know, and I want to tell you, I had a — an event last night. A lot of you were there. Thousands and thousands of people standing in a field. They've never seen anything like it, meaning even the press. But it's always that way. We never had an empty seat. Thousands of people last night. You know what they want to know? How did this whole thing start. It's going to be hard for them to answer that one. Yeah, please.

QUESTION:

Mr. President, are you satisfied with the advice you received from John Bolton?

TRUMP:

Yeah, John is very good. John is a — he has strong views on things, but that's okay. I actually temper John, which is pretty amazing, isn't it?

(LAUGHTER)

Nobody thought that was going to happen. I'm the one that tempers him. But that's okay. I have different sites. I mean, I have John Bolton and I have other people that are a little more dovish than him. And ultimately, I make the decision. No, I get — I like John, I get very good advice from John. John?

QUESTION:

Mr. President, as you saw, the Senate Intelligent Committee has subpoenaed Don Junior. That's the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Community. What you make of that?

TRUMP:

Well, I was very surprised. I saw Richard Burr (SP) saying there was no collusion to or three weeks ago. He went outside and 70 asked him. No, there's no collusion. We found no collision. But I was very surprised to see my son. My son is a very good person, works very hard. The last thing he needs is Washington DC. I think he'd rather not ever be involved.

Remember he said to me a long time ago when I was thinking about running dad, if I can help, let me know. It's not my expertise, it's not something I really like, but whatever I can do, you're my father. Whatever I can do. He's now testified for 20 hours or something. A massive amount of time. The Mueller report came out. That's the Bible. The Mueller report came out and they said he did nothing wrong. The only thing is, it's oppo (SP) research. If he did wrong, then everybody standing with me probably, except for John, and Lamar, I think Lamar is pretty — I'll tell you, did you ever do oppo research on an opponent? I don't think so, Lamar, right?

UNKNOWN:

(OFF-MIC)

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP:

And I know John Barrasso never did opposition research because he said a he's a fine, fine man. But I would say 99 percent of the rest of the folks are — so they didn't — but what they didn't discuss is this woman that came in who I watched her in the Today Show when it all started. Oh, I'm just an innocent. Well, nobody even knows. Although the halls of Congress know her very well because for years she's walked around all over the Congress.

She came in and she left supposedly GPS Fusion, goes and meets for short period of time with my son and some other people, they talk about a subject as very well, you know, advertised and put out, which is nothing, it was a nothing meeting. In fact, Jared left. He said, “Get me out of this meeting. This is a waste of time.” She then went back to GPS Fusion. They were the ones that wrote the phony dossier. Why was she going to GPS Fusion? Why did she go back?

Then I heard that Don, for a year, made three phone calls with an unmarked number. They called it unmarked. And this was a tremendous event, because they all knew — the fake news, they all — no, you were fair on that, John. But they all knew that these phone calls, these — these tremendous phone calls before the meeting and after the meeting — there were, I believe, three, right? They all knew that it had to be to his father. Unmarked, it's perfect.

So, he reported about the meeting and then reported what happened at the meeting, except after looking and spending a tremendous amount of time and money, they were able to go back years and find out who made the calls. One was a local real estate developer. The other was a great person from NASCAR. He took two of them, and a friend of Don's.

This went on for a year and a half. John, you heard all about the phone calls to obviously the father, where I knew — I never knew about the meeting. But the phone calls to the father turned out not to be the phone calls.

My son is a good person. My son testified for hours and hours. My son was totally exonerated by Mueller, who frankly does not like Donald Trump, me, this Donald Trump. And frankly, for my son, after being exonerated, to now get a subpoena to go again and speak again after close to 20 hours of telling everybody that would listen about a nothing meeting, yeah, I'm pretty surprised.

Please.

QUESTION:

Should he fight that subpoena?

TRUMP:

We'll see what happens. I'm just very surprised, I really am, by it.

Yeah?

QUESTION:

What did Iran do to prompt you to send an aircraft carrier to the--the region?

