Trump 41: Waiting For My Impeachment

[GreyhoundFan]

I love Jack Ohman:

 

[47of74]

George Conway raised an interesting point yesterday;

Quote

Outspoken Trump critic George Conway on Sunday said the president “would have been fired from any other job by now,” for “self-defeating behavior” after he celebrated then defended a deal his administration forged with Mexico to avoid tariffs he threatened to impose in retaliation to illegal immigration.

“I know it is not at all ‘Presidential’ to hit back at the Corrupt Media, or people who work for the Corrupt Media, when they make false statements about me or the Trump Administration,” the president tweeted Saturday, a day after he announced the deal with Mexico, aspects of which the New York Times reported were already agreed upon months before the president’s tariff threat.

“You’re not ‘presidential’ at all, period,” Conway, who has fiercely advocated for Trump’s resignation and called the president's mental fitness into question, responded Sunday via Twitter after the president lambasted media reports that devalued his deal.

“You’re mentally unwell,” Conway wrote. “You engage in bizarre, irrational, self-defeating behavior, which prompts criticism of you, which triggers more bizarre, irrational, self-defeating behavior. You would have been fired from any other job by now.”

I thought about that this morning - before I saw this story - when I went out for a quick bike ride how if fuck head was the President of just about any private company he would have been more or less gracefully shown the door by now.    Hell if he was an ordinary private citizen he would probably have been put in a memory care unit by now.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s latest rage-threat gives Democrats a big opening. One just took it."

Spoiler

President Trump has spent the last half day frantically retweeting his propagandists, who are pushing the absurd deception that Trump’s new deal with Mexico is a massive and historic victory. In reality, the agreement — which averts Trump’s threatened tariffs — consisted mostly of things Mexico already agreed to months ago.

Trump is in a rage over this — he repeatedly fumed at the New York Times for reporting it — and now he’s amplifying the notion that he won enormous concessions from Mexico by claiming that Mexico has secretly agreed to another major provision that will be revealed at some unspecified future time.

This has come packaged with a threat: Trump just tweeted that if Mexico does not soon take formal steps to ratify that secret provision, “Tariffs will be reinstated!”

But this threat gives Democrats a big opening to grab control of this debate — both on the immigration and trade fronts, because this story intertwines the two, and more broadly to better engage with the colossal failures of Trump’s nationalism.

The two main provisions of the deal that Trump reached with Mexico are an expansion of a program in which asylum seekers trying to enter the United States wait in Mexico; and increased deployment of Mexico’s national guard to disrupt smuggling networks and try to stop migrants from Central America from reaching the southern border.

Those could have some impact on flows. But critics are understandably skeptical that they will put much of a dent in the larger asylum problem, which is driven by a combination of root causes in home countries and resource shortages to process claims and handle what has become a new kind of humanitarian challenge.

Regardless, the Times reports that Mexico already agreed months ago to both major provisions. While it’s possible that the threat of tariffs accelerated their implementation, Trump’s handling of this affair raises serious questions about whether he rattled diplomatic relations and supply-chain arrangements for no good reason, and by extension, about our reliability as a trading partner.

As for the secret provision Mexico supposedly agreed to, the White House has mysteriously declined to clarify. It could be negotiations over a “safe third country” treaty, which would mean enormous numbers of migrants waiting in Mexico, with uncertain humanitarian outcomes — but officials on both sides say no such agreement was reached.

Either way, now the threat of tariffs is back, which should only magnify the concerns that they sparked in the first place.

Beto O’Rourke’s good answer

Asked on ABC’s “This Week” to comment on Trump’s Mexico mess, former Texas congressman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke offered an answer that’s worth watching in full:

Note that O’Rourke used this situation as a window into a much broader indictment of Trump’s nationalist agenda. He stressed that the threat of tariffs against Mexico is only serving to “jeopardize” our “most important trading relationship”; that this places at risk markets that our farmers have cultivated; and that they are already taking a beating from Trump’s trade wars with China.

