Trump 47: The Covidiot's Traveling Circus Is Back On The Road

[fraurosena]

This reporter is asking him difficult questions, and Trump flounders constantly trying to deflect from his inaction on the bounties on American soldiers. 

"It never reached my desk..."

His defense of Russia is nauseating.

"Russia wants nothing to do with Afghanistan. Russia used to be this thing called the Soviet Union, because of Afghanistan they went bankrupt and they became Russia, just so you do understand. OK?"

Edited July 29, 2020 by fraurosena

[WiseGirl]

"Trump undermines his pandemic response with more misinformation and self-obsession"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-response/index.html

[Becky]

1 hour ago, WiseGirl said:

"Trump undermines his pandemic response with more misinformation and self-obsession"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-response/index.html

Keep talking, Donnie, every word and action hammers home just how inept, insecure, weak, and uninformed you are.

The more he talks, the more likely he will lose the election (she said, hopefully).

[GreyhoundFan]

I would have taken away his keys a long, long time ago:

 

 

How true:

[47of74]

15 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Sorry, my friend. My bitterness over most national and statewide politicians only remembering that my region exists when they want money is flowing today. Lyin' Ted's on his second term now, and he still hasn't opened a single senate office west of I-35.

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Yeah I know how that is.  Pretty much everything in the eastern 1/3 of Iowa the government pretty much ignores since most of our major metropolitan areas are there and Vichy Iowa hates the cities.  

[fraurosena]

That would be Rupert Murdoch, sweetie. 

Also note how Trump thinks that being on AirForce One is a good excuse to watch tv.

Edited July 29, 2020 by fraurosena

[clueliss]

I give - why are we going to bring 12k troops back from Germany?

 

[fraurosena]

2 minutes ago, clueliss said:

I give - why are we going to bring 12k troops back from Germany?

 

@clueliss, the answer to that is incredibly easy: Because it plays right into Russia's hands. Pulling away American troops from Germany weakens Europe's defences. Putin is staging a lot of military exercises right now on (and even over) the border with Ukraine, which is clearly meant to intimidate Europe. All of this is part of his plan to recreate the (perceived) might of the former USSR, a wet dream of his for decades.

[WiseGirl]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Three big takeaways from Trump’s awful new admission about Putin"

Spoiler

President Trump just admitted in a new interview that during his recent conversation with Vladimir Putin, he didn’t ask the Russian leader about the news that Russia might have paid bounties to Taliban-linked militias for the killing of U.S. troops.

Because Trump is often so unabashedly shameless about his corrupt motives and his prioritizing of his own interests above all else, his efforts to justify his conduct frequently end up incriminating him further. That’s the case here as well — in a particularly troubling way.

Asked by Axios’s Jonathan Swan if he brought up this issue in his July 23 call with Putin, Trump blithely said he had not.

“No, that was a phone call to discuss other things,” Trump replied. “And frankly, that’s an issue that many people said was fake news.” Trump further confirmed: “I have never discussed it with him."

Things only got worse from there. Three big takeaways:

Trump accidentally revealed his own dereliction in a new way. Note this exchange:

TRUMP: It never reached my desk. You know why? Because they didn’t think — intelligence — they didn’t think it was real.

SWAN: It was in your written brief.

TRUMP: They didn’t think it was worthy. If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it. It never reached my desk, because —

SWAN: Do you read your written brief?

TRUMP: I do.

Trump, perhaps sensing his audience might crave some comic relief at this point, then claimed to have more penetrating reading comprehension than anyone Swan has interviewed. But that aside, this is an important concession, because intelligence on the bounties actually did reach Trump’s desk.

Intelligence officials provided Trump a written briefing on this in February. As the New York Times explained, it detailed the conclusion that a “Russian military intelligence unit offered and paid bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.”

It’s important to note that there has been a genuine dispute about the real significance of this intelligence. And there is still a great deal we don’t know about this story.

