Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on November 09, 2016, 01:42:41 PM
-
The world retains its ability to surprise. Who would have thought we would ever have this thread? 8-) 8-) 8-)
a) Britt Hume commented last night that he was hearing that the Transition Team (Chris Christie et al) was doing an outstanding job.
b) Special Prosecutor for Hillary, Huma, et al? Or?
-
Can Obama pardon Clinton from the Clinton foundation investigation even though there is not indictment or conviction?
I would not be surprised if he does it.
Trump should not IMHO
-
A few ideas about who and what per USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/donald-trump-cabinet-white-house/93549214/
"Rudy Giuliani
The ex-New York City mayor became one of Trump's highest-profile surrogates. The former prosecutor could now be in line for attorney general.
Newt Gingrich
The ex-House speaker became a top adviser and television spokesperson for Trump during the campaign and was even among the real estate mogul's finalists for running mate. He is said to be interested in becoming secretary of State.
Bob Corker
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could also be a possibility to lead the State Department.
Ben Carson
A onetime Trump rival, Carson emerged as one of Trump's most steadfast surrogates. The renowned physician would be an obvious candidate to be surgeon general.
Mike Flynn
The retired general emerged as Trump's most visible military adviser. He could be in line for Defense secretary or some other national security position.
Jeff Sessions
During the primary campaign, Sessions became the first sitting member of the U.S. Senate to endorse Trump's campaign. Now, the Alabama senator could be another possibility to lead the Pentagon.
Reince Priebus
The chairman of the Republican National Committee — which ran the Trump campaign's get-out-the-vote operation — could wind up as Trump's White House chief of staff.
Steve Mnuchin
Trump's finance chairman, formerly of Goldman Sachs, is in line to possibly become Treasury secretary.
Chris Christie
Though shadowed by the recent Bridgegate trial, the New Jersey governor has been a fixture at Trump's side since endorsing him in February and will likely have his eye on a spot in the new administration at the Justice Department or in the White House.
Steve Bannon
The Breitbart News executive became Trump's campaign CEO in August. He could be in line for a spot as a White House adviser.
Mike Pence
While his job is already known — vice president — the Indiana governor and former congressman is expected to play a large role in the Trump administration as a partner to the new president, who lacks any experience serving in government."
Dislike not seeing Trey Gowdy in there, or Chaffetz for that matter. I'm not familiar if USA Today has any particulr leaning politically which might motivate their picks.
I also heavily dislike seeing Reince Priebus there at all, but that's just me.
Edit: Just to back up the cabinet positions, WAPO also makes some of the same observations:
"Rudy Giuliani, Kellyanne Conway, Newt Gingrich, Reince Priebus, Corey Lewandowski, Ben Carson."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/09/are-rudy-reince-newt-the-new-members-of-a-trump-cabinet/
-
Can Obama pardon Clinton from the Clinton foundation investigation even though there is not indictment or conviction?
I would not be surprised if he does it.
Trump should not IMHO
If he makes sure that she's indicted before he leaves, he most definitely can. All he has to do is pick up the phone and call Lynch, and you can bet that discussion has already taken place.
I'm wondering if I feel strongly enough about her being pardoned to offer wagers. I'm feeling confident.
Edit: Afterthought.... If Obama does decide to get Lynch to press charges, he needs to be careful, because it may lead investigators to the trail, that leads to Obama.
I don't think a president can pardon himself.
-
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/trump-team-begins-making-list-of-executive-orders-to-erase-obamas-presidency-on-day-one/
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/16/this-chart-shows-how-trumps-penny-plan-would-add-up-to-huge-budget-cuts/
Cut one cent out of each dollar each year in all programs other than Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/16/this-chart-shows-how-trumps-penny-plan-would-add-up-to-huge-budget-cuts/
-
Our best trade partner is ready to talk.
Canada open to renegotiating free trade with Trump
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION_WORLD_REACTION_US_CANADA?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-11-09-17-02-46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa May has led UK political congratulations for Donald Trump after his US election victory.
The PM said Britain and the US had an "enduring and special relationship" and would remain close partners on trade, security and defence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37921086
Britain post-Brexit needs trade deals. Pres. O told them to go to the back of the line.
-
The new White House will be renamed the "Trump" House and have his name in giant letters on all four walls.
I think Donald should reciprocate and invite Obama to the next Correspondents dinner as a front row guest!
http://www.breitbart.com/live/2016-election-world-reacts-donald-trumps-stunning-upset-victory/obama-congratulates-donald-trump-invites-white-house-meeting/
-
Good call!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-cabinet.html?emc=edit_na_20161111&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
Good call!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-cabinet.html?emc=edit_na_20161111&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
With Christie's legal problems still looming, I'm surprised Trump hasn't distanced himself from Christie completely. There still may be fallout from this that could cause a Trump administration problems.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/06/bridgegate-christie-team/93403850/
-
Good call!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-cabinet.html?emc=edit_na_20161111&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
I think this was the rarest case where the nominee's pick for VP actually did win him the election. All the other factors in Trump's favor did too in this close election, but without the Pence pick, a rock solid conservative, fully qualified with unflinching loyalty that never wavered or stumbled, Trump would have lost. Conservative voters came back ever so slowly and that was the evidence Trump now leans conservative and understands the seriousness of the job. (The Supreme Court list also did that that but was not as visible in the campaign.)
Might as well start grooming Mike Pence to be the successor. Is it too early to say Pence/Rubio in 2020 with Trump retiring as a winner, with his agenda fully in place. They really don't pay you much more to serve a second term.
That also can be Trump's reachout to the other half of the nation. Enact my agenda and I will serve only one term. Who could say no to that?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Pence's own state the first one called for Trump? IIRC, I'm pretty sure it was.
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/
Trump to Support Nationwide Concealed Carry
BY MICHAEL WALSH NOVEMBER 11, 2016
Leftist heads now exploding like popcorn kernels:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure."
"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.
It's not a departure from what he's said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.
"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans."
Liberals have long argued that guns should be regulated like automobiles. So what's not to like?
Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said. "If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said.
Trump just called their bluff. Hoo boy.
-
I have mixed feeling about this-- what about States Rights to exercise the police power? What about the laboratory of democracy?
Let's take this to the Well-Armed People thread.
-
Jared like HIS father? His father is ruthless and also very much a partisan Democrat. This is the weirdest thing. I am not thrilled about this, if true.
Bizzarro.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/jared-kushner-is-donald-trumps-son-in-law-the-power-behind-the-t/
-
Jared like HIS father? His father is ruthless and also very much a partisan Democrat. This is the weirdest thing. I am not thrilled about this, if true.
Bizzarro.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/jared-kushner-is-donald-trumps-son-in-law-the-power-behind-the-t/
Until not long ago, Trump was a standard issue NYC dem.
-
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/announcement-donald-trump-picks-his-white-house-chief-of-staff
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442150/john-bolton-secretary-state
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/next-great-battle-for-conservatives-keeping-rino-insiders-out-of-the-administration
we don't need rinos
and we don't need to suck up to Ryan.
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/next-great-battle-for-conservatives-keeping-rino-insiders-out-of-the-administration
we don't need rinos
and we don't need to suck up to Ryan.
I don't know if Trump¡s "backpeddling" on Obamacare or anything else is little more than "strategy" against the press and sitting politicians that he is using until January, but I'm already not like his pick of Priebus, who was very agressive against Trump early on.
Having said that, Clinton would be worse. Irt's all up in the air right now, especially until January.
If I was Trump, I would just shut up and not make anything public until then. People cannot attack what isn't out there, which ironically, was the genius in not outlining his policies during the campaign.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg
-
Those wondering why Trump would be seeming to "play ball" with the other side or elect Reince Priebus as chief of staff;
Trump isn't in office yet, so he may be playing nice as a strategy to avoid giving the media and leftist politicians anything to attack or prepare for.
Additionally, there is a lot that can be accomplished with the Executive Office, Supreme Court, House, and Senate all being Republican, so selecting Priebus may well have been done in order to get RINO support for matters requiring 60 votes.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-priebus-bannon_us_5828ec33e4b02d21bbc9507a
I dunno , I am a Jew and I read b
Breitbart and I never once felt the site is anti-semitic and indeed came to the opposite conclusion.
One challenge for Trump is to convince he is for all Americans no matter the creed, sex, race ethnicity etc.
Then and only then will the LEft's labelling of him a racist and 750 "ists" and "phobists" going to sound hollow.
-
I have no problem with Preibus in this position. Isn't it more managerial than policy? And isn't Bannon getting a big policy slot? RP has good relations with Paul Ryan, and IMHO there is plenty of common ground to be had with Ryan. Congress is an equal branch of government, no need to pick an unnecessary fight with Ryan.
-
I have no problem with Preibus in this position. Isn't it more managerial than policy? And isn't Bannon getting a big policy slot? RP has good relations with Paul Ryan, and IMHO there is plenty of common ground to be had with Ryan. Congress is an equal branch of government, no need to pick an unnecessary fight with Ryan.
My thoughts also. Preibus may be a great choice for this. Trump got to see his public and behind the scenes work up close the last couple of months. He found out he is effective, loyal and keeps his word. No one saw that coming...
If Preibus is wrong for the job or not needed after the initial legislative surge, Trump is good at changing course on that kind of thing.
Ryan and Preibus are among the 'good guys', not RINOs. The Republican House is a good check on Obama's policy agenda. They have given most of these issues more thought over more time and know the legislative landscape better. Trump may know some other things better. Where they overlap, we need policies enacted.
-
I have no problem with Preibus in this position. Isn't it more managerial than policy? And isn't Bannon getting a big policy slot? RP has good relations with Paul Ryan, and IMHO there is plenty of common ground to be had with Ryan. Congress is an equal branch of government, no need to pick an unnecessary fight with Ryan.
Excellent point and I think you're right.
-
The losers of the left have worked themselves into such a bizarre hysteria over the fact that they lost the White House that they have lost all connection to reality and are now hyping their most ludicrously paranoid fantasies.
The function of this lunacy is to put off the inevitable moment when they are going to come back to Earth and reckon with the fact that they were horribly wrong and the American people have rejected them. For them, Stephen K. Bannon is the straw man of the hour.
I can’t think of anything stupider than the charge coming from all quarters of the left–including a headline in the pathetically wretched Huffington Post–that Bannon is an anti-Semite. The source? A one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews. I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.
Not to be outdone, CNN, which has been particularly vicious, did a nasty attack on Bannon using another of the thinnest reeds available: This was a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew.” In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew.”
I wrote the article when Kristol set out to lead the “Never Trump” movement, after Trump had secured the Republican nomination. I would write it again in a heartbeat. I would write it the same way and with the same headline. Bill Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).
If Obama and Hillary had their way, Egypt’s leader al-Sisi would be overthrown, the Brotherhood would be back in power, and Israel would be facing a threat from the biggest military power in the Middle East and almost certainly at war with Islamic terrorists who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.
I have known Steve Bannon for many years. This is a good man. He does not have an Anti-Semitic bone in his body. In his new position as Chief Strategist in the Trump White House, Bannon is the strongest assurance that people who love this country can have in America’s future, the strongest assurance that America is in the hands of people who will give this country a chance to restore itself and defend itself against its enemies at home and abroad.
From Breitbart.com
David Horowitz is the founder of the Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of many books, most recently The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama, volume 7 of the series of his collected writings called The Black Book of the American Left.
-
The truth is no defense to the left.
The losers of the left have worked themselves into such a bizarre hysteria over the fact that they lost the White House that they have lost all connection to reality and are now hyping their most ludicrously paranoid fantasies.
The function of this lunacy is to put off the inevitable moment when they are going to come back to Earth and reckon with the fact that they were horribly wrong and the American people have rejected them. For them, Stephen K. Bannon is the straw man of the hour.
I can’t think of anything stupider than the charge coming from all quarters of the left–including a headline in the pathetically wretched Huffington Post–that Bannon is an anti-Semite. The source? A one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews. I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.
Not to be outdone, CNN, which has been particularly vicious, did a nasty attack on Bannon using another of the thinnest reeds available: This was a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew.” In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew.”
I wrote the article when Kristol set out to lead the “Never Trump” movement, after Trump had secured the Republican nomination. I would write it again in a heartbeat. I would write it the same way and with the same headline. Bill Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).
If Obama and Hillary had their way, Egypt’s leader al-Sisi would be overthrown, the Brotherhood would be back in power, and Israel would be facing a threat from the biggest military power in the Middle East and almost certainly at war with Islamic terrorists who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.
I have known Steve Bannon for many years. This is a good man. He does not have an Anti-Semitic bone in his body. In his new position as Chief Strategist in the Trump White House, Bannon is the strongest assurance that people who love this country can have in America’s future, the strongest assurance that America is in the hands of people who will give this country a chance to restore itself and defend itself against its enemies at home and abroad.
From Breitbart.com
David Horowitz is the founder of the Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of many books, most recently The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama, volume 7 of the series of his collected writings called The Black Book of the American Left.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306035-letter-to-anti-defamation-leagues-jonathan
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/11/14/the-terrifying-prospect-of-an-attorney-general-giuliani/?utm_term=.5ecfa85e0460
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-rudy-giuliani.html?_r=0
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/opinion/why-rudy-giuliani-shouldnt-be-secretary-of-state.html?action=click&contentCollection=Well&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
-
http://conservativetribune.com/trump-change-white-house/ 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html?_r=0&referer
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcM4teMJJ3E
:-o :-o :-o
-
If I am not mistaken the witnesses he tried to set up with prostitutes was a relative.. A brother I think.
He went to the Jewish Educational Center which was a private Jewish grade school about 3 blocks from where I grew up. The JEC was run by a crooked rabbi ironically .
The father who went to jail was the stereotype big Democrat Party donor in NJ. I guess he still is but I don't know.
I have a problem with this guys son now being such a big shot with POTUS frankly.
This could well be trouble if you ask me. Myabe I am wrong I just feel uncomfortable with this as I would think anyone from Jersey would.
-
Smells like real House of Cards stuff.
Good reasons for replacing Christie with Pence for Transition Team, but this promises to permanently muddy the waters.
-
Real thin sourcing here, but worth the noting:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-registry-immigrants-policy-kris-bobach-reinstate-wall-a7420296.html
-
I don't want to sound negative but I hope we are draining the swamp just to bring in a new one. :|
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/oscar-health-insurance-start-up-still-bleeding-money
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-walks-back-stance-205921490.html
-
There is merit to the notion that there is considerable vagueness on the "replace" part of "repeal and replace". Frankly, the Congress should be quite a bit further along with this than it is, and frankly so too should be Trump.
Yet again, I point to Dr. Ben Carson-- whom I think has excellent ideas for this-- yet at the moment he does not seem to be part of the play.
-
Sorry libs. One less axe to grind for the headlines:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-settles-trump-university-lawsuits-for-25-million-215707514.html
But this does mean the clintons are off the hook.
-
Not sure why that means the Clintons are off the hook, but anyway, here is this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/in-alabama-jeff-sessions-desegregated-schools-and-got-the-death-penalty-for-kkk-head/article/2005461
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/racism-allegations-haunt-sessions/vi-AAkssdu?ocid=spartanntp
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/18/news/donald-trump-wall-street-journal-liquidate/
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/18/news/donald-trump-wall-street-journal-liquidate/
I don't know the best way to do this. Whether he should put his holdings into some separate trust etc.
You can't claim you are going to drain the swamp and then claim there is no conflict of interests with your business at the same time.
One contradicts the other.
I don't know if Ivanka was directly involved in the decision to hawk her jewelry line but that is exactly opposite of what the average Joe/Jill wants to see.
OTOH while I agree with the message the hypocrisy that the WSJ is the messenger is not lost on us :roll:
-
"Not sure why that means the Clintons are off the hook"
Just saying the deal to settle the case with Schneiderman in the Trump case does not mean Trump should turnaround and thus let hillary, and bill slide with a pardon deal.
-
Not at all enthused about what I'm reading about his Turkish connection or the torture riiff, but am good with the rest.
http://americannews.top/donald-trumps-national-security-adviser-anti-islam-open-torture-wants-jail-hillary-clinton/
-
Originally posted under media but this thread is probably more appropriate.
I don't know what to make of this. I hope this is not a sign that we elected someone who thinks he is king. As much as I am disgusted with CNN I just don't know about this.
Anyone else with thoughts:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/21/report-donald-trump-unloads-media-bigwigs-trump-tower-meeting/
-
1) a minor point-- no reason to use the Breitbart URL when the NY Post URL of the whole piece is readily there to click
2) Though I will be making a post in the next day or so about some areas of grave concern that I have about Donald, this particular meeting is not one of them. The man has a fg point! http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/
-
LMøB^k,hl]f]MMkikTM
,2^MriJh`rLU^fhUqBkM”
B^L\MkikTM]TBqMUk
By Paul Farhi November 21 at 8:10 PM
President-elect Donald Trump met Monday with television news executives and some well-known TV journalists and
repeatedly told them the campaign reporting about him was “unfair” and “dishonest.”