Importantly, O’Rourke made the case that precisely the opposite approach — strengthened, reality-based international integration — is the answer both on trade and on immigration. O’Rourke called for trade arrangements in farmers’ and workers’ interests and for increased investments in Central America “to ensure that no family has to make that 2,000-mile journey.”

A better Democratic response

This hints at the outlines of a better Democratic response to Trumpian nationalism in 2020. Trump’s trade war with China is dragging on and harming his own constituencies. This, combined with the chaos attending the threats against Mexico, gives Democrats a good argument: that in practice, Trump’s nationalism is reckless, often driven by impulse and rage, and out of sync with the complex realities of international diplomacy and the global economy.

As Neil Irwin argues, Democrats can pledge to move away from two-country tariff wars and instead toward mobilizing an international response with allies against China’s trade abuses. Similarly, Democrats can argue for renegotiated trade deals that raise wage, labor and environmental standards, with the goal of helping U.S. workers via a sensible internationalism in contrast to Trump’s erratic nationalism.

Joe Biden has already started road-testing such an argument. And O’Rourke’s new comments move in this direction as well.

Indeed, the way O’Rourke wove in his arguments on immigration also underscores the point. Democrats can argue for improved regional cooperation on the asylum crisis, including investments in Central America and policies to encourage in-country application for asylum to reduce the impetus to such migrations. They can combine this with a refusal to back off our international humanitarian commitments, as O’Rourke gave voice to, while reminding everyone of Trump’s horrific family separations.

This again would contrast with the recklessness and impulsiveness of Trump’s nationalism, which has led Trump to cut off aid to Northern Triangle countries and try to dissuade migrations with ever-mounting cruelties and “toughness,” an approach that’s largely failing.

One can see such a Democratic argument appealing to both working people (who might have once thrilled to Trump’s anti-China bluster, but are taking hits from Trump’s trade wars and are uncomfortable with Trump’s more grisly immigration horrors) and to college-educated whites who are already alienated by the hideous realities of America First-ism — and are likely comfortable with internationalist solutions on both issues.

Now that Trump has once again threatened Mexico with more tariffs, Democrats have a new opening to press this case more comprehensively.

 

[47of74]

Fuck face had some <sarcasm> words of wisdom </sarcasm> about vets taking their own lives.

Quote

Speaking at a Monday conference for U.S. military veterans in Virginia, Donald Trump suggested those who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder when they return from war are not as “strong” as those who are able to “handle it.”

“When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over — and you’re strong and you can handle it — but a lot of people can’t handle it,” the Republican nominee said while taking questions at the Retired American Warriors event in Herndon, Va.

“And they see horror stories. They see events that you couldn’t see in a movie; nobody would believe it,” he continued.

His comments were widely criticized on social media, where users panned the notion that “strong” people can simply overcome PTSD.

Donald, do the world a favor.  SHUT THE FUCK UP! 

?

[AmazonGrace]

He said the same thing before, he was criticized the same way, and he learned nothing

[47of74]

Both Fuck Head and Joe Biden will be visiting Iowa in a few days

Quote

The president's first stop is at an ethanol plant in Council Bluffs where experts say he is likely to discuss his support of a new E-15 gasoline rule for ethanol.

He’ll then attend the Republican Party of Iowa's “America First” Dinner in West Des Moines, starting at 5 p.m.

Biden has three community events on his schedule in the state on Tuesday. First, he will stop at the Bridge View Center in Ottumwa at 12:00 p.m.

He then heads to the Howe Student Activity Center at Iowa Wesleyan University in Mount Pleasant at 2:45 p.m. His last stop is in Davenport at the Mississippi Valley Fairground at 6:00 p.m.

As for Fuck Head....gah we'll be able to smell the shit from here in eastern Iowa.

Edited June 11, 2019 by 47of74

[fraurosena]

Well, that's because he's a lying liar that lies. 

While Trump touts illusory deal, Mexico tells inconvenient truths

Quote

Since Friday afternoon, Donald Trump has made three related boasts about his policy toward Mexico. The first is that the president successfully forced our neighbors to impose dramatic new curbs on immigrants, thanks entirely to his tariffs threat. The second is that Mexico “agreed to immediately begin buying large quantities of agricultural product” from American farmers.