But the very fact that the intelligence was presented to Trump — as well as the fact that its significance is in dispute — should itself have prompted action. As one former briefer of presidents puts it, “the nature of intelligence” is “inherently dealing with uncertainty.”

Indeed, intelligence officials sometimes determine that the president needs to know about intelligence even if its meaning is in dispute. The whole point of presenting it is to alert the president to something that warrants more attention and investigation. That’s what happened here.

Trump just unwittingly admitted to this. If the intel reached his desk, he said, it would have been important to deal with it. He’s right about this, but that’s why it was presented to him — it required presidential attention. Even some Republicans have admitted this intelligence warrants more scrutiny.

Trump almost certainly didn’t read this briefing, of course. But this has now been widely discussed for weeks, yet Trump still didn’t bring it up with Putin, again revealing his continuing disinterest in getting to the bottom of what actually happened. That’s the opposite of exonerating.

Trump’s personal and political interests are aligned with Russia’s. Michael Carpenter, a former adviser to Joe Biden, has argued that these bounties could represent an escalation of broader covert Russian warfare on western democracies, which also includes disinformation warfare designed to destabilize elections.

Whatever the truth of that, we know that Trump does not want to get to the bottom of it. Why?

Remember that last week, Trump’s own intelligence officials revealed that Russia is continuing to interfere in our elections. Crucial to this, they said, is Russia’s current use of “disinformation” to “undermine confidence in our democratic process,” also a key reason for Russia’s 2016 electoral subversion. But their warning was maddeningly vague.

Trump, too, is wielding disinformation to undermine confidence in our democratic outcomes, spreading the lie that vote-by-mail will “rig” the election, delegitimizing a losing result in advance. He plainly sees Russia-stoked chaos as good for him, and has even openly invited outside interference on his behalf.

In the electoral context, Trump is perfectly fine with Russia attacking U.S. democracy if it benefits him. This is of course not to say Trump is fine with Russian bounties on U.S. troops. He very well might sincerely believe it isn’t happening.

Rather, the point is that Trump has reasons for generally not wanting to probe too deeply into stories that might expose Russian intentions toward the U.S. in a particularly malign light when he may be hoping to gain from more Russian undermining of U.S. democracy. Those reasons prioritize self-interest over the national interest. That’s key context for explaining his sheer disinterest in getting to the bottom of the bounties.

Trump’s excuses reveal a twisted worldview. Swan noted that John Nicholson, the former top commander in Afghanistan, has also said Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban, then asked Trump if this alone warranted challenging Putin over the bounties.

Trump brushed off the question, saying the U.S. similarly armed groups during Russia’s Afghanistan war: “We did that too.”

This has been a pattern. Asked if the Saudis should be held accountable for the butchery of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Trump said that “maybe the world should be held accountable” because it’s a “very vicious place.”

And when an interviewer told Trump that Putin is “a killer,” Trump replied: “There are a lot of killers. You think our country is so innocent?”

Yes, of course the United States has its own horrifying history and the world is full of viciousness. But Trump’s real point is not to seriously lament these things. It’s that accountability and a better world are not ideals we should strive for, particularly when it means operating against his own perceived interests.

This is especially the case, apparently, when it comes to Putin — and of course Trump himself.

 

[Audrey2]

6 hours ago, fraurosena said:

That would be Rupert Murdoch, sweetie. 

Also note how Trump thinks that being on AirForce One is a good excuse to watch tv.

What else is he supposed to do? Read?

[WiseGirl]

 

[fraurosena]

4 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

 

Well that’s nice. A repug attempting to save his own political life by publicly saying he disagrees with Trump on an issue. Whoop-dee-doo.

He’s not doing anything to halt the withdrawal. So it’s just words blowing away in the wind. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Gee, what a surprise. Twitler wants to postpone the election.

 

More:

 

[Ali]

18 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Gee, what a surprise. Twitler wants to postpone the election.