TRUMP:

Well, they were threatening, and we have information —

QUESTION:

— Is there a risk — is there a risk —

TRUMP:

— We have information that you don't want to know about. They were very threatening, and we just want to have — we have to have great security for this country and for a lot of other places.

QUESTION:

Is there a risk of military confrontation, sir?

TRUMP:

I guess you could say that always, right? Isn't it, I mean, you know, always? I don't want to say no, but hopefully that won't happen. We have one of the most powerful ships in the world that's loaded up, and we don't want to have to do anything.

But I'd like to see — with Iran, I'd like to see them call me. You know, John Kerry speaks to them a lot. John Kerry tells them not to call. That's a violation of the Logan Act. And frankly, he should be prosecuted on that. But my people don't want to do anything that's — only the Democrats do that kind of stuff you know? If it were the opposite way, they'd prosecute him under the Logan Act.

But John Kerry violated the Logan Act. He's talking to Iran and has been, has many meetings and many phone calls. And he's telling them what to do. That is a total violation of the Logan Act, because what they should be doing is — their economy is a mess ever since I took away the Iran deal. They have inflation that's the highest number I've ever heard. They are having riots every weekends and during the week even.

And what they should be doing is calling me up, sitting down. We can make a deal, fair deal. We just don't want them to have nuclear weapons, not too much to ask. And we would help put them back into great shape. They're in bad shape right now. I look forward to the day where we can actually help Iran. We're not looking to hurt Iran. I want them to be strong and great and have a great economy.

But there listening to John Kerry, whose violated a very important elements of what he's supposed to be doing. He violated the Logan Act, plain and simple. He shouldn't be doing that. But they should call, and if they do, we're open to talk to them. We have no secrets. And they can be very, very strong financially. They have great potential, very much like North Korea.

North Korea has tremendous potential economically. And I don't think he's going to blow that. I don't think so.

QUESTION:

Can I circle back to trade just for a second?

TRUMP:

Yeah, please.

QUESTION:

Is it still possible to get a trade deal with the Chinese this week, or is it —

TRUMP:

— It's possible —

QUESTION:

— You've never said —

TRUMP:

— They're all here. Look, the vice premier, who's one of the most respected men, one of the highest officials in China, is coming. You know, you heard he wasn't coming. He's coming.

I will say this. Once the tariffs went on, they upped the meeting. It was supposed to take place originally on Thursday. Then about five weeks ago they said how about Friday, how about next week? I said what's this all about? And I said that's okay. Let's — don't worry about it. Let's take in $100 billion a year. And we put the tariffs on. We made the statement and then they upped the meeting. How about let's go back to Thursday?

So, I have no idea what's going to happen. I did get last night a very beautiful letter from President Xi, let's work together. Let's see if we can get something done. But they renegotiated the deal. I mean, they took — whether it's intellectual property theft, they took many, many parts of that deal and they renegotiated. You can't do that.

And I'm different than a lot of people. I happen to think that tariffs, for our country, are very powerful. You know, we're the piggy bank that everybody steals from, including China. We've been paying China $500 billion a year for many, many years. China rebuilt their country because of us. They couldn't have done what they're doing. They're building a ship every three weeks. They're building aircraft like you've never seen, fighter jets.

I respect it. I don't blame them. I blame our past leadership for allowing this to happen. What I'm doing now with China should have happened many years ago, not just Obama, long before Obama. I always say, you know, if you look NAFTA is one of the worst deals ever made, trade deals.

But the worst trade deal ever made is the WTO, because China was flatlining for many, many decades, many, many. It was flat, right here. The WTO came along. We allowed China into the WTO and they became a rocket ship. You got to take a look at a chart some time. Do it. It'll be very interesting, and economic chart. They're here, and they went up like a rocket ship.

Well, they did it with our money, and others. And they did it because they're very smart and they're good people. And I like the president a lot. He's a friend of mine. But I'm representing the USA and he's representing China. And we're not going to be taken advantage of anymore. We're not going to pay China $500 billion a year.