Participants in the meeting at Trump Tower in New York described it as a contentious but generally respectful gathering.
But if the media elite attended in hopes of improving relations with the forthcoming Trump administration, that wasn’t quite
in the cards. The president-elect specifically called out reporting by CNN and NBC that he deemed unfair, according to four
people who attended the meeting, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was off the record.
(The ground rules prevented the networks from reporting the very story they were part of.)
The group included some of the top news media figures that Trump had aimed barbs at during the campaign, including “Meet
the Press” anchor Chuck Todd; ABC News anchors George Stephanopoulos and David Muir; CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Erin
Burnett; ABC correspondent Martha Raddatz; “NBC Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt; and a CBS News contingent that
included Norah O’Donnell, Charlie Rose, John Dickerson and Gayle King.
Among the network news executives present were CNN Worldwide Chairman Jeff Zucker, NBC News President Deborah
Turness, MSNBC President Phil Griffin, ABC News President James Goldston, and the four top executives from Fox News, Bill
Shine, Jack Abernethy, Jay Wallace and Suzanne Scott.
Trump was joined by his newly appointed chief White House strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, his chief of staff, Reince Priebus,
and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top adviser.
The meeting didn’t include representatives of newspaper, radio or online-news organizations, although Trump has scheduled
two meetings with the publisher and journalists from the New York Times on Tuesday, including one on-the-record session.
Instead of striking a harmonious tone to build rapport following the election, Trump was combative, participants said. In a
calm and deliberate voice, he told the group sitting around a conference table that they had failed to provide their viewers with
fair and accurate coverage, and told them they failed to understand him or his appeal to millions of Americans.
Trump showed no love for the media during the long campaign, calling reporters the “lowest form of humanity.” And on
Monday he repeatedly used the words “unfair” and “dishonest” to describe the coverage, participants said.
But he made no mention of the enormous amount of airtime that the networks, especially on cable, devoted to his campaign. A
number of analyses have noted that Trump’s presidential effort was boosted by the news media’s fascination with him.
Trump directed particular ire at CNN and several reporters at other cable networks whom he sees as unreasonably
antagonistic toward him, though he did not mention them by name. He also referenced both NBC News reporter Katy Tur and
ABC’s Raddatz without using their names.
The thrust of his critique of Raddatz involved her alleged emotional reaction on election night while she discussed the
implications of a Trump presidency on the U.S. military (ABC has strongly disputed reports that Raddatz choked up on air,
calling such stories “ridiculous and untrue”).
One participant asked Trump for his definition of “fair,” noting that part of the news media’s job is to critically examine a
candidate’s words and background. Trump replied that his definition was “truth.”
The participants variously described Trump as “combative,” “proud,” and “dismissive” toward the news organizations present.
He also shrugged off the need for a constant pool covering him, the people said, though he did not delve into specifics. Trump
has repeatedly shirked his pool, upending a long-standing tradition of the president and president-elect.
-
Yeah . You're right CD. Turned on cable last night and CNN is as they have been, bashing Trump 24 x 7. They are a Democrat coalition with an agenda.
Did you see the report that the Murdoch boys are consdiering trying to hire Jeff Zucker for Fox. That will end my watching of FOx if that happens.
-
It's not like stocks where you can just click close this position. It's not like Jimmy Carter's peanut farm. He can't necessarily hire a stranger nor can he not talk to his children or shutter the business. The voters should have thought of this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/trump-would-have-a-hard-time-divesting-his-businesses-even-if-he-wanted-to
-
Donald Trump’s presidential transition hit a squall this week over his potential selection of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Opposition to Mr. Romney among some Trump campaign advisers has broken out in public, while former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is playing up his campaign loyalty to Mr. Trump as he lobbies to be America’s top diplomat.
Our preference would be Mr. Romney over Mr. Giuliani, but if the debate is that disruptive then Mr. Trump would be better off going to someone else. Choosing Mr. Romney would reassure U.S. allies and signal that Mr. Trump is reaching across the GOP to populate his Administration.
Yet more than a few Trump loyalists mistrust Mitt for his caustic criticism of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries. They fear he won’t be loyal if he gets the job, though presumably the two men would hash that out in advance. One virtue of choosing Mr. Romney would be to get his candid views, and if his loyalty would always be in question for doing so, then he shouldn’t take the job.
As for Mr. Giuliani, his campaign role isn’t by itself enough to earn such a crucial post. The former prosecutor lacks foreign-policy experience and his extensive list of overseas business clients could become a confirmation problem if they aren’t thoroughly vetted. Another question is whether Mr. Giuliani could manage a State Department bureaucracy that would oppose him and the Trump agenda.
Which leads to other potential choices. One is John Bolton, who was a senior and successful State Department official under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He understands the job, and he knows from hard experience the tricks that the State bureaucracy plays. He has a blunt style that we suspect Mr. Trump might find refreshing.
Another name worth considering is former General and CIA Director David Petraeus. The architect of the 2007 surge that defeated al Qaeda in Iraq, Mr. Petraeus has a far-reaching strategic vision and long experience massaging allies and staring down foes. He understands when diplomacy is required but also when military force is needed to achieve diplomatic goals.
Democrats might make an issue of Mr. Petraeus’s misdemeanor conviction for turning over classified information to a biographer who was also his paramour. That mistake cost him his job at CIA. But he has apologized and paid a price, and the U.S. shouldn’t be denied his talents for that one mistake.
His selection could also put three former generals atop the main foreign-policy portfolios, along with former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and the widely mooted choice of former Gen. James Mattis to run the Pentagon. Gens. Mattis and Petraeus are about as widely read and strategic thinkers as you’ll find, in or out of the military, so this strikes us as a needless concern.
More important is the message these choices would send to allies and adversaries. Mr. Trump is inheriting a far more dangerous world than any President since Ronald Reagan. Authoritarians are pressing to dominate Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Western Pacific. As a Commander in Chief who will be getting his own on-the-job training, Mr. Trump needs counselors who know their briefs from the first day. At least on national security, experience should trump loyalty.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/donald-trump-international-business.html?emc=edit_ta_20161126&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
second post
KT McFarland is a very good choice.
-
Mattis as SecDef would be beyond amazing.
Mattis once killed ten jihadis with a grenade, and that was before it detonated.
-
By Peggy Noonan
Nov. 24, 2016 5:17 p.m. ET
1346 COMMENTS
The other day I experienced a flash of alarm. There was a claim from an Argentine journalist that when the president of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, phoned Donald Trump to congratulate him on his election victory, the talk turned to permits for the building of a Trump skyscraper in Buenos Aires. Mr. Macri’s press officer quickly and sharply denied the report: “They didn’t talk about the tower at all. It’s absolutely untrue.” So did the Trump transition office. The journalist apparently offered no proof. The story more or less ended there.
But what alarmed me was this question: Does Donald Trump know he can’t ever have a conversation like this? Does he fully understand that a president can never use the office, its power and influence, for his own financial enrichment? That he can’t, however offhandedly, both do business and be president? That future and credible reports that he had engaged in such a conflict of interest would doom his presidency? And that solving the question of his businesses and their relation to his presidency is urgent?
This week, in an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Trump was not reassuring. When pressed on how, exactly, he means to distance himself from his business interests, he couldn’t stop himself from promoting a few of them: “We just opened a beautiful hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said. “The brand is certainly a hotter brand.”
“In theory, I can be president of the United States and run my business 100%,” he said, adding that he is “phasing that out now.” “In theory I don’t have to do anything. But I would like to do something. I would like to try and formalize something, because I don’t care about my business.”
He said, “I’ve greatly reduced meetings with contractors, meetings with different people.” Thank goodness for that. He’s the president-elect.
He noted that presidents are exempt from conflict-of-interest laws, but “I understand why the president can’t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have—I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, No. 1, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it’s all good.” Business partners come in, they want a picture, “I think it’s wonderful to take a picture.”
Might he sell his businesses? “That’s a very hard thing to do, you know what, because I have real estate.” Selling real estate isn’t like selling a stock. “I don’t care about my company. I mean, if a partner comes in from India or if a partner comes in from Canada, where we did a beautiful big building that just opened, and they want to take a picture and come into my office, and my kids come in and I originally made the deal with these people, I mean what am I going to say? ‘I’m not going to talk to you,’ ‘I’m not going to take pictures’?”
Yes, that’s exactly what you say! I’m not going to pose with you because I will soon be president of the United States and the prestige of that office precludes taking the picture you’ll soon use in your brochure.
In the interview Mr. Trump was not defensive—he was garrulous, forthcoming as to his thought processes, and yet he seemed curiously unaware as to the urgency of the subject.
If he is not aware it is crucial, the reason may come down to five words: the habits of a lifetime.
For half a century Donald Trump has devoted all his professional energies to money, profit, the deal. That is how he thinks: It’s his deepest neural pathway. He’s a free-market capitalist who started with a lot and turned it into more. He created jobs, employs many. Good! But that’s his mind: money, profit, the deal. He has brought up his children to enter his business. Whatever else they do, they have surely absorbed the family ethos.
And now, for the first time in his life, money, profit, the deal is not his job.
He will be president of the United States. He can’t help the family business as president. He can’t help his children make a living as president.
He has to be losing money as president and putting personal profit motives behind him. Which means putting the ways and habits of a lifetime behind him.
Because he’s entered something much bigger: the presidency. History. The welfare of the republic.
That’s his job now, and it requires sacrifice.
I don’t know if there’s anyone around him who can convince him that the attitude with which he’s operated for 50 years must end, and something wholly new and different begin.
But whoever does must be aware of this:
The press, which wants to kill him, is going to zero in on his biggest weak spot: money, profit, the deal. Democrats too will watch like hawks. And this is understandable! Presidents shouldn’t ever give the impression things aren’t on the up and up. And Mr. Trump campaigned saying he’d dismantle the rigged system, drain the swamp, fight the racket.
The press does not believe, not for a second, and Democrats do not believe, not for a second, that Mr. Trump will be able to change the habits of a lifetime. They are relying on it.
Mr. Trump shocked them by winning. He should shock them now with rectitude.
Financial sophisticates know and explain how complicated all this is. Mr. Trump can’t establish a blind trust because blind trusts normally consist of stocks, bonds—liquid assets. Mr. Trump’s wealth is in famous entities, in his brand. He knows where his buildings are, his past and current deals are.
He said when campaigning that if elected he’d turn the business over to his children. But that would require never talking to them about matters touching on the central family ethos: money, profit, the deal.
The editorial page of this newspaper offered a sound though difficult route: Mr. Trump should liquidate his stake in his company and put the proceeds in a true blind trust, in which the Trump children keep the assets in their name. He can “transfer more to them as long as he pays a hefty gift tax.” A fire sale on real estate would no doubt be seized upon by buyers like Donald Trump—people looking for the greatest asset at the lowest price. But it’s hard to see how any other plan would help Mr. Trump avoid endless accusations that he is enriching himself as president, that he is, in fact, a dopey kleptocrat who can’t help doing what he does.
It would be a painful act, selling the business he loves and around which he has ordered his life. But there would be comfort in this: In doing the right thing, in denying his opponents a sword, in enhancing his stature and demonstrating that yes, he will sacrifice for his country.
That’s pretty great comfort.
You’ve made your money. Now go be a patriot.
-
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
YOU ARE STILL CRYING WOLF
POSTED ON NOVEMBER 16, 2016 BY SCOTT ALEXANDER
[Content warning: hate crimes, Trump, racism. I have turned off comments to keep out bad people who might be attracted by this sort of thing. Avoid sharing in places where this will attract the wrong kind of attention, as per your best judgment. Please don’t interpret anything in this article to mean that Trump is not super terrible]
[Epistemic status: A reduction of a complicated issue to only 8000 words, because nobody would read it if it were longer. I think this is true but incomplete. I do not deny that Trump is being divisive and abusing identity politics in more subtle ways. I will try to discuss missing parts at more length later.]
I.
A New York Times article from last September that went viral only recently: Crying Wolf, Then Confronting Trump. It asks whether Democrats have “cried wolf” so many times that nobody believes them anymore. And so:
When “honorable and decent men” like McCain and Romney “are reflexively dubbed racists simply for opposing Democratic policies, the result is a G.O.P. electorate that doesn’t listen to admonitions when the genuine article is in their midst”.
I have a different perspective. Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:
If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source)
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.
Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on. [EDIT: see counterpoint, countercounterpoint]
The media responded to all of this freely available data with articles like White Flight From Reality: Inside The Racist Panic That Fueled Donald Trump’s Victory and Make No Mistake: Donald Trump’s Win Represents A Racist “Whitelash”.
I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.
I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn’t want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. I think Trump’s election is a disaster. He has no plan, he’s dangerously trigger-happy, and his unilateralism threatens aid to developing countries, one of the most effective ways we currently help other people. I thought and still think a Trump presidency will be a disaster.
But since we’re past the point where we can prevent it, I want to present my case.
I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever.
II.
First, I want to go over Donald Trump’s official, explicit campaign message. Yes, it’s possible for candidates’ secret feelings to differ from their explicit messages, but the things they say every single day and put on their website and include in their speeches are still worth going over to see what image they want to project.
Trump’s official message has been the same vague feel-good pro-diversity rhetoric as any other politician. Here’s Trump on African Americans:
It is my highest and greatest hope that the Republican Party can be the home in the future and forevermore for African-Americans and the African-American vote because I will produce, and I will get others to produce, and we know for a fact it doesn’t work with the Democrats and it certainly doesn’t work with Hillary.
When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?
African-American citizens have sacrificed so much for this nation. They have fought and died in every war since the Revolution, and from the pews and the picket lines they have lifted up the conscience of our country in the long march for Civil Rights. Yet, too many African-Americans have been left behind.
No group in America has been more harmed by Hillary Clinton’s policies than African-Americans. No group. No group. If Hillary Clinton’s goal was to inflict pain on the African-American community, she could not have done a better job. It’s a disgrace. Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future.
And at the end of four years I guarantee that I will get over 95% of the African-American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce for the inner-cities and I will produce for the African-Americans.
America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future.
On Hispanics:
I have just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico…we discussed the great contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our two countries, my love for the people of Mexico, and the close friendship between our two nations.
I employ thousands and thousands of Hispanics. I love the people. They’re great workers. They’re fantastic people and they want legal immigration. I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.
On his campaign:
It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will.
Trump’s campaign photos are consistent with a desire to present the same message:
This wasn’t a scripted appearance forced by his campaign staff. According to the Washington Times:
Trump walked on stage in Greeley, Colorado to a large cheering crowd when he spotted a rainbow flag in the audience. As the music blasted through the speakers, Mr. Trump pointed to a supporter as if to ask if he could see his flag and then motioned for a campaign worker to help retrieve the LGBT symbol of equality from the attendee.
Within seconds, Mr. Trump was walking around the platform with the rainbow flag in his hands and moments later unfurled it in full display. You could see a huge smile on Mr. Trump’s face as he walked to both sides of the stage to proudly hold up the rainbow flag announcing support from the gay and lesbian community.
Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told me, “Mr. Trump is campaigning to be President for ALL Americans and was proud to carry the ‘LGBT for Trump‘ rainbow flag on stage in Greeley, CO yesterday.
This is just a tiny representative sample, but the rest is very similar. Trump has gone from campaign stop to campaign stop talking about how much he likes and respects minorities and wants to fight for them.
And if you believe he’s lying, fine. Yet I notice that people accusing Trump of racism use the word “openly” like a tic. He’s never just “racist” or “white supremacist”. He’s always “openly racist” and “openly white supremacist”. Trump is openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist. Trump is running on pure white supremacy, has thrown off the last pretense that his campaign is not about bigotry, has the slogan Make American Openly White Supremacist Again, is an openly white supremacist nominee, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve seen a few dozen articles like this where people say that “the bright side of a Trump victory is that finally America admitted its racism out in the open so nobody can pretend it’s not there anymore.”
This, I think, is the first level of crying wolf. What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans?
We might want to use words like “openly racist” or “openly white supremacist” to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted “openly white supremacist” on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying “I love Hispanics!”
III.
A rundown of some contrary talking points:
1. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from white supremacist organizations?
No, because there are not enough organized white supremacists to make up “a lot” of anyone’s support.
According to Wikipedia on KKK membership:
As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total
The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog.
If you Google “trump KKK”, you get 14.8 million results. I know that Google’s list of results numbers isn’t very accurate. Yet even if they’re inflating the numbers by 1000x, and there were only about 14,000 news articles about the supposed Trump-KKK connection this election, there are still two to three articles about a Trump-KKK connection for every single Klansman in the world.