 

More:

 

I am sure all the people who claimed Obama was going to cancel the election and make himself king will stop worshipping Trump and call him on this.

[GreyhoundFan]

I called my congressman's office to express outrage about the latest crap and he's already responded publicly:

Off to call my senators' offices...

[fraurosena]

Trump's cries about postponing the elections could have some ominous reasons. This article from May 19 has a paragraph that shows why:

Quote

 

A Worst-case Scenario

[...] "The president doesn't have any power to postpone the Election Day on his own," Pildes says. "You can never anticipate what kind of argument people might decide to make when it's in their interest to make the argument. But I'm sure that this is a no-brainer in terms of any legal advice the president would get. The president would be told, 'You don't have the power to do that.'"

What happens if a law is enacted to delay the election — again, not easy — but it doesn't happen before the president's term expires? The president's term, by law, still ends Jan. 20. If states can't deliver a verdict from their Electoral College reps (they do the actual voting for the president) in time, the whole mess falls into the lap of the Congress. In that scenario, the House is supposed to pick the new president and the Senate the VP.

[So far, so good, you might think. But...]

Another wrinkle: If a national election is postponed beyond a certain point, there won't be a House, either. (All Representatives, remember, have to be elected every two years. No election, no House.) In that case, it falls to the Senate to pick the president because the Senate is a "continuing body;" two-thirds of its members are always sitting, with staggered elections only every six years. If none of that works, the selection of the president reverts to the rules of succession: the Speaker of the House (if there is one) will act as president and, if not him (or her), the Senate's President pro tempore assumes the acting gig. This has never happened.

 

If the Senate's President pro tempore is appointed according to custom, that would mean Chuck Grassley. 

Rufus forbid.

[mamallama]

Here's a question:  Are the elections for Representatives controlled by the states or the feds.  If it's by the states and individual states can hold elections for representatives then the House would be almost all Democrats.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting point about diversion:

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I called my congressman's office to express outrage about the latest crap and he's already responded publicly:

Off to call my senators' offices...

I need to put in a phone call to Jamie (dreamy) Raskin

[GreyhoundFan]

30 minutes ago, mamallama said:

Here's a question:  Are the elections for Representatives controlled by the states or the feds.  If it's by the states and individual states can hold elections for representatives then the House would be almost all Democrats.

The WaPo answers this.

Quote

President Trump on Thursday raised the prospect of delaying the November election while making unsubstantiated claims that mail-in voting will lead to fraud.

There has been no evidence to back up Trump’s repeated claims about fraud in mail-in voting.

Trump has previously denied that he wanted to move the November election. In April, responding to Democratic rival Joe Biden’s suggestion that he would try to change the date, Trump said, “I never even thought of changing the date of the election. Why would I do that? November 3rd. It’s a good number. No, I look forward to that election and that was just made up propaganda.”

Even if he wanted to, though, the president has no power over when the United States holds federal elections.

If not the president, then who does?

Congress. Unlike some constitutional language that can be widely interpreted, the founders were unambiguous about how Election Day would be chosen: Congress is charged with choosing the date, and that date must be the same for the entire country.

Congress chose a date, the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in 1845, and it has never been changed.

But what about in an emergency like the one we’re in?

Even in an emergency, such as a global pandemic, the president can’t circumvent Congress and postpone or cancel the general election. And it’s extremely unlikely Congress would move it.

“In an emergency, the president is able to do a lot of things he normally could not do, but only because he has been designated these powers by Congress in laws such as the National Emergencies Act,” said Sylvia Albert, director of voting and elections at Common Cause, a nonprofit group that advocates for eased ballot access. “But in this case, the Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to select Election Day. No laws passed by Congress have delegated these powers to the president, even in an emergency, so Congress is the only entity that has the power to change the date of the election.”

But haven’t lots of states changed primary election dates?