So, we put very heavy tariffs on China as of Friday, and we put them on also eight months ago. And when people looked at the economic numbers, they were shocked. When they look at the import/export numbers, they were shocked. They said, wow, how did they get to this point? This was very good. That was a very good report. They've never seen that for many years.

I said try looking at all of the tariffs that China has been paying us for the last eight months, billions and billions of dollars. And that's only because I gave them a break. Because we were negotiating — goodwill, we were negotiating, I gave them a break. And I said let's keep it at 10 percent instead of 25 percent.

So, now what we're doing is we're raising it to 25 percent on Friday. So, it'll be $250 billion at 25 percent and it'll be $325 billion at 25 percent, and we're starting that paperwork today. So, we'll see. But you know what? As President of our country, I had to do something about it. And as president of our great country, we're going to be taking in more money than we've ever taken in.

And all of these countries, many of them have taken advantage of us, including our allies. They've taken advantage of us on trade. They've taken advantage of us on military. We defend all these countries or nothing or for a tiny fraction of what it costs.

We take care of NATO. I'm all for NATO. I'm all for NATO. And I think it's just wonderful, but it's different than it was 25 years ago and 40 years ago. And I got NATO to put up an extra $100 billion. Ask Secretary General Stoltenberg. He's, like, Donald Trump's biggest fan because spending was going down. The — the contributions that the 28 countries were making, it was heading like — like a slope down, like a very steep mountain. And then I came and it went up like China. It went up like a rocket ship, okay?

But I don't like seeing people take advantage. We pay for anywhere from 70 percent to 100 percent of NATO. So, we protect NATO. We protect European countries. And we protect them, and we protect them beautifully. We're the power. We're the most powerful nation, especially since we've redone our military, redoing and done all of the nuclear. You never want to use it, but you have to have it.

But we've spent, and I thank Congress for this, $700 billion, and then $717 — 16 billion on our military. Our military, when I came to office, was totally depleted. We now have by far the strongest military in the world. But we defend countries. When you look at our budget — so, we're at $716 billion, and Russia's at $68 billion. How do you figure that? Because Russia doesn't go around defending every country in the world and not getting paid for it.

And you know what? I don't mind not getting paid if there's a country that's been horribly treated and lots of bad things are happening and they're not a rich country. But when we defend the richest countries in the world and they don't pay us for or what we do. And frankly, they go back into closed meetings, and they laugh at the stupidity of the United States for doing it. These are countries with nothing but cash. They could very easily — I told a story last night. I picked up $500 million with one phone call to a country, and that's just the beginning. And I've done it with many other countries anyway. But just over the last very short period of time. One phone call that lasted for a period of, I would say, five minutes, I picked up $500 million because I said you're not taking care of us. We're taking care of you, but you're not taking care — it's not fair. So really the word is not fair. NATO doesn't treat us fairly at all. But now they're starting to pay. And if you look at Mr. Stoltenberg, he will tell you he has never seen anything like it. $100 billion. And that's a low number. They're paying $100 billion (INAUDIBLE).

But how do you feel about this? Germany, you're supposed to be paying 2 percent. Germany is paying 1 percent. They say 1.3, but call it 1 percent because it really is closer to 1 percent. Germany pays to Russia billions of dollars a month for the pipeline, and yet we're supposed to be defending Germany from Russia. So Germany is giving the so-called enemy — I don't call it an enemy. I want to get along with Russia, and I want to get along with China because I'm smart. Stupid people don't want to get along. Because I'm smart. This witch hunt hurt us in our relationships with a lot of countries. It was a very expensive, horrible thing for our country. And by the way, should never ever happen again to a president. Two years I've been going through this nonsense, and now we have a good report, and now guys like Jerry Nadler who I fought for many years, successfully I might add, back in New York in Manhattan. He was a Manhattan congressman. I beat him all the time, and I come to Washington, and now I have to beat him again over nothing, over nothing, over a hoax. And they know it's a hoax. They're smart. Nadler is a smart guy. Schiff is a smart guy. When Schiff goes to the microphone he's conning this whole country, and he knows that. And he goes back into a room and he talks to his friends, and he laughs because that's the way life is.