I don’t see any sign that there are other official white supremacy movements that are larger than the Klan, or even enough other small ones to substantially raise the estimate of people involved. David Duke called a big pan-white-supremacist meeting in New Orleans in 2005, and despite getting groups from across North America and Europe he was only able to muster 300 attendees (by comparison, NAACP conventions routinely get 10,000).
My guess is that the number of organized white supremacists in the country is in the very low five digits.
2. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from online white nationalists and the alt-right?
No, for the same reason.
The alt-right is mostly an online movement, which makes it hard to measure. The three main alt-right hubs I know of are /r/altright, Stormfront, and 4chan’s politics board.
The only one that displays clear user statistics is /r/altright, which says that there are about 5,000 registered accounts. The real number is probably less – some people change accounts, some people post once and disappear, and some non-white-nationalists probably go there to argue. But sure, let’s say that community has 5,000 members.
Stormfront’s user statistics say it gets about 30,000 visits/day, of which 60% are American. My own blog gets about 8,000 visits/day , and the measurable communities associated with it (the subreddit, people who follow my social media accounts) have between 2000 – 8000 followers. If this kind of thing scales, then it suggests about 10,000 people active in the Stormfront community.
4chan boasts about 1 million visits/day. About half seem to be American. Unclear how many go to the politics board and how many are just there for the anime and video games, but Wikipedia says that /b/ is the largest board with 30% of 4Chan’s traffic, so /pol/ must be less than that. If we assume /pol/ gets 20% of 4chan traffic, and that 50% of the people on /pol/ are serious alt-rightists and not dissenters or trolls, the same scaling factors give us about 25,000 – 50,000 American alt-rightists on 4Chan.
Taking into account the existence of some kind of long tail of alt-right websites, I still think the population of the online US alt-right is somewhere in the mid five-digits, maybe 50,000 or so.
50,000 is more than the 5,000 Klansmen. But it’s still 0.02% of the US population. It’s still about the same order of magnitude as the Nation of Islam, which has about 30,000 – 60,000 members, or the Church of Satan, which has about 20,000. It’s not quite at the level of the Hare Krishnas, who boast 100,000 US members. This is not a “voting bloc” in the sense of somebody it’s important to appeal to. It isn’t a “political force” (especially when it’s mostly, as per the 4chan stereotype, unemployed teenagers in their parents’ basements.)
So the mainstream narrative is that Trump is okay with alienating minorities (= 118 million people), whites who abhor racism and would never vote for a racist (if even 20% of whites, = 40 million people), most of the media, most business, and most foreign countries – in order to win the support of about 50,000 poorly organized and generally dysfunctional people, many of whom are too young to vote anyway.
Caring about who the KKK or the alt-right supports is a lot like caring about who Satanists support. It’s not something you would do if you wanted to understand real political forces. It’s only something you would do if you want to connect an opposing candidate to the most outrageous caricature of evil you can find on short notice.
3. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from people who wouldn’t join white nationalist groups, aren’t in the online alt-right, but still privately hold some kind of white supremacist position?
There are surprisingly few polls that just straight out ask a representative sample of the population “Are you white supremacist?”.
I can find a couple of polls that sort of get at this question in useful ways.
This poll from Gallup asks white Americans their support for school segregation and whether they would move out if a black family moved in next door. It declines from about 50% in 1960 to an amount too small to measure in the 1990s, maybe 1-2%, where it presumably remains today.
(this graph also seems relevant to the stories of how Trump’s father would try to keep blacks out of his majority-white real estate developments in the late 60s/early 70s – note that at that time 33% of white families would move out if a black person moved in next door)
Here’s a CBS News poll from 2014 asking Americans their opinion on the Civil Rights Act that legally prohibited discrimination. Once again, the number of whites who think it was a bad thing is too small to measure meaningfully, but looks like maybe 1-2%. Of note, whites were more convinced the Civil Rights Act was good than blacks were, though I guess it depends on the margin of error.
Another Gallup graph here, with the percent of people who would vs. wouldn’t vote for an otherwise-qualified black candidate for President. It goes from 54% in 1968 to 5% in 1999; later polls that aren’t included on the graph give numbers from 4% to 7%, which sounds probably within the margin of error.
This is a Vox poll asking how many people had favorable vs. unfavorable views of different groups. 11% admit to “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” views of blacks, which sounds bad, except that 7% of people admit to unfavorable views of heterosexuals by the same definition. This makes me think “have an unfavorable view about this group” is not a very high bar. If we restrict true “white supremacists” to those who have only “very unfavorable” views of blacks, this is 3%, well in line with our other sources.
(of note, 1% of respondents had “never heard of” blacks. Um…)
Maybe a better way of looking for racists: David Duke ran for Senate in Louisiana this year. He came in seventh with 58,000 votes (3%). Multiplied over 50 states, that would suggest 2.5 million people who would vote for a leading white supremacist. On the other hand, Louisiana is one of the most racist states (for example, Slate’s investigation found that it led the US in percent of racist tweets) and one expects Duke would have had more trouble in eg Vermont. Adjusting for racism level as measured in tweets, it looks like there would be about 1 million Duke voters in a nationwide contest. That’s a little less than 1% of voters.
So our different ways of defining “open white supremacist”, even for definitions of “open” so vague they include admitting it on anonymous surveys, suggest maybe 1-2%, 1-2%, 4-7%, 3-11%, and 1-3%.
But doesn’t this still mean there are some white supremacists? Isn’t this still really important?
I mean, kind of. But remember that 4% of Americans believe that lizardmen control all major governments. And 5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The white supremacist vote is about the same as the lizardmen-control-everything vote, or the Obama-is-the-Antichrist-but-I-support-him-anyway vote.
(and most of these people are in Solid South red states and don’t matter in the electoral calculus anyway.)
4. Aren’t there a lot of voters who, although not willing to vote for David Duke or even willing to express negative feelings about black people on a poll, still have implicit racist feelings, the kind where they’re nervous when they see a black guy on a deserted street at night?
Probably. And this is why I am talking about crying wolf. If you wanted to worry about the voter with subconscious racist attitudes carefully hidden even from themselves, you shouldn’t have used the words “openly white supremacist KKK supporter” like a verbal tic.
5. But even if Donald Trump isn’t openly white supremacist, didn’t he get an endorsement from KKK leader David Duke? Didn’t he refuse to reject that endorsement? Doesn’t that mean that he secretly wants to court the white supremacist vote?
The answer is no on all counts.
No, Donald Trump did not get an endorsement from KKK leader David Duke. Duke has spoken out in favor of Trump, but refused to give a formal endorsement. You can read the explanation straight from the horse’s mouth at davidduke.com: “The ZioMedia Lies: I Have Not Endorsed Donald Trump” (content warning: exactly what you would expect). If you don’t want that site in your browser history, you can read the same story at The International Business Times.
No, Donald Trump did not refuse to reject the endorsement. From Politico.com:
Donald Trump says he isn’t interested in the endorsement of David Duke, the anti-Semitic former Ku Klux Klan leader who praised the GOP presidential hopeful earlier this week on his radio show.
“I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement,” Trump said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. He added: “I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.”
Asked whether he would repudiate the endorsement, Trump said “Sure, I would if that would make you feel better.”
From Washington Post:
ABC NEWS: “So, are you prepared right now to make a clear and unequivocal statement renouncing the support of all white supremacists?”
TRUMP: “Of course, I am. I mean, there’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have. You take a look at Palm Beach, Florida, I built the Mar-a-Lago Club, totally open to everybody; a club that frankly set a new standard in clubs and a new standard in Palm Beach and I’ve gotten great credit for it. That is totally open to everybody. So, of course, I am.”
From CNN:
“David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK,” Trump added. “Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now.”
The concern comes from a single interview February 28, where Trump was asked to renounce support from David Duke and the KKK, where he gave a non-answer:
“I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about,” Trump said. “You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I’d have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. You may have groups in there that are totally fine — it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups and I’ll let you know.”
This is pretty bad. But the next day Trump was saying that of course he denounced the KKK and blaming a “bad earpiece” for not being able to understand what the interviewer was saying.
Trump’s bad earpiece explanation doesn’t hold water – he repeated the name “David Duke” in his answer, so he obviously heard it. And his claim that he didn’t know who David Duke was doesn’t make sense – he’s mentioned Duke before in various contexts.
But it’s actually worth taking a look at those contexts. In 2000, Trump was already considering running for President. His friend Jesse Ventura suggested he seek the Presidential nomination of Ross Perot’s Reform Party. Trump agreed and started putting together a small campaign (interesting historical trivia: he wanted Oprah Winfrey as a running mate). But after some infighting in the Reform Party, Ventura was kicked out in favor of a faction led by populist Pat Buchanan, who had some support from David Duke. Trump closed his presidential bid, saying: “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.” Later he continued to condemn the party, saying “You’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.”
So we have Trump – who loudly condemned Duke before February 28th, and who loudly condemned Duke after February 28th – saying on February 28th that he wanted to “look into” who David Duke was before refusing his (non-existent) endorsement. I’m not super sure what’s going on. It’s possible he wanted to check to see whether it was politically advantageous to officially reject it, which I agree is itself pretty creepy.
But notice that the evidence on the side of Trump being against David Duke includes twenty years of unambiguous statements to that effect. And the evidence of Trump not being against David Duke includes one statement along the lines of “I don’t know who he is but I’ll look into it” on an interview one time which he later blamed on a bad earpiece and said he totally disavowed.
This gets back to my doubts about “dog whistles”. Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.
And then you have to imagine some of the most brilliant rhetoricians and persuaders in the world are calculating that it’s worth risking exposure this taboo belief in order to win support from a tiny group with five-digit membership whose support nobody wants, by sending a secret message, which inevitably every single media outlet in the world instantly picks up on and makes the focus of all their coverage for the rest of the election.
Finally, no, none of this suggests that Donald Trump is courting the white supremacist vote. Anybody can endorse anybody with or without their consent. Did you know that the head of the US Communist Party endorsed Hillary, and Hillary never (as far as I know) “renounced” their endorsement? Does that mean Hillary is a Communist? Did you know that a leader of a murderous black supremacist cult supported Donald Trump and Trump said that he “loved” him? Does that mean Trump is a black supremacist? The only time this weird “X endorsed Y, that means Y must support X” thing is brought out, is in favor of the media narrative painting Trump to be a racist.
This, to me, is another form of crying wolf. One day you might have a candidate who openly courts the KKK, in the sense of having a campaign platform saying “I like the KKK and value their support”, speaking at Klan meetings, et cetera. And instead, you’ve wasted the phrase “openly courts the KKK” on somebody with a twenty year history of loudly condemning the KKK, plus one weird interview where he said he didn’t know anything about it, then changed his mind the next day and said he hates them.
6. What about Trump’s “drugs and crime” speech about Mexicans?
Trump said that:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.
Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):
We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away.
Or John McCain in 2008:
Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people.
Trump’s platform contains similar language – and, like all past platforms, also contains language praising legal immigrants:
Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.
We are particularly grateful to the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces and among first responders. Their patriotism should encourage all to embrace the newcomers legally among us, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid isolation from the mainstream of society. We are also thankful for the many legal immigrants who continue to contribute to American society.
When Democrats and Republicans alike over the last twenty years say that we are a nation of immigrants but that illegal immigrants threaten our security, or may be criminals or drug pushers, they’re met with yawns. When Trump says exactly the same thing, he’s Literally the KKK.
7. What about the border wall? Doesn’t that mean Trump must hate Mexicans?
As multiple sources point out, both Hillary and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which put up a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexican border. Politifact says that Hillary and Obama wanted a 700 mile fence but Trump wants a 1000 mile wall, so these are totally different. But really? Support a 700 mile fence, and you’re the champion of diversity and all that is right in the world; support a 1000 mile wall and there’s no possible explanation besides white nationalism?
8. Isn’t Trump anti-immigrant?
He’s at least anti-undocumented immigrant, which is close to being anti-immigrant. And while one can argue that “anti-immigrant” is different than “racist”, I would agree that probably nobody cares that much about British or German immigrants, suggesting that some racial element is involved.
But I think when Trump voters talk about “globalists”, they’re pointing at how they model this very differently from the people they criticize.
In one model, immigration is a right. You need a very strong reason to take it away from anybody, and such decisions should be carefully inspected to make sure no one is losing the right unfairly. It’s like a store: everyone should be allowed to come in and shop and if a manager refused someone entry then they better have a darned good reason.
In another, immigration is a privilege which members of a community extend at their pleasure to other people whom they think would be a good fit for their community. It’s like a home: you can invite your friends to come live with you, but if someone gives you a vague bad feeling or seems like a good person who’s just incompatible with your current lifestyle, you have the right not to invite them and it would be criminal for them to barge in anyway.
It looks like many Clinton supporters believe in the first model, and many Trump supporters in the second model. I think this ties into deeper differences – Clinton supporters are more atomized and individualist, Trump supporters stronger believers in culture and community.
In the second model, the community gets to decide how many immigrants come in and on what terms. Most of the Trump supporters I know are happy to let in a reasonable amount, but they get very angry when people who weren’t invited or approved by the community come in anyway and insist that everyone else make way for them.
Calling this “open white supremacy” seems like those libertarians who call public buses Communism, except if “Communism” got worn out on the euphemism treadmill and they started calling public buses “overt Soviet-style Stalinism”.
9. Don’t Trump voters oppose the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves?
This was in New York Times, Vox, Huffington Post, Time, et cetera. It’s very misleading. See Snopes for full explanation.
10. Isn’t Trump anti-Semitic?
I feel like an attempt to avoid crying wolf might reserve that term for people who didn’t win an Israeli poll on what candidate would best represent Israel’s interests, or doesn’t have a child who converted to Judaism, or hasn’t won various awards from the American Jewish community for his contributions to Israel and American Judaism, or wasn’t the grand marshal of a Salute To Israel Parade, or…
11. Don’t we know that Trump voters are motivated by racism because somebody checked and likelihood of being a Trump voter doesn’t correlate with some statistic or other supposedly measuring economic anxiety?
Although economic issues are only one part of Trump voters’ concerns, they certainly are a part. You just have to look in the right places. See also:
12. Don’t we know that Trump voters are motivated by racism because despite all the stuff about economic anxiety, rich people were more likely to vote Trump than poor people?
I keep hearing stuff like this, and aside from the object-level question, I think it’s important to note the way in which this kind of thing makes racism the null hypothesis. “You say it’s X, but you can’t prove it, so it’s racism”.
Anyway, in this particular case, there’s a simple answer. Yes, Republicans are traditionally the party of the rich. What’s different about this election is that far more poor people voted Republican than usual, and far more rich people voted Democrat than usual.
Poor people were 16 percentage points more likely to vote Republican this election than last time around, but rich people (well, the richest bracket NYT got data about) were 9 percentage points more likely to vote Democrat. This is consistent with economic anxiety playing a big role.
13. Doesn’t Trump want to ban (or “extreme vet”, or whatever) Muslims entering the country?
Yes, and this is awful.
But why do he (and his supporters) want to ban/vet Muslims, and not Hindus or Kenyans, even though most Muslims are white(ish) and most Hindus and Kenyans aren’t? Trump and his supporters are concerned about terrorism, probably since the San Bernardino shooting and Pulse nightclub massacre dominated headlines this election season.
You can argue that he and his supporters are biased for caring more about terrorism than about furniture-related injuries, which kill several times more Americans than terrorists do each year. But do you see how there’s a difference between “cognitive bias that makes you unreasonably afraid” versus “white supremacy”?
I agree that this is getting into murky territory and that a better answer here would be to deconstruct the word “racism” into a lot of very heterogenous parts, one of which means exactly this sort of thing. But as I pointed out in Part 4, a lot of these accusations shy away from the word “racism” precisely because it’s an ambiguous thing with many heterogenous parts, some of which are understandable and resemble the sort of thing normal-but-flawed human beings might think. Now they say “KKK white nationalism” or “overt white supremacy”. These terms are powerful exactly because they do not permit the gradations of meaning which this subject demands.
Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous exaggeration. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”
14. Haven’t there been hundreds of incidents of Trump-related hate crimes?
This isn’t a criticism of Trump per se (he’s demanded that his supporters avoid hate crimes), but it seems relevant to the general tenor of the campaign.
SPLC said they have 300 such hate incidents, although their definition of “hate incident” includes things like “someone overheard a racist comment in someone else’s private conversation, then challenged them about it and got laughed at”. Let’s take that number at face value (though see here)
If 47% of America supports Trump (= the percent of vote he got extrapolated to assume non-voters feel the same way), there are 150,000,000 Trump supporters. That means there has been one hate incident per 500,000 Trump supporters.
But aren’t there probably lots of incidents that haven’t been reported to SLPC? Maybe. Maybe there’s two unreported attacks for every reported one, which means that the total is one per 150,000 Trump supporters. Or maybe there are ten unreported attacks for every reported one, which means that the total is one per 45,000 Trump supporters. Since nobody has any idea about this, it seems weird to draw conclusions from it.