And the third is that the bilateral agreement includes secret benefits that Trump isn’t yet prepared to divulge to the public.

It quickly became obvious that the first claim is wrong, because the steps Mexico is taking were agreed to months ago. The second claim was also quickly debunked on a variety of levels, including the fact that there’s nothing in the agreement about agricultural purchases.

As for the Republican’s assurances about secret elements of the agreement, it wasn’t long before Mexican officials conceded they haven’t the foggiest idea what Trump was talking about.

The Mexican foreign minister said Monday that no secret immigration deal existed between his country and the United States, directly contradicting President Trump’s claim on Twitter that a “fully signed and documented” agreement would soon be revealed.

Speaking with reporters, Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard held up a copy of the signed agreement and pointed to its provisions. Debunking the American president’s odd rhetoric, Ebrard said, “There is no other thing beyond what I have just explained.”

For good measure, the Mexican leader also made clear that Trump’s claim about “buying large quantities of agricultural product” is also untrue.

A reporter asked Trump yesterday why Mexico is denying the existence of a secret deal, if that side deal is real.

“I don’t think they’ll be denying it very long,” he replied.

It’s a curious posture: Trump, whose strained relationship with reality is well documented, insists the secret deal is real, but he can’t tell us what’s in it, when he’ll talk about it, or why the other party in the purported deal seems wholly unaware of it.

Last week, Trump made up a quote from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who soon after made clear that he never said what Trump claimed he said. The incident served as a reminder of a rule the American president occasionally forgets: if he’s going to lie, he should avoid falsehoods that real people can easily discredit.

The Mexico “deal” offers notes in the same key: if Trump is going to make up details about a bilateral agreement, he really ought to avoid inventions that the other country can disprove.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Will he be calling Russian state tv fake news now?

 

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Um, what is with Mrs. Macron's super-wide stance? 

[GreyhoundFan]

Apparently Dumpy called CNBC yesterday morning and was his normal idiot self. I love Stephen Colbert's take on it:

 

[47of74]

Fucking traitor

Quote

President Trump promised he wouldn’t allow the CIA to use spies against North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un after reports surfaced that Kim’s half brother had been a U.S. intelligence asset before he was assassinated in Malaysia.

Kim Jong Nam was killed in February 2017 — allegedly while he was en route to meet a CIA contact — by two women who sprayed a nerve agent in his face. U.S. officials quickly placed the blame for the killing on North Korea.

Trump, speaking to reporters on the White House lawn Tuesday before leaving on a campaign trip to Iowa, was asked about Kim Jong Nam’s spying, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

“I don’t know, I have not heard about that,” the president said, before contradicting himself and assuring Kim Jong Un that his administration wouldn’t do anything so underhanded.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"A Post photographer snapped an image of Trump’s alleged secret Mexico deal. Here’s what it says."

Spoiler

President Trump has claimed for two days that he secured a secret immigration deal with Mexico — beyond the one announced Friday. But the White House has declined to disclose any details, and Mexico has denied it. Confronted with understandable skepticism that such a deal exists, Trump produced a folded piece of paper from his breast pocket Tuesday.

And a particularly good photographer, The Post’s Jabin Botsford, snapped an image that reveals some of the document’s contents. That image allows us to glean some clues.

Here’s the image, which Botsford helpfully flipped for readability:

This appears to show the middle portion of the document. Another image from White House Watch shows what appears to be a preceding portion, along with what follows the signatures at the end.

Below I’ve combined what we can see in the two photos to reconstruct the document. Where I’m inferring some letters, I’ll put it in brackets:

[UNREADABLE] such agreement would [UNREADABLE] party’s domestic and international legal obligations, a commitment under which each party would accept the return, and process refugee status claims, of third-party nationals who have crossed that party’s territory [UNREADABLE] other party. The parties further intend [UNREADABLE] an agreem[ent] [UNREADABLE] to burden-sharing in relation to the processing of refuge[es] [UNREADABLE].