But our country is doing great. We're going to find out about China tonight, and I think in the end you're going to be very impressed with the kind of things we're doing. And the reason they were so surprised with the numbers two, three weeks ago — not the 3.2 GDP, which everybody was surprised at, but maybe more importantly export numbers, import numbers, because we have billions of dollars coming to our country that our country never would have seen with a regular president. They should have been done many years ago. And I told President Xi of China, and I tell Abe, who is a good friend of mine, prime minister of Japan, doing a great job, I tell him — I tell everybody, I say I don't blame you. I blame the people that ran the United States. And I blame their trade representatives, and frankly, I blame our presidents because this should have never happened. We've been losing, for years, close to $800 billion — not million. $800 million is a lot — but we have been losing $800 billion on trade, $800 billion. We're going to stop that, and we've already started. So we have a meeting tonight at 5:00 with the top people from China, and we'll let you know what happens. Thank you all very much.

QUESTION:

There was a moment in your rally last night when someone in the crowd seemed to say (INAUDIBLE).

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP:

The Red Sox are coming in a little while. I like the Red Sox.

QUESTION:

What do you say to those who argue that you're too divisive, and do you worry it's going to hurt your reelection (INAUDIBLE)?

TRUMP:

You know, it’s interesting; Puerto Rico — just so you understand, we gave Puerto Rico $91 billion for the hurricane. That’s the largest amount of money ever given to any state — talking about states and Puerto Rico, a little different--$91 billion. Texas got $30. Florida got $12. Puerto Rico got $91 billion. So I think the people of Puerto Rico should really like President Trump. Now that money was given by Congress, but they got $91 billion. Now you remember how big the hurricane was in Texas, the largest water dump in the history of our country they say. Three times it went in, went out, went in. Texas got $30 billion. Florida got actually anywhere between $9 and $12. Puerto Rico got $91 billion, and now the Democrats are trying to hold up the money from Georgia, from South Carolina, from Alabama, to Florida. They’re trying to hold it up. They’re hurting Florida. They’re holding — I mean, what they’re doing to North Carolina, to Louisiana, they’re trying to hold relief aid because Puerto Rico, which got $91 billion, have to love their president, they want to get Puerto Rico more money. So they’re willing to sacrifice Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and other states. The Democrats are doing that. They are very divisive people. Thank you very much.

It's worth looking at the article for the notes/fact checks.

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘The Art of the Deal’ co-author calls for Trump’s memoir to be pulled or ‘recategorized’ as fiction"

Spoiler

Decorated in eye-catching gold lettering, President Trump’s 1987 memoir — a self-described “common sense guide to personal finance” — is touted as “a firsthand account of the rise of America’s foremost deal-maker.”

But following news this week that Trump reported more than $1 billion in financial losses to the IRS during a perceived high point in his business career, the ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal,” once called an “unguarded look at the mind of a brilliant entrepreneur,” has another description for the book: fiction.

“I’d be fine if Random House simply took the book out of print,” Tony Schwartz, a vocal critic of the president, tweeted on Wednesday. “Or recategorized it as fiction.”

Schwartz’s tweet comes after the New York Times found that Trump reported staggering losses between 1985 and 1994 — a period of time in which the president, largely due to the success of his book, had achieved widespread fame for appearing to be a self-made billionaire gifted with seemingly unrivaled business acumen. The Times report, however, painted a starkly different picture.

“In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer,” the Times wrote, pointing out that by the time the best-selling memoir was released, Trump was already in “deep financial distress.”

On Wednesday, the book’s portrayal of Trump’s business prowess once again came under fierce scrutiny from Schwartz, who has openly expressed remorse for ghostwriting it. Late-night hosts and commentators also piled on the president over the revelations.