Oh, also, I looked on right-wing sites to see if there are complaints of harassment and attacks by Hillary supporters, and there are. Among the stories I was able to confirm on moderately trustworthy news sites that had investigated them somewhat (a higher standard than the SLPC holds their reports to) are ones about how Hillary supporters have beaten up people for wearing Trump hats, screamed encouragement as a mob beat up a man who they thought voted Trump, knocked over elderly people, beaten up a high school girl for supporting Trump on Instagram, defaced monuments with graffiti saying “DIE WHITES DIE”, advocated raping Melania Trump, kicked a black homeless woman who was holding a Trump sign, attacked a pregnant woman stuck in her car, with a baseball bat, screamed at children who vote Trump in a mock school election, etc, etc, etc.
But please, keep talking about how somebody finding a swastika scrawled in a school bathroom means that every single Trump supporter is scum and Trump’s whole campaign was based on hatred.
15. Don’t we know that Trump supports racist violence because, when some of his supporters beat up a Latino man, he just said they were “passionate”?
All those protests above? The anti-Trump protests that have resulted in a lot of violence and property damage and arrests? With people chanting “KILL TRUMP” and all that?
When Trump was asked for comment, he tweeted “Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country”.
I have no idea how his mind works and am frankly boggled by all of this, but calling violent protesters “passionate” just seems to be a thing of his.
16. But didn’t Trump…
Whatever bizarre, divisive, ill-advised, and revolting thing you’re about to mention, the answer is probably yes.
This is equally true on race-related and non-race-related issues. People ask “How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, if he wasn’t racist?” I don’t know. How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Vince Foster? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s father shot JFK?
Trump will apparently believe anything for any reason, especially about his political opponents. If Clinton had been black but Obama white, we’d be hearing that the Vince Foster conspiracy theory proves Trump’s bigotry, and the birtherism was just harmless wackiness.
Likewise, how could Trump insult a Mexican judge just for being Mexican? I don’t know. How could Trump insult a disabled reporter just for being disabled? How could Trump insult John McCain just for being a beloved war hero? Every single person who’s opposed him, Trump has insulted in various offensive ways, including 140 separate incidents of him calling someone “dopey” or “dummy” on Twitter, and you expect him to hold his mouth just because the guy is a Mexican?
I don’t think people appreciate how weird this guy is. His weird way of speaking. His catchphrases like “haters and losers!” or “Sad!”. His tendency to avoid perfectly reasonable questions in favor of meandering tangents about Mar-a-Lago. The ability to bait him into saying basically anything just by telling him people who don’t like him think he shouldn’t.
If you insist that Trump would have to be racist to say or do whatever awful thing he just said or did, you are giving him too much credit. Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism.
17. Isn’t this a lot of special pleading? Like, sure, you can make up various non-racist explanations for every single racist-sounding thing Trump says, and say a lot of it is just coincidence or Trump being inexplicably weird, but eventually the coincidences start adding up. You have to look at this kind of thing in context.
I actually disagree with this really strongly and this point deserves a post of its own because it’s really important. But let me try to briefly explain what I mean.
Suppose you’re talking to one of those ancient-Atlantean secrets-of-the-Pyramids people. They give you various pieces of evidence for their latest crazy theory, such as (and all of these are true):
1. The latitude of the Great Pyramid matches the speed of light in a vacuum to five decimal places.
2. Famous prophet Edgar Cayce, who predicted a lot of stuff with uncanny accuracy, said he had seen ancient Atlanteans building the Pyramid in a vision.
3. There are hieroglyphs near the pyramid that look a lot like pictures of helicopters.
4. In his dialogue Critias, Plato relayed a tradition of secret knowledge describing a 9,000-year-old Atlantean civilization.
5. The Egyptian pyramids look a lot like the Mesoamerican pyramids, and the Mesoamerican name for the ancient home of civilization is “Aztlan”
6. There’s an underwater road in the Caribbean, whose discovery Edgar Cayce predicted, and which he said was built by Atlantis
7. There are underwater pyramids near the island of Yonaguni.
8. The Sphinx has apparent signs of water erosion, which would mean it has to be more than 10,000 years old.
She asks you, the reasonable and well-educated supporter of the archaeological consensus, to explain these facts. After looking through the literature, you come up with the following:
1. This is just a weird coincidence.
2. Prophecies have so many degrees of freedom that anyone who gets even a little lucky can sound “uncannily accurate”, and this is probably just what happened with Cayce, so who cares what he thinks?
3. Lots of things look like helicopters, so whatever.
4. Plato was probably lying, or maybe speaking in metaphors.
5. There are only so many ways to build big stone things, and “pyramid” is a natural form. The “Atlantis/Atzlan” thing is probably a coincidence.
6. Those are probably just rocks in the shape of a road, and Edgar Cayce just got lucky.
7. Those are probably just rocks in the shape of pyramids. But if they do turn out to be real, that area was submerged pretty recently under the consensus understanding of geology, so they might also just be pyramids built by a perfectly normal non-Atlantean civilization.
8. We still don’t understand everything about erosion, and there could be some reason why an object less than 10,000 years old could have erosion patterns typical of older objects.
I want you to read those last eight points from the view of an Atlantis believer, and realize that they sound really weaselly. They’re all “Yeah, but that’s probably a coincidence”, and “Look, we don’t know exactly why this thing happened, but it’s probably not Atlantis, so shut up.”
This is the natural pattern you get when challenging a false theory. The theory was built out of random noise and ad hoc misinterpretations, so the refutation will have to be “every one of your multiple superficially plausible points is random noise, or else it’s a misinterpretation for a different reason”.
If you believe in Atlantis, then each of the seven facts being true provides “context” in which to interpret the last one. Plato said there was an Atlantis that sunk underneath the sea, so of course we should explain the mysterious undersea ruins in that context. The logic is flawless, it’s just that you’re wrong about everything.
This is how I feel about demands that we interpret Trump’s statements “in context”, too.
IV.
Why am I harping on this?
I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. One of them ended up in the emergency room, although luckily both of them are now safe and well. I have heard secondhand of several more.
Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history.
I notice news articles like Vox: Donald Trump’s Win Tells People Of Color They Aren’t Welcome In America. Or Salon’s If Trump Wins, Say Goodbye To Your Black Friends. MSN: Women Fear For Their Lives After Trump Victory.
Vox writes about the five-year-old child who asks “Is Donald Trump a bad person? Because I heard that if he becomes president, all the black and brown people have to leave and we’re going to become slaves.” The Star writes about a therapist called in for emergency counseling to help Muslim kids who think Trump is going to kill them. I have patients who are afraid to leave their homes.
Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps. He probably won’t do a great job fighting to end voter suppression, or helping people caught in the criminal justice system, but I’m not sure that makes him too different from the average member of the Republican Congress we have already.
Since everyone has been wrong about everything lately, I’ve started thinking it’s more important than ever to make clear predictions and grade myself on them, so here are my predictions for the Trump administration:
1. Total hate crimes incidents as measured here will be not more than 125% of their 2015 value at any year during a Trump presidency, conditional on similar reporting methodology [confidence: 80%]
2. Total minority population of US citizens will increase throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 99%]
3. US Muslim population increases throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 95%]
4. Trump cabinet will be at least 10% minority [confidence: 90%], at least 20% minority [confidence: 70%], at least 30% minority [30%]. Here I’m defining “minority” to include nonwhites, Latinos, and LGBT people, though not women. Note that by this definition America as a whole is about 35% minority and Congress is about 15% minority.
5. Gay marriage will remain legal throughout a Trump presidency [confidence: 95%]
6. Race relations as perceived by blacks, as measured by this Gallup poll, will do better under Trump than they did under Obama (ie the change in race relations 2017-2021 will be less negative/more positive than the change 2009-2016) [confidence: 70%].
7. Neither Trump nor any of his officials (Cabinet, etc) will endorse the KKK, Stormfront, or explicit neo-Nazis publicly, refuse to back down, etc, and keep their job [confidence: 99%].
8. No large demographic group (> 1 million people) get forced to sign up for a “registry” [confidence: 95%]
9> No large demographic group gets sent to internment camps [confidence: 99%]
10. Number of deportations during Trump’s four years will not be greater than Obama’s 8 [confidence: 90%]
If you disagree with me, come up with a bet and see if I’ll take it.
And if you don’t, stop.
Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.
Stop crying wolf. God forbid, one day we might have somebody who doesn’t give speeches about how diversity makes this country great and how he wants to fight for minorities, who doesn’t pose holding a rainbow flag and state that he proudly supports transgender people, who doesn’t outperform his party among minority voters, who wasn’t the leader of the Salute to Israel Parade, and who doesn’t offer minorities major cabinet positions. And we won’t be able to call that guy an “openly white supremacist Nazi homophobe”, because we already wasted all those terms this year.
Stop talking about dog whistles. The kabbalistic similarities between “dog-whistling” and “wolf-crying” are too obvious to ignore.
Stop writing articles breathlessly following everything the KKK says. Stop writing several times more articles about the KKK than there are actual Klansmen. Remember that thing where Trump started out as a random joke, and then the media covered him way more than any other candidate because he was so outrageous, and gave him what was essentially free advertising, and then he became President-elect of the United States? Is the lesson you learned from this experience that you need 24-7 coverage of the Ku Klux Klan?
Stop using the words “white nationalist” to describe Trump. When you describe someone as a white nationalist, and then they win, people start thinking white nationalism won. People like winners. This was entirely an own-goal and the perception that white nationalism is now the winning team has 1% to do with Trump and 99% to do with his critics.
Stop responding to everyone who worries about Wall Street or globalism or the elite with “I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.” This means you, Vox. Someday those three or four people who still believe the media are going to read this stuff and immediately join the Nazi Party, and nobody will be able to blame them.
Stop saying that being against crime is a dog whistle for racism. Have you ever met a crime victim? They don’t like crime. I work with people from a poor area, and a lot of them have been raped, or permanently disabled, or had people close to them murdered. You know what these people have in common? They don’t like crime When you say “the only reason someone could talk about law and order is that they secretly hate black people, because, y’know, all criminals are black”, not only are you an idiot, you’re a racist. Also, I judge you for not having read the polls saying that nonwhites are way more concerned about crime than white people are.
Stop turning everything into identity politics. The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout “IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!” at everything, and then when the right wing finally says “Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?” you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.
Stop calling Trump voters racist. A metaphor: we have freedom of speech not because all speech is good, but because the temptation to ban speech is so great that, unless given a blanket prohibition, it would slide into universal censorship of any unpopular opinion. Likewise, I would recommend you stop calling Trump voters racist – not because none of them are, but because as soon as you give yourself that opportunity, it’s a slippery slope down to “anyone who disagrees with me on anything does so entirely out of raw seething hatred, and my entire outgroup is secret members of the KKK and so I am justified in considering them worthless human trash”. I’m not saying you’re teetering on the edge of that slope. I’m saying you’re way at the bottom, covered by dozens of feet of fallen rocks and snow. Also, I hear that accusing people of racism constantly for no reason is the best way to get them to vote for your candidate next time around. Assuming there is a next time.
Stop centering criticism of Donald Trump around this sort of stuff, and switch to literally anything else. Here is an incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue with no idea how to run a country, whose philosophy of governance basically boils down to “I’m going to win and not lose, details to be filled in later”, and all you can do is repeat, again and again, how he seems popular among weird Internet teenagers who post frog memes. In the middle of an emotionally incontinent reality TV show host getting his hand on the nuclear button, your chief complaint is that in the middle of a few dozen denunciations of the KKK, he once delayed denouncing the KKK for an entire 24 hours before going back to denouncing it again. When a guy who says outright that he won’t respect elections unless he wins them does, somehow, win an election, the headlines are how he once said he didn’t like globalists which means he must be anti-Semitic.
Stop making people suicidal. Stop telling people they’re going to be killed. Stop terrifying children. Stop giving racism free advertising. Stop trying to convince Americans that all the other Americans hate them. Stop. Stop. Stop.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?emc=edit_ta_20161128&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
This is just too weird:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/29/report-trump-name-elaine-chao-transportation-secretary/
-
Only on condition that it is , , , platonic.
-
We have been listening to John Bolton on cable for years and I like nearly everything he has said. Yet he does not seem to be top choice for some reason.
I agree with Rand Paul here on Patraeus and I agree with Kelly Conway on Romney. But who am I:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/29/all-the-presidents-generals-potentially-including-one-at-state/
-
It looks to me like each came from Big Business to become an entrepreneur. That's not all bad.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/30/president-elect-trump-announces-economic-nationalist-dream-team-mnuchin-ross-and-ricketts/
-
I am glad that Rand Paul is back in the Senate. His perspective is an important part of our overall mix, but , , , I would be quite happy with Petraeus as Sec. State.
FP is very much a Democrat publication, and the whining of the cookie pushers at Foggy Bottom in the article impresses me not a bit.
-
Regarding Sec. of State, I guess we'll all know soon enough.
Romney was proven right on some things as compared with Obama. I think his appointment would be a good thing, but tough for Pat-types to swallow after all the negativity both ways.
Rand Paul is to the left or non-interventionist side of Obama, Hillary and Trump on foreign policy. Extremist in his passivity, IMHO. Great on some domestic issues but that is another matter.
Bolton is to the right or hawk side of Trump. Would send a different signal, but not a very compatible voice nor a fight worth taking up with the senate unless Trump was endorsing Bolton's foreign policy and he isn't.
Petreus turned a war around, single-handedly in terms of leadership. How that translates into diplomacy I don't know. He admitted his mistake (eventually) when caught, plead guilty, paid the price. I forgive him, but also don't know if that is worth the price of a fight for confirmation.
Sen. Corker I believe to be the wrong choice.
Giuliani, I am skeptical. Would support him if nominated.
Newt Gingrich should be press secretary.
Where does that leave us, Trump's choice. Maybe I pull for Romney IF they both do it for the right reasons, not to undermine each other.
Sec of State is on the short list in succession to be President. (Ask Al Haig about that!) It should be someone well respected, prominent and already vetted. It also needs to be someone with real organizational skills. That department needs to be turned upside down for a thorough cleaning and rebuilding.
-
Romney would be a big mistake IMO. Such a choice would badly damage Trump's brand and his loyalty could never be trusted-- he is an alpha wannabe and of a temperament that would find it hard not to stab Trump in the back , , , for the good of the country of course.
PS: Newt ripped him a new anus last night (on Hannity?). I don't have the quote handy, but quite the the zinger!
Not only has Petraeus shown absolutely extraordinary diplomatic skills in putting together the Surge (e.g. the Anbar Awakening) in Iraq and also in Afpakia. Also he has a PhD from Princeton in International Relations. His time at CIA adds to his depth. A true warrior-scholar. Trump appears to want Matthis as Sec Def, so for once there would be mutual respect between State and Defense!
As for his security blemish, let's review the facts as I remember them: It was hard copy-- no risk of hacking. The recipient, who was , , , ahem , , , particularly well known to him, , , had Secret clearance, just not Top Secret clearance. There was ZERO corruption.
Caught a snippet of Bolton today and he was speaking in terms of carrying out the President's policies (i.e. not his).
-
second post
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/two-familiar-faces-join-presidentelect-trumps-15350563/
-
Third post
Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!
-
http://nypost.com/2016/12/01/donald-trump-makes-surprise-call-to-al-sharpton/
-
Third post
Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/cxmwv2quaaeo7y3.jpg?w=500&h=500)
-
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
-
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
From the article: "During his stint as Mullen’s intelligence chief, Flynn would often write “This is bullshit!” in the margins of classified papers he was obliged to pass on to his boss, someone who saw these papers told me."
That may sound bad to a typical New Yorker reader but I have forwarded things without comment and people presume I am forwarding something I endorse or agree with. It would be irresponsible not to put some such comment on something passed along to a superior for consideration or awareness if that reflects his own knowledgeable and professional view. His boss wants his comment. Furthermore, aren't those comments on a classified document passed between two top clearance people also classified? The person revealing that has committed a crime(?) and so has the New Yorker in publishing it. No? "Hey, here's what I saw on a US military intelligence document marked Classified Top Secret!" "Great, let's publish it!" Really??
It tells me the guy doesn't mince words, nor was there any indication his boss offended.
The 'disgruntled' author called Flynn's service to his country in this high position, "during his stint as". As suggested, they are looking for something to deride or complain about and finding very little of significance. Like worrying about Bannon while elevating Ellison...