Mexico also commits to immediate[ly] [UNREADABLE] domestic laws and regulations with a view to identifying any changes that [UNREADABLE] to bring into force and implement such an agreement.

If the United States determines, at its discretion and after consultation with Mexico, after 45 calendar days from the date of the issuance of the Join Declaration, that the measures adopted by the Government of Mexico pursuant to the Joint Declaration have not sufficiently achieved results in addressing the flow of migrants to the southern border of the United States, the Government of Mexico will take all necessary steps under the domestic law to bring the agreement into force with a view to ensuring that the agreement will enter into force within 45 days.

 

Signed on this 7th of June, 2019 in Washington, D.C. by:

[SIGNATURE 1] [SIGNATURE 2]

On behalf of the United States On behalf of Mexico

A few observations:

1) The first question is obviously whether the document is legitimate. It is signed by two people, that we can see, but neither of these signatures are from the countries’ respective presidents, top diplomats or ambassadors to the other country. They appear to belong to Marik A. String, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, and Alejandro Celorio Alcantara, a deputy legal adviser in Mexico’s foreign ministry.

2) The document clearly deals with some kind of “burden-sharing” involving “refugees.” The prevailing wisdom is that Trump may have been referring to some kind of deal involving asylum rules, possibly a “safe third country agreement” in which Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States would be held in Mexico while their claims are processed. (This is a controversial topic in Mexico, and the Mexican government has denied any such agreement). That appears to be what this document deals with. We don’t generally refer to asylum seekers as “refugees,” but the concept is similar. The part about how “each party would accept the return, and process refugee status claims, of third-party nationals who have crossed that party’s territory” sounds a lot like some kind of “safe third” agreement.

3) It’s not clear from the text what the agreement might entail beyond that — or if all the details have even been sorted out. The second paragraph sounds like standard language indicating Mexico must determine what laws or regulations must be changed. The third paragraph suggests this is something the United States can trigger after 45 days, and that it would be up to the Mexican government to put it into effect in the next 45 days. This all tracks with Trump’s tweet suggesting the Mexican legislature would need to be consulted, which would make sense if this has to do with asylum rules.

4) The big question is what’s in the part above what we can see and how much force it carries. It seems unlikely, given there is only one-third of a sheet of paper above that first visible paragraph, that there are extensive guidelines for what the deal entails. The lack of signatures from heads of state is also curious, given the gravity of the topic. But there appears to be enough of an agreement that Mexico would immediately be put in the position of trying to implement it -- subject, importantly, to “domestic and international legal obligations” -- rather than engage in further negotiations.

Update: Mexico has now responded to the document, indicating there is some kind of agreement about what might be triggered in the future.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard held a press conference in which he said that the Friday agreement with the U.S. gave Mexico 45 days to prove that it could diminish migration without agreeing to “safe third" deal.

He acknowledged that in 45 days, if the U.S. does not assess that progress has been made, the Trump administration will likely ask again for a “safe third” agreement. But he said Mexico has not committed to that agreement, which would have to be approved by lawmakers and likely negotiated with other countries in the region.

“It would be applied if we fail, and if we accept what they tell us,” Ebrard said.

Ebrard said that Vice President Pence explained in their meeting last week that a “safe third” agreement, like the one between Turkey and the European Union, would have an “immediate impact on migration.”

During much of the negotiations, Ebrard said, “it seemed like it was third safe country agreement or tariffs.”

Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, a lawyer with the foreign ministry, said at the press conference that if Mexico needed to continue negotiations in 45 days, it would at least have time to come up with variations on a “safe third” agreement, which it did not have last week.

“Now we have time to prepare more, to present them with better options,” Alcántara said.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This made me laugh:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This will cause a major meltdown by the tangerine toddler: "Protesters want to fly ‘Baby Trump’ balloon during the president’s Fourth of July address in Washington"

Spoiler

When President Trump ascends the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to address the nation on Independence Day, a group of activists want him to see the scowling, splotchy face of a giant orange baby floating above the crowd.

The blimp known as “Baby Trump,” which has appeared at protests during the president’s visits to London, might be on its way to Washington for the July 4 festivities.