“Based on how bad he is at deals, I’m surprised the cost of that book wasn’t ‘I pay you 20 dollars if you take one,'" Seth Meyers joked on NBC.

This isn’t the first time Schwartz has publicly disparaged “The Art of the Deal.”

“I put lipstick on a pig,” he told the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer in 2016. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.”

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday, Schwartz reiterated that if he were to rename the book he would call it “The Sociopath.”

“He has no guilt,” Schwartz said of Trump. “All he wants to do is make the case that he would like to be true. While I do think he’s probably aware that more walls are closing around him than ever before, he does not experience the world in a way that an ordinary human being would.”

The pair first met in the 1980s when Schwartz wrote what was widely perceived to be an unflattering profile of Trump for New York magazine. But Trump was surprisingly a fan of the piece, and when Schwartz sat down with him again in 1985 for another interview, Trump revealed he had signed a book deal for an autobiography.

As Schwartz recalled to the New Yorker, he suggested Trump title the book “The Art of the Deal” because “that’s something people would be interested in.”

“You’re right,” Trump responded, according to the New Yorker. “Do you want to write it?”

For Schwartz, the answer wasn’t an immediate yes. He spent weeks weighing the offer before ultimately signing on after Trump agreed to give him half the book’s advance and royalties — a move he told the New Yorker he knew made him a sellout. (Since 2016, Schwartz has donated his earnings from the memoir to various charities, calling the royalties “blood money,” The Washington Post reported.)

Over the course of 18 months beginning in late 1985, Schwartz crafted his numerous observations and conversations with Trump into “The Art of the Deal,” which upon its release became a national sensation and earned scores of glowing reviews. It spent 48 weeks on the New York Times’s bestseller list with 13 weeks in the top spot, according to the New Yorker.

“Mr. Trump makes one believe for a moment in the American dream again,” the Times wrote at the time. “It’s like a fairy tale.”

But, even back then, there were signs that Trump wasn’t as successful as he claimed. By the time the book was published, Wayne Barrett, a former investigative reporter with the Village Voice, was already writing pieces that dug into Trump’s business dealings. It was clear to him that Trump had started down a path of “simultaneous personal and professional self-destruction,” he told the New Yorker in 2016.

During Wednesday’s interview, Schwartz maintained that he had been unaware of the full scope of Trump’s financial situation when they were working together. Schwartz added that he didn’t think anyone else around Trump knew aside from the “one or two, maybe three, people who actually were able to look at his tax returns and his finances.”

“He kept those immensely secret,” Schwartz said.

The Times story did not sit well with Trump, who lashed out on Twitter and called the report “a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job.” But, the president’s tweets did little to silence detractors, who mocked his reportedly enormous losses while he was campaigning in Florida on Wednesday night.

“The guy who lost the most money is the same guy who claims to be the best businessman,” Trevor Noah said on “The Daily Show.” “It’s like finding out that Hugh Hefner died a virgin. I did not see that coming.”

For many, including Stephen Colbert, the news shattered an image Trump has spent decades cultivating.

“Remember his cameo as the fancy rich guy in ‘Home Alone 2?'" Colbert asked, drawing attention to the 1992 film. “Now, we know when he recorded that, he was so broke he had to borrow money from the pigeon lady.”

By Wednesday night, Schwartz wasn’t the only person calling for the autobiography to be re-branded as fiction.

“After consuming the news of the past 24 hours, I’m more convinced than ever that we should reshelf The Art of the Deal in Fiction and The Handmaid’s Tale in Current Events,” one Twitter user wrote, referencing the Margaret Atwood novel, now a Hulu show, set in a dystopian America.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[WiseGirl]

[AmazonGrace]

Law, what is it good for

[Howl]

On 5/8/2019 at 3:34 PM, Dandruff said:

I have a question.  If the Mueller report (according to the orange one) proves the accusations against him are false, then wouldn't he be pushing to have it released, in full, yesterday?