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/01/mattis-secdef-confirmation-risks-fight-pro-israel-groups/
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/trump-duterte-phone-call/index.html
Duterte can be something of a post-factual fellow himself , , ,
-
second post
http://billmoyers.com/story/steve-mnuchin-evictor-forecloser-new-treasury-secretary/
Nice touch:
http://addictinginfo.org/2016/12/02/woman-regrets-voting-for-trump-after-he-picks-man-who-took-her-house-away-as-treasury-secretary/
-
Forty minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggjdGNLXyI
-
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump inherited a complicated world when he won the election last month. And that was before a series of freewheeling phone calls with foreign leaders that has unnerved diplomats at home and abroad.
In the calls, he voiced admiration for one of the world’s most durable despots, the president of Kazakhstan, and said he hoped to visit a country, Pakistan, that President Obama has steered clear of during nearly eight years in office.
Mr. Trump told the British prime minister, Theresa May, “If you travel to the U.S., you should let me know,” an offhand invitation that came only after he spoke to nine other leaders. He later compounded it by saying on Twitter that Britain should name the anti-immigrant leader Nigel Farage its ambassador to Washington, a startling break with diplomatic protocol.
Mr. Trump’s unfiltered exchanges have drawn international attention since the election, most notably when he met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan with only one other American in the room, his daughter Ivanka Trump — dispensing with the usual practice of using State Department-approved talking points.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.
On Thursday, the White House weighed in with an offer of professional help. The press secretary, Josh Earnest, urged the president-elect to make use of the State Department’s policy makers and diplomats in planning and conducting his encounters with foreign leaders.
“President Obama benefited enormously from the advice and expertise that’s been shared by those who serve at the State Department,” Mr. Earnest said. “I’m confident that as President-elect Trump takes office, those same State Department employees will stand ready to offer him advice as he conducts the business of the United States overseas.”
“Hopefully he’ll take it,” he added.
A spokesman for the State Department, John Kirby, said the department was “helping facilitate and support calls as requested.” But he declined to give details, and it was not clear to what extent Mr. Trump was availing himself of the nation’s diplomats.
Mr. Trump’s conversation with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has generated the most angst, because, as Mr. Earnest put it, the relationship between Mr. Sharif’s country and the United States is “quite complicated,” with disputes over issues ranging from counterterrorism to nuclear proliferation.
In a remarkably candid readout of the phone call, the Pakistani government said Mr. Trump had told Mr. Sharif that he was “a terrific guy” who made him feel as though “I’m talking to a person I have known for long.” He described Pakistanis as “one of the most intelligent people.” When Mr. Sharif invited him to visit Pakistan, the president-elect replied that he would “love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people.”
The Trump transition office, in its more circumspect readout, said only that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sharif “had a productive conversation about how the United States and Pakistan will have a strong working relationship in the future.” It did not confirm or deny the Pakistani account of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
The breezy tone of the readout left diplomats in Washington slack-jawed, with some initially assuming it was a parody. In particular, they zeroed in on Mr. Trump’s offer to Mr. Sharif “to play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country’s problems.”
That was interpreted by some in India as an offer by the United States to mediate Pakistan’s border dispute with India in Kashmir, something that the Pakistanis have long sought and that India has long resisted.
“By taking such a cavalier attitude to these calls, he’s encouraging people not to take him seriously,” said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He’s made himself not only a bull in a china shop, but a bull in a nuclear china shop.”
Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, said his government’s decision to release a rough transcript of Mr. Trump’s remarks was a breach of protocol that demonstrated how easily Pakistani leaders misread signals from their American counterparts.
“Pakistan is one country where knowing history and details matters most,” Mr. Haqqani said, “and where the U.S. cannot afford to give wrong signals, given the history of misunderstandings.”
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
At one level, Mr. Trump’s warm sentiments were surprising, given that during the campaign, he called for temporarily barring Muslims from entering the United States to avoid importing would-be terrorists.
His conversation with Mr. Sharif also came a day after an attack at Ohio State University in which a Somali-born student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, rammed a car into a group of pedestrians and slashed several people with a knife before being shot and killed by the police. Law enforcement officials said Mr. Artan, whom the Islamic State has claimed as a “soldier,” had lived in Pakistan for seven years before coming to the United States in 2014.
Mr. Obama never visited Pakistan as president, even though he had a circle of Pakistani friends in college and spoke fondly of the country. The White House weighed a visit at various times but always decided against it, according to officials, because of security concerns or because it would be perceived as rewarding Pakistani leaders for what many American officials said was their lack of help in fighting terrorism.
“It sends a powerful message to the people of a country when the president of the United States goes to visit,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s true whether it’s some of our closest allies, or that’s also true if it’s a country like Pakistan, with whom our relationship is somewhat more complicated.”
Mr. Trump’s call with President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan raised similar questions.
Mr. Nazarbayev has ruled his country with an iron hand since 1989, first as head of the Communist Party and later as president after Kazakhstan won its independence from the Soviet Union. In April 2015, he won a fifth term, winning 97.7 percent of the vote and raising suspicions of fraud.
The Kazakh government, in its account of Mr. Trump’s conversation, said he had lavished praise on the president for his leadership of the country over the last 25 years. “D. Trump stressed that under the leadership of Nursultan Nazarbayev, our country over the years of independence had achieved fantastic success that can be called a ‘miracle,’” it said.
The statement went on to say that Mr. Trump had shown solidarity with the Kazakh government over its decision to voluntarily surrender the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviets. “There is no more important issue than the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, which must be addressed in a global context,” it quoted Mr. Trump as saying.
Mr. Trump’s statement said that Mr. Nazarbayev had congratulated him on his victory, and that Mr. Trump had reciprocated by congratulating him on the 25th anniversary of his country. Beyond that, it said only that the two leaders had “addressed the importance of strengthening regional partnerships.”
-
Kudos from this poster to the Pres-elect for that long needed move.
Reagan didn't do that as he faced down the bigger Soviet threat but I think would fully support the idea that Taiwan is our ally and the PRC/PLA is a rival or worse.
It was a phone call, not nuclear attack, and it got their attention.
Talk about fake news, the idea that Taiwan doesn't exist and Cuba, N.K., Iran, etc. are US and UK recognized countries is Orwellian and insane.
-
Kudos from this poster to the Pres-elect for that long needed move.
Reagan didn't do that as he faced down the bigger Soviet threat but I think would fully support the idea that Taiwan is our ally and the PRC/PLA is a rival or worse.
It was a phone call, not nuclear attack, and it got their attention.
Talk about fake news, the idea that Taiwan doesn't exist and Cuba, N.K., Iran, etc. are US and UK recognized countries is Orwellian and insane.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/12/02/return-to-the-first-island-chain/
Return To the First Island Chain
By Richard Fernandez December 2, 2016
An aerial view shows a Taiwan Coast Guard vessel preparing for a search-and-rescue exercise off Taiping island, in the South China Sea , Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016, as part of efforts to cement its claim to a key island in the strategically vital waterbody. Eight vessels and three aircraft took part in Tuesday's drill, which simulated a fire aboard a cargo ship that forced crew members to seek safety on Taiping in the Spratly island group. (AP Photo/Johnson Lai)
Donald Trump appears to have sent a message to Beijing: the First Island Chain will be held. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines will remain the Westernmost bulwark in the Pacific. The Hill writes: "Donald Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwan President Tsai Ying-wen, a conversation that breaks decades of U.S. protocol and risks a clash with China. ... The phone call will almost certainly infuriate Beijing, which sees Taiwan as a breakaway province."
The First Island Chain, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to a network of peninsulas and archipelagos which mirror the China coast, and whose possession blocks Beijing from direct access to the broad Pacific. Japan considers denying the First Island chain to a foe as essential to her defense. For many years the same string of islanders served as America's strategic frontier in the West.
Recently China has been challenging the US by a series of encroachments. Trump's actions may signal that he will start to push back.
Readers may recall that the first foreign leader to meet with the president elect was Japanese PM Shinzo Abe. Since then Trump's policy appears to have taken on a definite shape.
The call with Taiwan is just the latest Trump discussion with a foreign leader to make headlines.
Trump's call this week with Pakistan's leader also raised eyebrows after that country's government released a readout that said the president-elect had discussed going to Pakistan — something President Obama did not do while in office.
And Trump made waves on Friday with a report that he had invited the controversial leader of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, to the White House. ...
Foreign-policy experts say the call could alter U.S.-China relations, regardless of how it was arranged.
“I would guess that President-elect Trump does not really comprehend how sensitive Beijing is about this issue,” said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
It’s not clear if Trump’s call was meant to signal a shift in U.S. policy toward Taiwan.
But even if it is not, it could play into pre-existing concerns the Chinese have about the president-elect’s posture toward their country.
The NYT calls it a possible affront to Beijing. It would not be surprising if China is beginning to suspect that Trump may have identified America's primary global rival as China. Russia would for the first time since 1945 be secondary. America never wholly abandoned Taiwan. One of the lesser known -- because low key -- installations on Taiwan was the installation of older Pave Paws Radar. But now things are out in the open.
It’s very, very valuable to Taiwan. Constructed on the top of a mountain in the country’s north, the Raytheon-built system cost approximately $1.4 billion. Purchasing the system from the United States stretches back to the Clinton administration, with lots of setbacks along the way. Taiwan was so freaked out last year when PAVE PAWS popped up on Apple Maps that it prevailed upon Apple to obscure the image of the system.
But with little international notice, Taiwan declared its PAVE PAWS operational last month. Air Force Lt. Wu Wan-chiao boasted that Taiwan would now have “more than six minutes’ warning in preparation for any surprise attacks.”
Chances are, it’s not just benefiting the Taiwanese. “I would expect the U.S. would have made a deal that the U.S. gets satellite surveillance from the Taiwan radar,” Allen Thomson, a former CIA weapons analyst, tells Danger Room. “Most of time it’s sitting there watching satellites, and that’s about it. The U.S. could certainly could use that information.”
Sponsored
The question must be what form will this rivalry -- if rivalry be -- take? Since we have returned in some degree to the Cold War, the obvious candidate mode is a kind of Cold War with China, with both cooperative and adversarial aspects.
The shocking thing about Trump is the speed with which he may be making these moves. The Left thinks they are the random actions of an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing. However China is unlikely to assume that. They will assume it is guided to some degree by calculation and they would likely be right.
But Trump should sell such momentous shifts to the public: explain what it means, what risks it entails, why it is wise. There will be unavoidable costs. Trump's apparent determination to hold the First Island chain suggest geopolitics will dominate human rights considerations, at least for now. That may be a worthwhile tradeoff -- or it may not -- but for any policy to last it has to be supported by a significant majority of the voters.
The Democratic Party should stop underestimating Donald Trump. The good news is that he moves at nongovernment speed. The bad news is that, due to his outsider status, nobody knows exactly where he is going. Maybe it's time to find out.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nTd2ZAX_tc
and this:
http://rare.us/story/stephen-bannon-is-not-a-white-supremacist-and-the-media-helps-racists-by-saying-he-is/
-
Yes, this is the NY Times and as such is likely to include snarky misdirects, but there is a real issue here and if we are not to fall to prey to situational ethics we need to acknowledge this IMHO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/politics/trump-family-ivanka-donald-jr.html?emc=edit_ta_20161204&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
Yes, this is the NY Times and as such is likely to include snarky misdirects, but there is a real issue here and if we are not to fall to prey to situational ethics we need to acknowledge this IMHO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/politics/trump-family-ivanka-donald-jr.html?emc=edit_ta_20161204&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
How's their coverage of the Clinton Foundation?
-
As we both know, pretty fg minimalist.
OTOH we do not need to imitate their hypocrisy. Correctly we made a big point about "pay to play" and should do so if it appears here.
-
What a curious coincidence :wink:
The U.S. Can Play a ‘Taiwan Card’
If China won’t back down in East Asia, Washington has options that would compel Beijing’s attention.
Tsai Ing-wen celebrates her election victory in Taipei Saturday. ENLARGE
Tsai Ing-wen celebrates her election victory in Taipei Saturday. Illustration: © Chris Stowers/Zuma Press
By John Bolton
Jan. 17, 2016 1:04 p.m. ET
49 COMMENTS
Taiwan’s elections have returned the Democratic Progressive Party to power. Rolling over the incumbent Kuomintang (KMT) nationalists, the DPP won both the presidency and a legislative majority, giving it controls of both elective branches for the first time.
President-elect Tsai Ing-wen didn’t center her campaign on attacking the KMT policy of closer relations with China, focusing instead on Taiwan’s lagging economy, but neither did she reject the bedrock DPP platform of independence from China. Her rhetoric, including her victory statement on Saturday, has been cautious. But her party’s base knows what it wants. Inevitably, therefore, East Asia warning flags are up.
Of course, the U.S. will also have presidential elections in 2016, and most of the Republican candidates are determined to replace the vacuum that exists where America’s China policy should be. This may involve modifying or even jettisoning the ambiguous “one China” mantra, along with even more far-reaching initiatives to counter Beijing’s rapidly accelerating political and military aggressiveness in the South and East China seas.
Repeatedly met with passivity from Washington and impotence from the region, Beijing has declared much of the South China Sea a Chinese province, designated a provincial capital, and is creating not merely “facts on the ground” but the ground itself, in the form of artificial islands on which it is constructing air and naval bases.
Predictably, China’s partisans in the West contend that Beijing’s current economic troubles mean Xi Jinping won’t move first to provoke trouble with Ms. Tsai’s administration in Taipei. But Beijing’s ongoing reckoning with economic reality doesn’t necessarily mean it will be less assertive internationally. Authoritarian governments confronted with domestic problems have historically sought to distract their citizens by rallying nationalistic support against foreign adversaries. Who better to blame for China’s economic crash than the U.S. and pesky Taiwan?
How Ms. Tsai would react to Mr. Xi’s provocations remains unknown. Of course China would prefer for Taiwan to fall into its lap like a ripe fruit, with its economic infrastructure and productivity intact, rather than to risk hostilities over the island. But in the period to come Beijing must consider not merely a less pliant Taiwanese government, but also America’s next president.
Beijing knows that the weak, inattentive President Barack Obama will be in office for only one more year. Whereas even Bill Clinton ordered U.S. carrier battle groups to Taiwan’s aid in the 1996 cross-Strait crisis, few Americans today believe that Mr. Obama would do the same.
How could Beijing’s leadership not draw the same conclusion? Washington’s current unwillingness to stand firm against Chinese belligerence in Asian waters only encourages Beijing to act before Jan. 20, 2017, perhaps especially before Ms. Tsai is inaugurated in four months. For now observers can only monitor East Asia’s geopolitical space, involving not just Taiwan but also the South and East China seas, until America’s inauguration day, praying that the Asian situation is not hopeless by then.
For a new U.S. president willing to act boldly, there are opportunities to halt and then reverse China’s seemingly inexorable march toward hegemony in East Asia. Playing the “China card” in the Nixon Administration made sense at the time, but the reflexive, near-addictive adherence to pro-China policies since has become unwise and increasingly risky as Beijing’s isolation and backwardness have diminished.
An alternative now would be to play the “Taiwan card” against China. America should insist that China reverse its territorial acquisitiveness, including abandoning its South China Sea bases and undoing the ecological damage its construction has caused. China is free to continue asserting its territorial claims diplomatically, but until they are peacefully resolved with its near neighbors, they and the U.S. are likewise free to ignore such claims in their entirety.
If Beijing isn’t willing to back down, America has a diplomatic ladder of escalation that would compel Beijing’s attention. The new U.S. administration could start with receiving Taiwanese diplomats officially at the State Department; upgrading the status of U.S. representation in Taipei from a private “institute” to an official diplomatic mission; inviting Taiwan’s president to travel officially to America; allowing the most senior U.S. officials to visit Taiwan to transact government business; and ultimately restoring full diplomatic recognition.
Beijing’s leaders would be appalled by this approach, as the U.S. is appalled by their maritime territorial aggression. China must understand that creating so-called provinces risks causing itself to lose control, perhaps forever, of another so-called province. Even were China to act more responsibly in nearby waters, of course, Taiwan’s fate would still be for its people to decide.
Too many foreigners continue echoing Beijing’s view that Taiwan is a problem only resolvable by uniting the island and the mainland as “one China.” But Taiwan’s freedom isn’t a problem. It is an inspiration. Let Beijing contemplate that fact on the ground.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
-
third post
http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-ceo-now-a-contender-for-donald-trumps-secretary-of-state-1480878402
-
As we both know, pretty fg minimalist.
OTOH we do not need to imitate their hypocrisy. Correctly we made a big point about "pay to play" and should do so if it appears here.
I couldn't be less interested in the corrupt left's pearl clutching over theoretical ethical issues with Trump as the ignore actual bodies from the ignored scandals of Obama.
-
Third post
Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/cxmwv2quaaeo7y3.jpg?w=500&h=500)
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/02/served-james-mattis-heres-learned/
I Served With James Mattis. Here’s What I Learned From Him
To Marines, Gen. James Mattis is the finest of our tribal elders. The rest of the world, very soon, will know how truly gifted he is.