On Monday, activist group Code Pink became the first organization to request a protest permit from the National Park Service ahead of Trump’s planned overhaul of the city’s premier Fourth of July celebration. But organizers hope the screaming-baby balloon will be a sign of what’s to come that day: protests, and more of them.

The day will be busy as it is. More than a dozen other groups and individuals have requested space on the Mall that day — for activities that include making cards for troops, leading group meditations, selling books of poetry and preaching. They will join hundreds of thousands of Americans who annually head to the Mall to watch the fireworks.

District officials have expressed concern over how the president’s presence might affect visitors and the typically nonpartisan tenor of the celebration.

“It’s about the worst holiday he could have chosen,” D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) has said. “You never want to make events like this around a single person. This is the difference between the Soviet Union — the old Soviet Union — and the United States. Cults of personality are not how we operate in this country.”

Code Pink organizers said the decision to import the blimp originated around the time Trump announced he would hold a military parade in Washington last year. The parade was canceled amid questions about its impact and price tag, estimated to cost as much as $92 million.

Through online fundraising efforts that began in July 2018, Code Pink raised more than $10,000 to bring “Baby Trump” to the District.

“We’ve just switched our plans from the military parade to the Fourth of July,” Code Pink co-director Ariel Gold said. “We’re appalled that Trump is taking that day to spew his hateful and racist rhetoric . . . and we really hope this gets canceled, too.”

Code Pink is asking to fly “Baby Trump” over “any open grassy area nearest to [the] Lincoln Memorial,” according to a permit application filed with the Park Service. The group said it expects about 40 people — including its setup and teardown crews — to attend its protest.

The Park Service has permitted a protest-by-balloon before: In 2017, an inflatable 30-foot-tall chicken with a golden head of coifed hair meant to look like Trump’s was displayed on the Ellipse south of the White House.

No other protest organizers have requested a permit from the Park Service for July 4. Such requests are handled on a first-come, first-serve basis, Park Service spokesman Mike Litterst said.

The U.S. Secret Service has not released details about the timing and duration of the president’s speech.

The White House declined to comment about the blimp or the day’s activities on the Mall.

Trump announced his plans to speak July 4 in a February tweet promising one of the biggest gatherings in Washington history, with a “major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me.”

The Washington Post reported last month that the president was deeply involved in organizing changes to the annual event, which draws large crowds to the Mall each year.

Calling the program “A Salute to America,” Trump plans to address the nation from the Lincoln Memorial and move the fireworks to West Potomac Park. Federal agencies, including the Park Service and U.S. Park Police, have said they are working with the White House to determine the logistics of the day.

Litterst likened piecing the day’s events together to playing a giant game of Tetris.

“As long as everyone’s flexible, we do our best to accommodate the requests we get,” he said.

This month, House Democratic leaders — including Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) — wrote a letter to Trump, decrying his decision to place himself at the center of the July 4 festivities as something that “could create the appearance of a televised, partisan campaign rally on the Mall at public expense.”

Code Pink’s primary goal, Gold said, is to fly the “Baby Trump” balloon close to where the president will speak.

“We see it as an image of Trump’s behavior, which is, as we all know, unpredictable and prone to tantrums about things that are really, really dangerous,” she said. “It’s a way of saying, we really need an adult in the White House.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is sickening: "Trump praises Kim Jong Un, saying he received a ‘beautiful’ letter from him"

Spoiler

President Trump said he received a “beautiful letter” from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a note he said portended progress for his administration’s stalled denuclearization talks with the rogue regime.

Trump, speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday, said Kim’s letter came Monday.

“I can’t show you the letter obviously, but it was a very personal, very warm, very nice letter,” Trump said. “North Korea has tremendous potential, and he’ll be there. Under his leadership . . . And the one that feels that more than anybody is [Kim]. He gets it. He totally gets it.”

Following Trump’s summit with Kim in Vietnam that concluded in February without an agreement, North Korea has launched short-range missiles and halted negotiations with U.S. diplomats. The regime has demanded that the United States drop its refusal to loosen sanctions until North Korea fully denuclearizes.