This is different from primary election dates, which are set by states governed by different rules. For general elections for federal offices, states are bound by federal law. Any effort by a state to unilaterally move or cancel the November election would be unlawful, and any results of a future election would be invalid, said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, professor at Harvard Law School.

Really, there’s nothing he could do?

Well, a president could try to lobby Congress to change the date. In a hypothetical scenario in which Trump wanted the election moved, he could publicly advocate for it and persuade Republicans to agree, but both chambers of Congress would need to vote to change the date. Even if Trump got his party behind him, the House is controlled by the Democrats, who would be unlikely to take the unprecedented step of postponing the general election at Trump’s behest.

Is there anything else the president could do to affect Election Day?

Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science for the University of California at Irvine’s law school, said there are other ways that the president could change how the election works without actually moving the date.

If the coronavirus is still a factor in the fall, Trump could claim emergency powers to keep people in cities where outbreaks have been worse from going to polling places in person, in the name of public health, Hasen said. That could depress turnout in the heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote Democratic.

Former vice president Joe Biden, Trump’s presumptive challenger this fall, in April warned supporters that Trump may try to move the election and also mentioned his moves to put conditions on a loan for the U.S. Postal Service, which is struggling amid the coronavirus crisis. Biden claimed Trump was trying to make it harder for people to vote by mail, which he has attacked before. “That’s the only way he thinks he can possibly win,” Biden said.

Election officials in both parties, as well as many Democrats, are trying to expand vote-by-mail in response to growing concerns that voters won’t be comfortable going to polling places this fall because of the coronavirus. Many Republicans, including Trump, have rejected these efforts.

Hasen said the president could also lean on state legislatures to take voting for president away from citizens entirely in the name of public safety. The members of the electoral college who officially choose the president do not need to be chosen by the voting public. Instead, the state legislatures could select the presidential electors as they did in the early days of our republic.

This would be problematic for Democrats, Hasen said, if Republican-held legislatures in swing states went that path.

But it’s not that likely.

“That would be constitutional,” Hasen said, “but I believe it would provoke massive social unrest.”

 

[Audrey2]

I would absolutely love to see more States adopt the vote-by-mail that Oregon does. I know someone mentioned on either this thread or another one that because the post office is slowing down mail delivery they're very concerned about ballots getting returned and counted by election day. In Oregon since it's all vote-by-mail, you have the choice between mailing in your ballot and taking it to one of the ballot drop-off places. Most public libraries are drop-off places and except for one county library seem to be pretty prevalent. I'm thinking there are other places too that you can drop off ballots. I'm not sure about the other states, if you have to return the ballots by mail or if they also have drop off points. When I lived in Oregon I used the local library to drop my ballot off (it was a sealed box outside of the library so you didn't just have to go during library hours and it was secure) just so I wouldn't have to worry about it possibly being lost in the mail.

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus.

From the article:

Quote

 

President Trump called Sen. James Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma, on Wednesday night for a conversation that Mr. Inhofe put on speakerphone to hear better as he sat in a Washington restaurant. [..]

The conversation, overheard and recorded by someone in the room, ranged from a discussion about Anthony Tata, the retired Army brigadier general whose nomination for a top Pentagon policy position has become complicated, to Mr. Trump's desire to preserve the name of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, on a military base. 

"We're gonna keep the name of Robert E. Lee?" Mr. Trump asked Mr. Inhofe, 85, who sat at Trattoria Alberto, a Capitol Hill Italian restaurant that is a favourite haunt of Washintong Republicans, as he took the call. Mr. Inhofe put the phone to his ear but put Mr. Trump on speakerphone, and the president's voice was audible by people sitting at other tables.

Mr. Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, replied, "just trust me, I'll make it happen."

Mr. Trump went on, "I had about 95,000 positive retweets on that. That's a lot," appearing to refer to a Twitter post last Friday in which he said that Mr. Inhofe had assured him that he won't change the names of "military forts and bases" and that the senator "is not a believer in 'Cancel Culture'."

 

 

[fraurosena]