Stanton S. Coerr By Stanton S. Coerr
DECEMBER 2, 2016
This article is slightly amended and reprinted, with permission, from The Strategy Bridge.
America knows Gen. James Mattis as a character, Mad Dog Mattis, the font of funny quotes and Chuck Norris-caliber memes. Those of us who served with him know that he is a caring, erudite, warfighting general. We also know that there is a reason he uses the call-sign Chaos: he is a lifelong student of his profession, a devotee of maneuver warfare and Sun Tzu, the sort of guy who wants to win without fighting—to cause chaos among those he would oppose.
To Marines, he is the finest of our tribal elders. The rest of the world, very soon, will know how truly gifted he is. Our friends and allies will be happy he is our new secretary of war; our enemies will soon wish he weren’t.
I worked for Mattis three times: when he was a colonel, a major general, and a lieutenant general. I very much want to work for him again. Here is why.
One: July 1994
I checked into Third Battalion, Seventh Marines in Twentynine Palms, California in 1994. It was 125 degrees in July in the high desert; everyone was in the field. This was a hard place, for hard men training for the hardest of jobs.
Then-Colonel Mattis, the Seventh Marines regimental commander, called for me to come see him. I was not only just a brand-new captain, but an aviator in an infantry regiment. I was a minor light in the Seventh Marines firmament: I was not in any measure a key player.
I arrived early, as a captain does when reporting to a colonel, and waited in his anteroom. There, I convinced myself what this would be: a quick handshake, a stern few sentences on what I was to do while there, and then a slap on the back with a “Go get ‘em, Tiger!” as he turned to the next task at hand. This was a busy guy. Five minutes, tops.
Colonel Mattis called for me. He stood to greet me, and offered to get coffee for me. He put a hand on my shoulder; gave me, over my protestations, his own seat behind his desk; and pulled up a chair to the side. He actually took his phone off the hook—something I had thought was just a figure of speech—closed his office door, and spent more than an hour knee-to-knee with me.
Mattis laid out his warfighting philosophy, vision, goals, and expectations. He told me how he saw us fighting and where, and how he was getting us ready to do just that. He laid out history, culture, religion, and politics, and he saw very clearly not only where we would fight, but how Seventh Marines, a desert battalion, fit into that fight.
Many years later, when Seventh Marines got into that fight, he was proven precisely right. It would not be the last time.
Two: February 2003
Major Gen. Mattis was commanding general of First Marine Division, in charge of the riflemen who were going to bear the brunt of President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war. He was small, wiry, and feisty, energy cooking off of him, the sort of guy who walks into a room of Alpha males and is instantly the leader. Mattis was a lifelong bachelor married to the Marine Corps, with a reputation as an ass-kicking, ferocious leader, an officer who took shit from no man and would do anything for his Marines.
Mattis had led First Battalion, Seventh Marines as part of Task Force Ripper during Desert Storm, and had cemented his reputation as a man on the way up. This reputation, well-earned even then, was solidified when he took Task Force 58, pulled together from two Marine Expeditionary Unit afloat, 400 miles over Pakistan and into Afghanistan late in 2001 to retaliate on behalf of us all against al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11. He was a blunt, smart warfighter, just the sort of man our bulldog savior, Gen. Al Gray, had started pulling up the ladder behind him when he was commandant in the late 1980s.
I felt very confident with these two major generals—Mattis of the infantry and Amos of the air wing—in charge. And I felt even more confident as I looked around the room.
The metal folding chairs held hundreds of men. Pilots were in tan flight suits, pistols hanging on their chests in shoulder holsters. Infantry officers sat farther back; these were battalion fire support coordinators, seasoned majors who commanded a rifle battalion’s weapons company (heavy guns, 81 mm mortars, rockets, and TOW missiles) and were therefore the key men in a battalion’s fire support planning.
These guys were firsts among equals, and were almost always the best and often most senior of the young officers in a battalion. Most had with him his battalion air officer, an aviator serving with a rifle battalion (as I had with 3/7 under Col. Mattis) responsible for coordinating air strikes with the infantry’s scheme of maneuver and the indirect fire of both mortars and artillery.
The senior aviators, squadron and group commanders, sat near the front, with their counterpart battalion and regimental infantry commanders. Lieutenant colonels and colonels sat in front, captains and majors filling in the rear: hair atop heads grew noticeably more sparse the further forward you looked. Heads shined, and jaws firmly set. Showtime.
The discussions began with an intel brief. The first bad guys we were going to come across, and those we were therefore most concerned about, were the Iraqi 51st Mechanized Division. They were not the Republican Guard, but had a reputation as having some tough fighters who could shoot straight. The word was that officers were taking all civilian clothes from their men and having them burned, to prevent the conscripts from stripping off their uniforms and fleeing the war, trying to blend back into the civilian population.
On our side, they were expecting Seventh Marines to be ready to go on 10 March, Fifth Marines ready to go on 20 March, and First Marines ready to go in a month: 1 March. A-day and G-Day would go simultaneously. My ears perked up at this. No pre-invasion bombing? I was expecting the air war to start up any day, to soften the bad guys up for at least month as we did the first time we kicked this Iraqi Army’s ass in 1991.
No air war? Wow. The briefer didn’t come out and say “You grunts are screwed,” but rather used intelspeak: “We anticipate at this time that there will be no formalized shaping of the battlefield.” Rules of engagement would be fairly relaxed: kill people if they need killin’. Maps were flashed up, showing the initial Battlespace Coordination Line (BCL): we were given permission to kill anything beyond that line. This was going to be a huge, high-stakes shooting gallery.
Logistics was going to be an issue. It was a long way to Baghdad from there, and there were a hell of a lot of guys massing on the border. When Mattis took the boys into Afghanistan, it took 0.5 short tons (a “short ton” is 2,000 pounds even, versus a “ton,” which is closer to 2,200 pounds) per Marine deployed. They were expecting that it would be five times that effort—2.5 short tons per Marine—to get a guy to Baghdad. I remembered that Gen. Krulak, our commandant in the late 1990s, had made his reputation as a logistics wizard in Desert Storm.
Good officers study military history, great officers study logistics. Mattis was a great officer.
Good officers study military history, great officers study logistics. Mattis was a great officer. His “Log Light” configuration for the division was meant to get people north fast, and not try to shoot our way through every little town on the way. As only he could do, he described it thus: “If you can’t eat it, shoot it, or wear it, don’t bring it.”
Mattis stood. As always, he spoke without notes, having long ago memorized everything.
“Gentlemen, this is going to be the most air-centric division in the history of warfare. Don’t you worry about the lack of shaping; if we need to kill something, it is going to get killed. I would storm the gates of Hell if Third Marine Air Wing was overhead.”
He looked toward the back of the cavernous room, and spoke loud, clear, and confident, hands on his hips.
“There is one way to have a short but exciting conversation with me,” he continued, “and that is to move too slow. Gentlemen, this is not a marathon, this is a sprint. In about a month, I am going to go forward of our Marines up to the border between Iraq and Kuwait. And when I get there, one of two things is going to happen. Either the commander of the Fifty-First Mechanized Division is going to surrender his army in the field to me, or he and all his guys are going to die.”
Nothing much else needed to be said after that.
Three: March 2003
Early in the afternoon, every British and American officer loaded up and headed across the desert to the marvelously named Camp Matilda, one of the Marine Corps base camps farther north towards Iraq. This was my first foray out into the open desert, and it was a National Geographic special come to life.
Camels ambled along next to the road or stood and stared stupidly at the cars whizzing by mere feet away. I assumed they would be herded by men in flowing robes on camels, like in “Lawrence of Arabia.” The men indeed wore robes and flowing headdresses, but herded their beasts in pickup trucks. Wealthier Kuwaitis zoomed by in red-checked caftans driving the ubiquitous Mercedes sedan.
Without referencing a single piece of paper, he discussed what each unit would do and in what sequence, and outlined his end state for each phase of the early war.
First Marine Division was holding their first ROC Drill, the rehearsal of concept of what we were about to do. I had never seen a walk-through like this before. Marines had spent days building an enormous reproduction of southern Iraq in a bowl formed by a huge, semicircular sand dune. Each road, each river, each canal, each oil field was built to scale and even in proper color (water was blue dye poured into a sand ditch, and so on.)
Each Marine unit wore football jerseys in different colors, and with proper numbers. First Battalion, Fifth Marines, known as one-five, wore blue jerseys with “15” on the back, and other units were similarly identified. Principal staff from those units stood on the “border” drawn in the sand. About 300 officers stood and sat on the dune above. It was the perfect way to visualize what was about to happen.
General Mattis stood up and took a handheld microphone. Without referencing a single piece of paper, he discussed what each unit would do and in what sequence, and outlined his end state for each phase of the early war. He spoke for nearly 30 minutes, and his complete mastery of every nuance of the battle forthcoming was truly impressive.
A narrator then took over and picked up the narrative, the rest of the first week of the early war in sequence. As he described each movement, the officers from that unit walked to the proper place on their terrain model, and by the end of an hour the colored jerseys were spread over nearly a football field’s worth of sand. What a show.
At the end of the drill, questions were answered and then Mattis dismissed everyone. No messing around with this guy. Mike Murdoch, one of the British company commanders, leaned over to me, his eyes wide. “Mate, are all your generals that good?”
I looked at him.
“No. He is the best we have.”
As everyone rose to leave, Mattis fired one last directive over the microphone: “You’ve got about 30 days.”
Stanton S. Coerr was a Marine officer and is a veteran of the war in Iraq. He holds degrees from Duke, Harvard, and the Naval War College, and now lives and works in Washington DC.
-
Hey ALGOR come on up and say hello and who knows what else:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/an-inconvenient-trump-ivanka-brings-al-gore-to-trump-tower-to-talk-climate-policy
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20161205&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
I love Dr. Ben but this could be a big mistake for all concerned.
-
this is 2 yrs old but I assume still applies:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/romney-is-right-abolish-hud/#4a41f0d17074
-
"I couldn't be less interested in the corrupt left's pearl clutching over theoretical ethical issues with Trump as they ignore actual bodies from the ignored scandals of Obama."
It's okay for the msm to go nuts over him but what Trump can't do is let his approval levels slip to George Bush's ending levels. If 29% stick with him and the rest turn against him, nothing will get done.
The Trump business is a conflict, they feed off of favors from foreign governments and it isn't easy to divest or distance himself from it. But not solving that affects the Supreme Court, healthcare, tax reform, etc. IMHO. I hope he has a good plan.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20161205&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
I love Dr. Ben but this could be a big mistake for all concerned.
It's risky to take responsibility for a big, failed bureaucracy, but I see good coming out of this. People in the black inner cities need some kind of contact with one of the great black conservative minds and personalities of our time, and this appointment presents that opportunity. Someone needs to reach out and inspire people with a message different than the race and welfare baiters are selling and Ben Carson has the potential to do that.
What's wrong in HUD housing is not the houses or the costs. Housing is a people business.
-
"I couldn't be less interested in the corrupt left's pearl clutching over theoretical ethical issues with Trump as they ignore actual bodies from the ignored scandals of Obama."
It's okay for the msm to go nuts over him but what Trump can't do is let his approval levels slip to George Bush's ending levels. If 29% stick with him and the rest turn against him, nothing will get done.
The Trump business is a conflict, they feed off of favors from foreign governments and it isn't easy to divest or distance himself from it. But not solving that affects the Supreme Court, healthcare, tax reform, etc. IMHO. I hope he has a good plan.
The MSM is a spent force. Bush sat quietly as he was drug through the mud by the leftist hate machine. Trump has no such qualms in firing back immediately through social media. The MSM/academia now has all the credibility of a Anthony Wiener speech on self control and morality.
No one cares what they have to say. If Trump were to walk on water, the MSM would scream "Trump aquaphobic! Al-right Homophobic, Islamophobic and now Aquaphobic!!!111!!!!!!
Women, minorities, LGTBBQ hardest hit!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!
:roll:
-
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
If the press would cover me accurately & honorably, I would have far less reason to "tweet." Sadly, I don't know if that will ever happen!
-
Trump picks trade advocate to be ambassador to China.
For all his talk of punishing China, President-elect Trump has chosen a conciliator with a personal relationship with China’s president to be his ambassador in Beijing.
An Iowa governor might seem an unlikely choice for one of the more sensitive diplomatic posts, but Gov. Terry Branstad has ties with China that go back decades.
Mr. Branstad, whose selection was first reported by Bloomberg News and confirmed on condition of anonymity on Wednesday by two people with direct knowledge, is close to President Xi Jinping, whom he has known for more than three decades. They met in 1985, when Mr. Branstad was serving his first term as governor of Iowa and Mr. Xi was a 31-year-old rural official in Hebei Province, studying modern American agriculture, including hog and corn farming in Iowa.
Mr. Branstad has courted China as governor, promoting his state’s farm goods. As ambassador, he would be tasked with managing a complex relationship that Mr. Trump has already indicated he is willing to shake up. The president-elect’s call with Taiwan’s president last week prompted criticism from Beijing, which considers it a breakaway province, and Mr. Trump responded with posts on Twitter attacking China for its trade practices and provocative moves in the South China Sea.
Mr. Trump is scheduled to travel to Des Moines on Thursday for a rally.
=============================================
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump has settled on Gen. John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general whose son was killed in combat in Afghanistan, as his choice for secretary of homeland security, placing defense of American territory from terrorism in the hands of a seasoned commander with personal exposure to the costs of war.
General Kelly, 66, who led the United States Southern Command, had a 40-year career in the Marine Corps, and led troops in intense combat in western Iraq. In 2003, he became the first Marine colonel since 1951 to be promoted to brigadier general while in active combat.
Mr. Trump, a person briefed on the decision said, has not yet formally offered the job to General Kelly, in part because the general is out of the country this week. The president-elect plans to roll out the appointment next week, along with his remaining national security positions, including secretary of state.
Graphic
Donald Trump Is Choosing His Cabinet. Here’s the Latest List.
A list of possibilities and appointees for top posts in the new administration.
OPEN Graphic
In 2010, General Kelly earned a painful distinction when his son, Lt. Robert Michael Kelly, was killed after stepping on a mine while leading a platoon in Afghanistan. General Kelly became the highest-ranking military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan.
General Kelly has said little about that experience, but it played a role in his selection by Mr. Trump, according to people close to the Trump transition. Mr. Trump, his aides said, wanted people on his national security team who understood personally the hazards of sending Americans into combat.
Choosing a bereaved father could also help heal the rift from Mr. Trump’s clash in the summer with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the Pakistani-American parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 during the Iraq War. The Khans appeared on behalf of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic convention, and later came under sharp criticism by Mr. Trump.
General Kelly was the commander of the United States Southern Command, a job in which he functioned as a commander-ambassador. Responsible for a sprawling area that encompasses 32 countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America, the Southern Command is less combat-focused than other regional military commands. It has a reputation for emphasizing “soft power” over hard military might, and gets deeply involved in issues such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, as well as programs to train local militaries.
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Still, General Kelly attracted notice while at the Southern Command for comments about the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which fell in his area of responsibility. He rejected criticism from human rights activists about the treatment of detainees, and said the program to force-feed prisoners undertaking hunger strikes was reasonable and humane. He also dismissed one argument cited by those who advocate closing the military prison at Guantánamo, saying it had not proven to be an inspiration to those taking up militant action.
He also made statements that questioned the Obama administration’s plans to open all combat jobs to women, saying the military would have to lower its physical standards to bring women into some roles.
“There will be great pressure, whether it’s 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we’ve let women into these other roles, why aren’t they staying in those other roles?” he said to reporters in January, shortly before his retirement.
“If we don’t change standards,” General Kelly added, “it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers — any real numbers come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the SEALs, but that’s their business.”
-
By Paul Sonne,
Gordon Lubold and
Julian E. Barnes
Dec. 7, 2016 5:30 a.m. ET
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, named as President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary, doesn’t agree with his presumptive new boss on every issue of national security policy. But he encompasses traits the incoming commander-in-chief evidently prizes: professional success, the esteem of peers and an edgy public image.
Where Mr. Trump campaigned on a pledge to “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal, while Gen. Mattis, though critical, said there is “no going back” on the agreement. Mr. Trump has threatened to quit longstanding security pacts because allies don’t spend enough on defense; Gen. Mattis thinks that for any U.S. president to regard allies as freeloaders “is nuts.”
And while Mr. Trump vowed to bring back the practice of waterboarding for overseas detainees, Gen. Mattis appeared to convince him during the course of a private meeting last month that the method wasn’t useful.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate retired Gen. James Mattis to be his defense secretary, introducing him on stage at an event in North Carolina. Photo: Associated Press
Differences aside, the 66-year-old general, who retired in 2013, would bring to the administration a longtime military commander with deep battlefield experience in recent American wars, a towering reputation in the ranks and a record of friction with the Obama administration.