My sense is that the Barr redactions in the Intelligence section are where the bombshells are hidden, as well as in the voluminous supporting data. There's a reason that release of the full Mueller Report will be fought to the death by the Republicans. 

Those brave souls who have waded through what was released, esp. Vol. 2, are pretty damn gobsmacked by the overt evidence of blatant obstruction. The Republicans knew they had to get ahead of the narrative and control it, which they have done, and very successfully.  They are masters of messaging. 

Now to another point.  Decent people were given the boot at DoJ and all of the operatives were in place for the moment the Mueller Report was released.  Whitaker (remember him?),  then Barr and presumably Barr understudies, and Rosenstein (yes, that #ETTD clown).  Barr's son-in-law is in position in the WH Cousel's Office. 

Kavanaugh is in place on the Supreme Court.  The Senate changed their procedures to process Federal judgeships at a fast, rather than a deliberative, pace. 

For the Trump tax issue,  corrupt loyalist lickspittles are in place at Treasury (Mnuchin) and IRS and are playing their roles without defaulting or wavering.   Barr's daughter (also a lawyer) is now at FinCen, the part of Treasury that addresses financial crimes. 

My question is, who is the Machiavellian master mind behind this long-term planning, getting the correct people (malleable loyalists) in place to protect Trump? Is it McConnell? The Federalist Society? 

The is the real Deep State.  It's the power behind the throne, but I don't think anyone in the WH has that clout and foresight; plus, there's simply been too much turnover.  So which person or cabal is behind this?

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, Howl said:

They are masters of messaging. 

They really are and if democrats ever hope to defeat them they have to figure out a way to get back the narrative. 

 

2 hours ago, Howl said:

  It's the power behind the throne, but I don't think anyone in the WH has that clout and foresight; plus, there's simply been too much turnover. 

No way Trump or any of his people are smart enough to do this. Someone has set it up to take over America and they are being very, very successful. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because it's all about him... "Trump takes over Fourth of July celebration, changing its location and inserting himself into the program"

Spoiler

President Trump has effectively taken charge of the nation’s premier Fourth of July celebration in Washington, moving the gargantuan fireworks display from its usual spot on the Mall to be closer to the Potomac River and making tentative plans to address the nation from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, according to top administration officials.

 The president’s starring role has the potential to turn what has long been a nonpartisan celebration of the nation’s founding into another version of a Trump campaign rally. Officials said it is unclear how much the changes may cost, but the plans have already raised alarms among city officials and some lawmakers about the potential impact of such major alterations to a time-honored and well-organized summer tradition.

Fireworks on the Mall, which the National Park Service has orchestrated for more than half a century, draw hundreds of thousands of Americans annually and mark one of the highlights of the city’s tourist season. The event has been broadcast live on television since 1947 and since 1981 has been accompanied by a free concert on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol featuring high-profile musicians and a performance by the National Symphony Orchestra.

The new event, to be called “A Salute to America,” will shift the fireworks launch to West Potomac Park, less than a mile southwest of its usual location near the Washington Monument. In addition to a possible address by Trump, the location may feature a second stage of entertainment apart from the performers at the Capitol, officials said.

The revised Independence Day celebration is the culmination of two years of attempts by Trump to create a major patriotic event centered on him and his supporters, including failed efforts to mount a military parade modeled on the Bastille Day celebration in France. The new event has become a top priority for new Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, whom Trump tasked with the job three months ago, officials said.

The president has received regular briefings on the effort in the Oval Office and has gotten involved in the minutiae of the planning — even discussing whether the fireworks should be launched from a barge in the Potomac River, administration aides said. The president has shown interest in the event that he often does not exhibit for other administration priorities, the aides added.

“I think the president is excited about the idea, and we’re working hard on it, and I think it could be very, very meaningful,” Bernhardt said in an interview. “The president loves the idea, as probably all Americans do, of celebrating America on the Fourth of July, or thereabouts.”

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, said in an interview that she is concerned that Trump could polarize what is typically a unifying event for Americans.