But Trump touted the letter as a sign that the talks were on track. “I think that something will happen that’s going to be very positive,” he said Tuesday.

Pete Buttigieg, one of Trump’s would-be opponents in the 2020 presidential campaign had a prescient moment Tuesday when he told a crowd an hour before Trump spoke: “You will not see me exchanging love letters on White House letterhead with a brutal dictator who starves and murders his own people.”

Trump also claimed that remains of U.S. soldiers “keep coming back,” but in reality, the Pentagon has suspended its efforts to recover those bodies.

The U.S. military said it has been unable to reach North Korean officials to discuss issues related to the recovery of the remains.

“We have reached the point where we can no longer effectively plan, coordinate, and conduct field operations in the DPRK during this fiscal year, which ends on September 30, 2019,” said the Defense Department agency in charge of recovering the remains.

Trump was also asked about the news that Kim’s assassinated half brother was a CIA asset. The president said he’d tell Kim, “I wouldn’t let that happen under my auspices.”

It wasn’t immediately clear if Trump meant that Kim wouldn’t have killed his half brother under his tenure, or if Trump wouldn’t have allowed Kim’s half brother to become a CIA asset.

 

[fraurosena]

Trump just publicly admitted he will willingly and knowingly break the law in order to win the elections. 

He has this flagrant disregard for the democratic process because he knows he can (and will) get away with it. He’s not taking little steps towards autocracy anymore. He’s making giant leaps. He’s proudly flaunting it. And it’s absolutely frightening.

Edited June 13, 2019 by fraurosena

[fraurosena]

Rick Wilson has unleashed his anger and frustration:

 

[fraurosena]

Uhhh... 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course: "Trump shares mock-ups of a new Air Force One featuring colors remarkably similar to his private jet"

Spoiler

President Trump shared mock-ups of an Air Force One with a new paint scheme — featuring colors remarkably similar to those on his private jet — in a television interview broadcast Thursday as Democratic lawmakers moved to impede such a change.

“Take a look at this,” Trump said to ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos as he displayed some options for the makeover. “Here’s your new Air Force One.”

The mock-ups swap out the current sky blue and white for a color scheme that includes red, white and navy — in nearly identical shades that appear on the jet in which Trump used to fly around the country during his 2016 campaign.

The interview, conducted in the Oval Office, was broadcast a day after a House committee voted to require congressional approval for changes to the Air Force One paint scheme and interior design. It’s unclear whether the provision will remain in the bill by the time it gets to Trump’s desk.

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee voiced concerns about the potential cost of any changes and said they were hesitant to abandon a widely recognized design that emerged during the tenure of President John F. Kennedy.

Republicans said Democrats were taking a partisan shot at Trump.

A pair of heavily modified Boeing 747s that carry the moniker Air Force One when the president is on board have been in use since 1990. Trump negotiated a deal with Boeing for two new planes at a cost of $3.9 billion.

The Air Force has projected that the new planes will come online in 2024.

Trump shared his intention to change the color scheme in a July interview with CBS, in which he said the revamped aircraft would be “top of the line, the top in the world, and it’s going to be red, white and blue, which I think is appropriate.”

“I said, ‘I wonder if we should use the same baby blue colors.’ And we’re not,” Trump added.

He just has to pee all over everything.

[GreyhoundFan]

So he was contradicting himself and being stupid in the 80s as well.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

So he was contradicting himself and being stupid in the 80s as well.

My dear @GreyhoundFan, he was born this way.

By the way, Trump knows he really put his foot in it this time. Here's his attempt at rectifying, and of course making it the media's fault.

 

[fraurosena]

Aha, not only has the presidunce learned how to thread his tweets, he also has found out how to fix his laughable spelling mistakes. Luckily, we all know the internet is forever.

 

[AmazonGrace]

He met the Prince of Whales.

[47of74]

2 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

He met the Prince of Whales.

Donnie Dumbfuck is the Prince of Whales.  Orange, sluggish whales that don't know their asses from holes in the ground.