Mr. Trump appears particularly fond of Gen. Mattis’s nickname--“Mad Dog”--using it in a Twitter message after the two met as well as at an Ohio rally on Thursday where he announced he was offering Gen. Mattis the job.
But before becoming defense secretary, Gen. Mattis faces a potentially rigorous confirmation process. Congress must adopt legislation allowing him to serve because he hasn’t been out of the military for seven years, as the law requires. He also may draw scrutiny because of a four-year-long connection with Theranos Inc., the embattled blood-testing startup.
In addition to Gen. Mattis, Mr. Trump chose another retired commander, Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, as his national security adviser and is considering other retired generals for top administration posts. The introduction of former military officers into jobs traditionally reserved for civilians marks a dramatic shift from the Obama administration, which became known for tension between the top military brass and civilian political appointees at the White House.
As Mr. Trump’s defense secretary, Gen. Mattis would bring his own views to the administration. Mr. Trump expressed isolationist views on the campaign trail; Gen. Mattis at times has advocated more engagement abroad.
In an article for the Hoover Institution last year, he called for Congress to authorize military action against Islamic State and allow for the use of U.S. troops. He denounced limits or deadlines, writing “the time for half-measures is gone.”
Gen. Mattis has advocated fighting Islamic State with battles of annihilation rather than attrition. “So the first time they meet the forces that we put against them, there should be basically no survivors,” he said in a March 2015 interview.
His views come from years of commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and deep involvement in key fights in both wars, including the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004. He has a penchant for blunt talk and a colorful reputation that has earned him a series of nicknames, including “Mad Dog” and “Chaos.”
He drew criticism from American Muslims for a frequently noted 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, telling the audience that “it’s fun to shoot some people.”
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Gen. Mattis said at the time. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
A 2006 book on the Iraq war by former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter Thomas Ricks disclosed a rule given by Gen. Mattis to troops in Iraq: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
While known for such hard-edged quotes, the unmarried former Marine Corps officer is also considered deeply scholarly, earning another nickname, the “warrior monk.” He brought a copy of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius’ writings with him while deployed abroad to remind himself of the timelessness of impulses, challenges and solutions in warfare.
An accomplished strategist, Gen. Mattis helped develop the military’s counterinsurgency doctrine and an approach aimed at winning the support of local populations.
Over his career, he rose through the ranks from enlistee to four-star general, ultimately becoming chief of U.S. Central Command under President Obama in 2010, a position he held until his retirement three years later.
The administration announced his successor earlier than was necessary, a move that had the effect of undercutting Gen. Mattis and spurred a belief on Capitol Hill that he had been treated unfairly by the White House. The Obama administration also drew criticism for forcing Gen. Flynn out of his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Trump’s Inner Circle
More about the people President-elect Donald Trump has chosen to join him at the White House.
Since leaving the military, Gen. Mattis has been a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and has served on corporate boards, including Theranos and General Dynamics Corp., the defense contractor and aerospace firm.
Military subordinates have praised both his strategic aptitude and his loyalty to troops. In 2001, he declined a sleeping cot until all his Marines had their own.
Experts said Gen. Mattis could fill an important role as the Trump administration sets about defining what it sees as the U.S. role in the world.
“Mattis never enters a knife fight without a strategy. He has a plan A, plan B and plan C,” said Glen Howard, who has worked as a consultant to U.S. national security agencies and is president of the Jamestown Foundation, a think tank in Washington.
“He knows the geopolitical chessboard and knows the utility of American power and how to use it and when not to use it,” Mr. Howard said. “I think the message Trump sends by picking Mattis is that when he talks to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, Mattis will be nearby.”
Write to Paul Sonne at paul.sonne@wsj.com, Gordon Lubold at Gordon.Lubold@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com
===========================
By Paul Sonne,
Gordon Lubold and
Julian E. Barnes
Dec. 7, 2016 5:30 a.m. ET
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, named as President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary, doesn’t agree with his presumptive new boss on every issue of national security policy. But he encompasses traits the incoming commander-in-chief evidently prizes: professional success, the esteem of peers and an edgy public image.
Where Mr. Trump campaigned on a pledge to “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal, while Gen. Mattis, though critical, said there is “no going back” on the agreement. Mr. Trump has threatened to quit longstanding security pacts because allies don’t spend enough on defense; Gen. Mattis thinks that for any U.S. president to regard allies as freeloaders “is nuts.”
And while Mr. Trump vowed to bring back the practice of waterboarding for overseas detainees, Gen. Mattis appeared to convince him during the course of a private meeting last month that the method wasn’t useful.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate retired Gen. James Mattis to be his defense secretary, introducing him on stage at an event in North Carolina. Photo: Associated Press
Differences aside, the 66-year-old general, who retired in 2013, would bring to the administration a longtime military commander with deep battlefield experience in recent American wars, a towering reputation in the ranks and a record of friction with the Obama administration.
Mr. Trump appears particularly fond of Gen. Mattis’s nickname--“Mad Dog”--using it in a Twitter message after the two met as well as at an Ohio rally on Thursday where he announced he was offering Gen. Mattis the job.
But before becoming defense secretary, Gen. Mattis faces a potentially rigorous confirmation process. Congress must adopt legislation allowing him to serve because he hasn’t been out of the military for seven years, as the law requires. He also may draw scrutiny because of a four-year-long connection with Theranos Inc., the embattled blood-testing startup.
In addition to Gen. Mattis, Mr. Trump chose another retired commander, Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, as his national security adviser and is considering other retired generals for top administration posts. The introduction of former military officers into jobs traditionally reserved for civilians marks a dramatic shift from the Obama administration, which became known for tension between the top military brass and civilian political appointees at the White House.
As Mr. Trump’s defense secretary, Gen. Mattis would bring his own views to the administration. Mr. Trump expressed isolationist views on the campaign trail; Gen. Mattis at times has advocated more engagement abroad.
In an article for the Hoover Institution last year, he called for Congress to authorize military action against Islamic State and allow for the use of U.S. troops. He denounced limits or deadlines, writing “the time for half-measures is gone.”
Gen. Mattis has advocated fighting Islamic State with battles of annihilation rather than attrition. “So the first time they meet the forces that we put against them, there should be basically no survivors,” he said in a March 2015 interview.
His views come from years of commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and deep involvement in key fights in both wars, including the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004. He has a penchant for blunt talk and a colorful reputation that has earned him a series of nicknames, including “Mad Dog” and “Chaos.”
He drew criticism from American Muslims for a frequently noted 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, telling the audience that “it’s fun to shoot some people.”
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Gen. Mattis said at the time. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
A 2006 book on the Iraq war by former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter Thomas Ricks disclosed a rule given by Gen. Mattis to troops in Iraq: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
While known for such hard-edged quotes, the unmarried former Marine Corps officer is also considered deeply scholarly, earning another nickname, the “warrior monk.” He brought a copy of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius’ writings with him while deployed abroad to remind himself of the timelessness of impulses, challenges and solutions in warfare.
An accomplished strategist, Gen. Mattis helped develop the military’s counterinsurgency doctrine and an approach aimed at winning the support of local populations.
Over his career, he rose through the ranks from enlistee to four-star general, ultimately becoming chief of U.S. Central Command under President Obama in 2010, a position he held until his retirement three years later.
The administration announced his successor earlier than was necessary, a move that had the effect of undercutting Gen. Mattis and spurred a belief on Capitol Hill that he had been treated unfairly by the White House. The Obama administration also drew criticism for forcing Gen. Flynn out of his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Trump’s Inner Circle
More about the people President-elect Donald Trump has chosen to join him at the White House.
Since leaving the military, Gen. Mattis has been a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and has served on corporate boards, including Theranos and General Dynamics Corp., the defense contractor and aerospace firm.
Military subordinates have praised both his strategic aptitude and his loyalty to troops. In 2001, he declined a sleeping cot until all his Marines had their own.
Experts said Gen. Mattis could fill an important role as the Trump administration sets about defining what it sees as the U.S. role in the world.
“Mattis never enters a knife fight without a strategy. He has a plan A, plan B and plan C,” said Glen Howard, who has worked as a consultant to U.S. national security agencies and is president of the Jamestown Foundation, a think tank in Washington.
“He knows the geopolitical chessboard and knows the utility of American power and how to use it and when not to use it,” Mr. Howard said. “I think the message Trump sends by picking Mattis is that when he talks to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, Mattis will be nearby.”
Write to Paul Sonne at paul.sonne@wsj.com, Gordon Lubold at Gordon.Lubold@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com
-
Third post
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20161207&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
-
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/46322
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/308892-the-hills-transition-tracker
-
Good seeing you here again Big Dog!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html
Looks like there is going to be a major firestorm over the EPA pick. Here is some background on his behalf:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/07/trumps-pick-for-epa-has-a-history-of-fighting-the-agency/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpObFkyVmhaREEwWmpjMCIsInQiOiJ6bzU5K2NZbHBBMCswREY0dWxBb2xqeVwvY082d0NWYkdpNE1ucVdSaFBDakxVVEJrUFpHUWxodHJnNUIzSm84MWdOY0xET0dTa0tzU2lwQnFZNllDaWMyRk93T0pZMXBtM1QxTDVLZnNGSFE9In0%3D
-
My initial reaction is that this would be a REALLY bad choice. Apart from questions about him as an individual, the trail of coincidences about Trump-Putin, questions about Russian meddling in the US election, and now a man who was against sanctions against Russia for invading the Ukraine who will be looking to continue and expand the business of his lifelong employer with Russia?!? Any raproachment (sp?) with Russia would be seen as billionaire corruption at the expense of our NATO allies and the Ukraine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20161210&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
-
Is it true the Bolton is #2 at State?
I am glad that Tillerson is at least a civilian. I sort of though we have enough generals in there already.
With regards to his connections to Russia you bring up valid concerns. It seems all his billionaire picks have connections that can be questioned.
We are on new ground here. Certainly fodder for the LEFT. I am glad it is not Romney.
-
AFAiK Tillerson is not confirmed as the choice yet.
-
"In case you haven't connected the news dots... Putin owns the largest oil company in Russia. He made a 500 Billion dollar deal with the CEO of Exxon Mobil. Obama put sanctions in place which stopped that deal. Russia then hacked into our government in order to get Trump elected. When the CIA told Congress this in September (James Comey was also in that meeting), Mitch McConnell refused to tell the American people, blackmailing Obama saying he would frame it as playing partisan politics during the election. Comey released the infamous no-information letter. Mitch McConnell's wife was picked for Trump's cabinet. The CEO of Exxon is now the frontrunner for Secretary of State.
"The question is whether the Republican dominated House and Senate will put as much effort into uncovering all the connections as they did Hillary's email investigations. Thanks Lulani Mae"
-
Just one question. Why isn't this all good for globalization?
Deals with our enemy Communist China is touted as great because it binds us into common interests. It increases our "conversations". But suddenly this is some sort of threat.
Where and what are the distinctions?
-
Just one question. Why isn't this all good for globalization?
Deals with our enemy Communist China is touted as great because it binds us into common interests. It increases our "conversations". But suddenly this is some sort of threat.
Where and what are the distinctions?
Suddenly the left has gone all neo-McCarthy-ist. I guess the 80's finally called them.
I am so old, I can remember when the left rolled their eyes at election tampering.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/tillersons_assault_on_scouting.html
Gays in Scouts, global warming, what else?
-
A surprising list of endorsements for Tillerson from serious people: Condaleeza Rice, Jim Baker, Sec Def under Bush and Obama Robert Gates, VP Cheney, and more.
Some interesting tidbits in this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442999/donald-trump-rex-tillerson-secretary-state-philosophy-unknown?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202016-12-13&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
-
As always, Sowell makes a calm assessment of the situation we face:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265136/where-are-we-thomas-sowell
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/tillersons_assault_on_scouting.html
Gays in Scouts, global warming, what else?
"Exxon shifted from its public position of doubting climate change to declaring that there is 'no question' that human activity was the source of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to the phenomenon."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310647-exxon-shifted-on-climate-change-under-trump-pick
-
Also worth noting in that regard is that he was the head of the Boy Scouts and led them to change their policy on gay scout leaders.
It bothers me greatly that Tillerson tried to prevent/get an exemption from the sanctions against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine; patriotism should have trumped.
Obama has left a seriously weak hand for the US to Trump. Trump's intentions regarding Russia are unclear to me. Flynn in his "Field of Fight" book takes a hard line and I suspect Mattis is no softy, but an interesting case can be made that in the new Tri-Polar world in which we find ourselves, the US is in no position to have to deal with both Russia and China at the same time (witness events today in the South China Sea) AND Islamic Fascism, AND Iran, AND North Korea.
Maybe he has Tillerson as good cop and Matthis/Flynn for bad cop?
-
"... Priebus’s proximity to Trump has given many Republicans on Capitol Hill and around Washington reassurances as an unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310827-priebus-flexes-muscle-in-trump-tower
-
"... Priebus’s proximity to Trump has given many Republicans on Capitol Hill and around Washington reassurances as an unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310827-priebus-flexes-muscle-in-trump-tower
"unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief" **How was Obama described in 2008?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/dealbook/steven-mnuchin-trump-treasury-hedge-funds.html?emc=edit_th_20161220&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
-
"... Priebus’s proximity to Trump has given many Republicans on Capitol Hill and around Washington reassurances as an unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310827-priebus-flexes-muscle-in-trump-tower
"unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief" **How was Obama described in 2008?
I believe as "Senator."
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/311111-gingrich-suggests-trump-pardon-advisers-who-break-the-law
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/311111-gingrich-suggests-trump-pardon-advisers-who-break-the-law
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/762/095/77c.jpg)
-
"... Priebus’s proximity to Trump has given many Republicans on Capitol Hill and around Washington reassurances as an unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310827-priebus-flexes-muscle-in-trump-tower
"unpredictable political newcomer prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief" **How was Obama described in 2008?
I believe as "Senator."
:roll:
-
Third post
Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/cxmwv2quaaeo7y3.jpg?w=500&h=500)
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/maddog_zpswmqtjodv.jpg?w=500&h=497)
-
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/everybody-should-read-general-john-kellys-speech-about-two-marines-in-the-path-of-a-truck-bomb
-
MOSCOW — It’s June 2014. War is underway in eastern Ukraine, and Russia has recently annexed Crimea. Western countries are introducing sanctions against Russian companies and the people in President Vladimir V. Putin’s inner circle. It seems that Russia will soon be completely isolated from the rest of the world.
But the 21st World Petroleum Congress is taking place in Moscow. The atmosphere at the Crocus Expo International Exhibition Center, where the congress is being held, is decidedly nonconfrontational. On a stage, two men in suits hold an amicable conversation, addressing each other as “my friend.” The men are captains of the global petroleum industry: Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, and Igor I. Sechin, the head of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, and one of Mr. Putin’s longtime allies.
Russians rejoiced earlier this month when President-elect Donald J. Trump announced that he would nominate Mr. Tillerson as his secretary of state. If he is confirmed, it will not just be the Kremlin that benefits, but Mr. Tillerson’s “friend” Mr. Sechin in particular.
The agency Mr. Tillerson has been nominated to lead is known in Russia as “GosDep.” The word, which translates to something like “StateDep,” entered the Russian language long ago, an abbreviation in the Soviet tradition of shortening long titles for government departments. But it’s more than just a clever nickname: GosDep is a term from Russia’s internal politics, one that evokes the Kremlin’s eternal enemy.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The Putin era has unfolded to the accompaniment of anti-authoritarian revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East: From Ukraine to Libya, and from Serbia to Tunisia, seemingly stable governments collapsed before Mr. Putin’s eyes. Among the Russian elite, a consensus formed long ago that the people of those countries were, of course, supported by outside forces; revolutions are planned in GosDep.
For more than 15 years, the Kremlin has wondered: Would Russia be GosDep’s next target? Russian pro-government activists and news media made note of any contact between Russian opposition figures and the United States Embassy in Moscow. Government officials and Kremlin-controlled news media often claimed that the West was behind any anti-Putin protests. Hillary Clinton, the former head of GosDep, was blamed for demonstrations against the rigged parliamentary elections of 2011.
But what would happen if a friend of the Kremlin were to become the leader of GosDep? The person best able to answer this question is the man who has cut deals with Mr. Tillerson and appeared onstage with him at the World Petroleum Congress in June 2014.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Mr. Sechin is not just the chief executive of Rosneft, he is also one of the heroes of contemporary Russian politics. He is believed to have served as a K.G.B. agent in Africa and had no real experience in the business world until he was over 40. He didn’t come to lead the state oil company because of his business acumen; he earned his position through his loyalty to Mr. Putin.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mr. Sechin aligned himself with Mr. Putin, another former K.G.B. officer, as he began consolidating power in post-Soviet politics. Everywhere Mr. Putin went, Mr. Sechin was by his side as a trusted aide and adviser.