“It’s not about any one president. It’s about how our nation came to be, because of a hardy band of brave men and women,” McCollum said. “It’s not about any one person, it’s about ‘We, the people.’ And if the president moves to make this about him, I think he will find the American public disappointed and angered by it.”

An official in the administration of D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) said federal officials have informed the city government of potential changes to the Fourth of July celebration but that the logistics and cost of the altered format had not been finalized.

 The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss preparations for the event, said the city was concerned about moving the fireworks and about the logistics of the president traveling to the Mall to address the crowds, which could cut off the flow of visitors to and from nearby Metro stations.

 “We have a lot of people come to the Fourth of July. Logistically, over the years, the kinks have been worked out,” the official said. “We don’t want to throw off what already works.”

The president’s idea for a Trump-influenced Fourth of July celebration began within hours of attending a lavish Bastille Day parade in Paris in 2017, former aides say. Before Air Force One took off to return from France, Trump came to the back of the staff cabin and laid out the particulars of a proposed military parade in Washington — down to the types of tanks that he wanted in the streets and the kind of aircraft he wanted to fly overhead.

The idea later shifted to become a Veterans Day-linked parade instead, before collapsing altogether last August as costs for the potential event ballooned. Trump blamed local officials in canceling the event.

Then, this past February, Trump announced on Twitter that Americans should “HOLD THE DATE!” on July 4 for a “Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!”

There have been no public announcements since then, but federal officials are working furiously to adjust plans for an event that has been largely unchanged for at least two decades.

It is unclear whether the changes to the Mall celebration will increase costs for taxpayers. Launching the fireworks last year cost roughly $250,000, a figure that does not include the cost of security, portable toilets and fencing. The D.C. official said the city would expect the federal government to pay for any new costs incurred by changes to the celebration.

In justifying Trump’s changes, Interior officials argued that moving the fireworks launching site from the north and south sides of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool — where it has been located for at least 18 years — to West Potomac Park will allow for more visitors. 

National Park Service spokesman Mike Litterst said the agency typically has to close an area around the Reflecting Pool for about 10 days before the event, cutting off access to one of the Mall’s most popular sites.

Bernhardt said that, by altering the launch site, “that’s going to be a significant expansion of space that’s available to watch the fireworks from the Mall.” 

“And we might even have some more surprises in store for the public, very very soon,” the secretary added.

Trump has sometimes featured fireworks at his political events, including at a campaign rally this week in Panama City, Fla. The Trump administration is also taking steps to expand fireworks celebrations elsewhere in the United States.

On Tuesday, Bernhardt and South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) announced that they had reached an agreement allowing the Park Service to resume launching fireworks at Mount Rushmore in 2020. That practice, which began in 1998, stopped in 2009 after Park Service officials determined that a pine beetle infestation had heightened the risk of a forest fire igniting in the area.

“I am pleased to inform you that THE BIG FIREWORKS, after many years of not having any, are coming back to beautiful Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Great work @GovKristiNoem and @SecBernhardt! #MAGA,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday.

Trump’s focus on Independence Day reflects a broader pattern of focusing on the details of projects important to him personally. He grew obsessed, for example, with the renovation of FBI headquarters in Washington, asking for building specs, floor plans and even furniture and carpet schemes, current and former aides said.

“He wanted to be the project manager,” said a former senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe Oval Office meetings. 

No president has participated in a Fourth of July celebration on the Mall in recent memory, usually celebrating instead at the White House. President Ronald Reagan participated in a “Star Spangled Salute to America” at the Jefferson Memorial on July 3, 1987, which showcased an economic announcement, but the regular fireworks celebration happened the next day as usual. 

Reagan’s unveiling of an “Economic Bill of Rights” took place at 10 a.m., with the vice president, secretary of state and other members of the administration in attendance. The official White House diary estimated the crowd size at 10,000, though Reagan said it was half that. He later said that he “didn’t remember ever being hotter than I was on that platform in the sun.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]