In 2003, Russian authorities arrested Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos, a huge oil company. At the time, Mr. Sechin was working as Mr. Putin’s deputy chief of staff, and though he had no formal judicial or investigatory authority, Mr. Khodorkovsky accused him of initiating his arrest — and the campaign that followed to nationalize Yukos. It’s impossible to know, but it seems likely. Following Mr. Khodorkovsky’s arrest, Rosneft absorbed Yukos’s assets. In 2004, Mr. Sechin was appointed to head Rosneft’s board.
Mr. Sechin isn’t just a businessman, though. He’s an influential political figure and a crucial Putin ally who has demonstrated his power. The arrest last month of Aleksei Ulyukayev, the minister of economic development, on charges of bribery was widely viewed as an act of revenge by Mr. Sechin. With the arrest, the first of an active government minister in post-Soviet Russia, he again confirmed his image as the most sinister man in the president’s inner circle.
Earlier this year, Mr. Sechin’s expansion was so aggressive that it seemed plausible that Mr. Putin himself would get tired of him, and would try to rid himself of such an odious comrade in arms.
Now Mr. Sechin has nothing to fear. A gift has arrived from across the ocean. This man, whose international experience up to this point has been limited to his friendship with Hugo Chávez, the deceased president of Venezuela, has an exclusive international trump card that even Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov lacks.
Mr. Sechin’s friend will head GosDep, against which Mr. Putin’s entire domestic policy has been directed. It’s a stunning boon for the Kremlin and a crushing blow to everyone in Russia who has counted on the State Department to maintain anti-Putin positions, however restrained they might be.
Even for Mr. Putin, the good fortune that Mr. Trump’s election has brought is less obvious than what it has done for the man who has been first his aide and then his deputy on matters of petroleum — a man who has suddenly become an influential player not only in Russia, but also in world politics.
Oleg Kashin is the author of “Fardwor, Russia! A Fantastical Tale of Life Under Putin.” This essay was translated by Carol Apollonio from the Russian.
-
https://theintellectualist.co/dick-cheney-emerging-as-key-adviser-to-trump-administration/
-
https://theintellectualist.co/dick-cheney-emerging-as-key-adviser-to-trump-administration/
I can't wait for all the leftists' heads to start exploding over this!! :-D
-
The author does have a point . Trump is not the President. He is the President elect. He should wait till 1/20 to conduct foreign policy:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/trump-obama-israel-settlements-security-council/511637/
-
The author does have a point . Trump is not the President. He is the President elect. He should wait till 1/20 to conduct foreign policy.
And vice a versa. President Obama should not be taking actions pretending to govern this country after the inauguration, Lame weasel. Good riddance.
-
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/23/learned-exxon-ceo-rex-tillerson-spending-week-jury-duty
-
He has 2 specialties not mutually exclusive :
1) tax cuts
2) "growth"
and perhaps a few other words in his political vocabulary. Actually I like him a lot:
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/LarryKudlow/donald-trump-tax-reform-economy/2016/12/23/id/765440/
-
#1 what is his daughter doing shaping tax policy
#2 why are we social engineering tax policy heresd
#3 child care tax deductible?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/politics/marsha-blackburn-child-care-ivanka-trump-cnntv/index.html
My answer - get rid of the loopholes, the deductions, apply taxes EQUALLY to everyone and cut the damn rates. What is so hard?
-
I Guess We’re Just Not Going to Make a Fuss About That!
Remember throughout the summer when Republicans had great fun counting the number of days it had been since Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had held a press conference?
The Republican National Committee had fun pointing this out, again and again. Donald Trump had fun pointing this out. Townhall. IJR. Yup, I noted it, too. When the networks didn’t make a fuss, Newsbusters called them out on it.
President-elect Trump hasn’t held a press conference since before the election – since July 27, in fact. You don’t see many Republicans complaining about it, though. I guess he’s “our” guy now, so we’re just not going to make a fuss about that.
Yesterday his office announced a press conference for January 11. At this press conference, Trump is expected to give an update on how his separation from his vast personal financial empire is progressing. On November 30, he tweeted, “legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations. The Presidency is a far more important task!”
Good. Republicans spent a lot of time in the past few years arguing that the vast financial donations to the Clinton Foundation from private donors and foreign countries represented a massive conflict of interest. We wanted to cross-check every massive donation against every decision Clinton had made as secretary of state – and we found plenty of reasons to be suspicious.
But you haven’t heard many Republicans demanding a full separation of President Trump from the Trump businesses. You really haven’t heard any complaining about the Kuwaiti, Bahraini, and Azerbaijani embassies booking events at Trump’s new Washington hotel, and that backdoor way of a foreign government putting money into Trump’s pocket. I guess Kuwaiti money is only bothersome when it ends up at the Clinton Foundation. I guess he’s “our” guy now, so we’re just not going to make a fuss about that.
After promising to release his tax returns several times as a candidate, and then not doing so, the president-elect may not file any more financial disclosures than legally required: The president-elect is not required to file the annual disclosure until 2018, but the past several presidents have filed in the spring after their inaugurations and then every year in office from then on, as a show of openness. Trump’s transition team did not respond to inquiries about whether he plans to follow that example.
Republicans would have been fine with that kind of a delay from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden, right? Those financial disclosure forms were key to showcasing the “pay-for-play” allegations at the Clinton Foundation. But I guess he’s “our” guy now, so we’re just not going to make a fuss about that.
Back during the campaign, I said a temporary embrace of Julian Assange was dangerous for Republicans. I pointed out Assange’s deeply anti-American ideology and his exposure of Afghan informers to the U.S. military. Silly me for thinking the embrace would be temporary. Kellyanne Conway says “we should pay significant attention” to what Assange says, and Sarah Palin is publicly apologizing to him.
I guess he’s “our” guy now, too, so we’re just not going to make a fuss about that.
There must have been some memo I didn’t get, announcing that Republicans don’t care about press conferences, tax returns, payments from foreign governments, financial disclosure, or Julian Assange leaking classified information anymore. Or some revision emphasizing that we only care about these things when Democrats are involved.
As noted yesterday, Mary Barra is the CEO and longtime high-ranking executive of General Motors, the taxpayer-saved company once reviled by conservatives as “Government Motors.” She was saluted at the State of the Union by President Obama and in March, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta sent the candidate a "first cut of people to consider for VP”, a list of 39 names that included Barra. Barra’s on Trump’s economic advisory panel now.
I guess she’s “our” gal now, so we’re just not going to make a fuss about that, either.
-
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/kfile-trump-monica-crowley-plagiarized-multiple-sources-2012-book/index.html
I always tended to change channels when she came on , , ,
-
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46771
-
What a welcome and brilliant marketing move by a Chinese company:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/alibaba-to-discuss-expansion-plans-with-trump-company-aims-to-create-1-million-us-jobs-over-the-next-5-years.html
-
Wrong thread. Please post in US-China thread instead.
-
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44725.pdf
-
Inside Rex Tillerson’s Negotiating Style: Cozy With Power, Unbending and Theatrical
Senate to weigh if Exxon chief’s experience with multibillion-dollar, international deals prepares him to be secretary of state Photo: Associated Press
By Justin Scheck,
James Marson and
Bradley Olson
Updated Jan. 9, 2017 4:32 p.m. ET
23 COMMENTS
MOSCOW—In the spring of 2014, after the U.S. punished Russia with sanctions for seizing Ukrainian territory, Rex Tillerson made a major decision. The Exxon Mobil Corp. chief executive, now Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, would deepen his company’s longstanding partnership with the Kremlin.
During negotiations, the CEO of Rosneft, the Kremlin’s state-controlled oil company, looked over a proposed contract related to the pair’s operations off Sakhalin Island, in Russia’s Far East, and scowled, said a person with knowledge of the meeting. Exxon, he said, put language in the contract he didn’t expect. He looked at Mr. Tillerson and tore it up.
Mr. Tillerson, the person said, leaned back, put his hands together, smiled silently—and waited. With billions of dollars already invested, the Russians had few other options. Rosneft’s CEO, a former intelligence officer and top Putin ally named Igor Sechin, eventually backed down, and an agreement was struck.
A look at Mr. Tillerson’s negotiating style, honed over years at the head of one of the world’s largest oil companies, shows an executive determined to hold the course, even when the landscape shifts dramatically. Personal relationships were often a deciding factor. So were deliberately theatrical tactics, such as preplanned temper tantrums and silent stare-offs.
The question for the Senate, which is expected to consider Mr. Tillerson’s nomination on Wednesday, is to what extent this kind of expertise prepares him for the job of secretary of state. He has vast experience hammering out multibillion-dollar deals that potentially span decades with government leaders of all stripes. On the other hand, a company is not a country.
The former Exxon chief’s dealings with Rosneft are likely to be a major line of questioning from both Republicans and Democrats, many of whom have said they are uncomfortable with Mr. Tillerson’s close ties there in the wake of Russia’s alleged hacking attack on figures in the Democratic Party.
The Russia deals added hundreds of millions of dollars to Exxon’s bottom line and billions of barrels of potential reserves to bolster the company’s future production. At the same time, they ran afoul of State Department priorities at a time when the U.S. was using sanctions to try to check Russian military interventions in Ukraine.
For Exxon, one of the world’s largest publicly traded oil companies, the results of the Russia deals are mixed. The deals struck in 2014, which technically expanded projects already in operation, didn’t violate sanctions, which targeted the spread of oil and gas technology. But other projects, especially a vast Arctic investment, ground to a halt, blocking Exxon’s access to rich reserves it hoped would ease its longtime struggle to find new resources.
“This is an industry with very long timelines,” said Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman. “The current situation prevents us from activities in the area that are sanctioned, but we see that as a pause.”
0:00 / 0:00
Mr. Tillerson received the Russian Order of Friendship, the country’s highest honor for foreigners, from Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2013. A look at how the relationship was forged. Photo: Getty Images
Mr. Tillerson declined to comment. Mr. Sechin and Rosneft didn’t respond to emailed questions.
Mr. Tillerson, who joined Exxon in 1975 and became CEO in 2006, specialized in the types of deals that typified the oil industry in the run-up to the recent price crash: Giant agreements, sometimes in unstable places, that cost billions of dollars to develop and aimed to produce huge volumes of oil and gas over decades.
He spent hours with the company’s negotiating teams, preparing for every potential aspect and plotting tactics, including the theatrical, according to people he worked with.
In a meeting in Yemen in the 1990s, he threw a book and stormed out of talks. The tantrum was preplanned, one person said. “Anger is a strategy, not an emotion,” Mr. Tillerson told colleagues.
He negotiated deals worth more than the GDP of some countries with officials who had vast power but lacked expertise. That meant he dealt with concerns other than money, such as a leader’s desire for Exxon to educate local workers or help a state-owned oil company gain technology.
He drank tea with tribal leaders and showed off Exxon facilities to visiting dignitaries.
In interactions with Russian leaders, Mr. Tillerson avoided giving any impression of American superiority, especially amid the post-Cold War tensions of the 1990s.
In a 2004 interview with The Wall Street Journal he described how when a Russian minister in the 1990s slammed his fist on the bargaining table in a dispute over a permit, raising images of former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, he gingerly brought him back to the discussion.
“You make yourself very aware of it, and almost go out of your way to make sure there’s nothing that conveys” a superior attitude, he said. At the same time, he rarely budged on terms, seeking to project strength, said people familiar with his negotiating style.
Mr. Tillerson arrived in post-Soviet Russia in 1997 to chase the same prize as every other big Western oil executive: access to the country’s vast stores of untapped crude.
Some of Exxon’s operations at Sakhalin Island, in Russia’s Far East, in 2006.
Some of Exxon’s operations at Sakhalin Island, in Russia’s Far East, in 2006. Photo: REUTERS
He set up in a suite in the Metropol Hotel, just steps from Red Square, and tried to make sense of a Kremlin in turmoil. Russia cycled through six prime ministers in Mr. Tillerson’s first 14 months.
Even before the musical chairs ended with Mr. Putin in charge, in 1999, Exxon realized something its Western rivals didn’t. Joining with the Kremlin could shield the company from hostile takeovers by other state-owned firms and regulatory obstacles from the Russian government.
At a time when other Western oil giants dismissed state-owned companies as too bureaucratic and inflexible, Exxon committed to an ambitious project with Rosneft to develop an oil and gas field near Sakhalin Island. It would cost billions of dollars to develop and be one of the most technically complex projects in Exxon’s history, with oil and gas deep beneath sea ice in an area prone to earthquakes and 50-foot waves.
Over the years, it would be expanded multiple times. In the past decade, the partners have produced more than 300 million barrels from three separate fields, with a potential peak of 200,000 barrels a day, Exxon said.
Mr. Tillerson had a key person on the ground, a personable, Russian-speaking Croat named Zeljko Runje, who formed close relationships with Rosneft executives and years later would help pull off an even bigger Russian deal for Exxon.
When it first partnered with Exxon, Rosneft “had no equipment, they had no technology,” said a former Rosneft executive said. Exxon’s expertise and financing helped build Rosneft into one of the world’s largest producers, which strengthened Russian President Vladimir Putin’s grip on power. Energy revenues allowed him to boost spending at home and to project power abroad; Rosneft’s dominance gave him control of Russia’s most important industry.
In 2004, the Kremlin seized assets from OAO Yukos, then the country’s largest oil company, and Rosneft took control of its main production unit, becoming the country’s second-largest producer.
Exxon worked closely with Moscow to devise legislation on taxation and other issues that affected its investment, according to Igor Yusufov, Russia’s energy minister from 2001 to 2004.
Mr. Tillerson met with ministers and gave suggestions for legislation, Mr. Yusufov said. “He met everyone,” the Russian said. “He helped us to formulate the relationship between the state and investors.”
During a U.S.-Russia energy summit in Houston in 2002, Mr. Tillerson wooed Mr. Yusufov with a trip to Exxon facilities, where he showed the Russian minister a 3-D model of the Sakhalin project as it was at the time and as it would look at peak production.
Mr. Tillerson worked closely with Rosneft executives as the project began producing in 2005. He and then-Rosneft CEO Sergey Bogdanchikov landed their private jets at tiny Teterboro Airport, in suburban New Jersey, in 2006 and discussed Sakhalin and Rosneft’s coming initial public offering, said a person familiar with the talk.
Mr. Sechin, who had spent years in intelligence in Africa and elsewhere and later became a Kremlin political operative close to Mr. Putin, had become chairman of Rosneft in 2004. He took over as CEO in 2012 with the aim of extending its reach. His underlings quickly came to fear his 3 a.m. calls ordering them to pack for a trip to Asia as much as his outbursts at meetings over frustrations like project delays, former executives said.
He and Mr. Tillerson developed a comfortable rapport, said people who attended their meetings. Mr. Sechin was careful to show Mr. Tillerson he had the highest-possible backing. Two or three times a year or more, Mr. Sechin would ask Mr. Putin to speak, by phone or in person, with Mr. Tillerson, said one of the people.
Mr. Sechin came to like Mr. Tillerson because he was transparent and forceful in his communications—and was one of the few Western executives strong enough to push back against Mr. Sechin, said people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Tillerson signed an agreement with Rosneft’s CEO Igor Sechin to develop reserves in western Siberia in 2012.
Mr. Tillerson signed an agreement with Rosneft’s CEO Igor Sechin to develop reserves in western Siberia in 2012. Photo: EPA
The relationship helped Exxon land one of its biggest coups. In 2011, Exxon rival BP PLC reached a deal for access to a giant Rosneft-controlled Arctic field, but BP’s oligarch partners in a separate Russian joint venture blocked the deal.
Exxon’s longtime Russia hand, Mr. Runje, who had been key to the Sakhalin project more than a decade earlier, saw an opening and sent a message to Mr. Tillerson, said people familiar with the matter. Mr. Runje declined to comment.
Messrs. Tillerson and Sechin hashed out a $3.2 billion deal that was to be one of the biggest exploration contracts ever. It gave Exxon access to the Arctic fields BP lost, as well as basins in Siberia and in the Black Sea.
Mr. Putin, who had come to trust Mr. Tillerson as a man of his word, blessed the deal and said investment could eventually reach $500 billion.
Mr. Putin later awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship, the country’s highest honor for foreigners, after a request by Mr. Sechin, according to a person familiar with the matter.
By late 2014, when the partners hit oil and gas in the Arctic, sanctions by the U.S. and other countries were in place barring companies from sending oil and gas exploration technology to Russia, bringing operations to a halt.
In Washington, Exxon lobbied against the sanctions. Mr. Tillerson and others told senior officials that because of the complexity of the Arctic project Exxon couldn’t immediately pull out without significant safety and environmental risks.
The CEO also said U.S. sanctions applied to an existing project, unlike European sanctions, which exempted developments already under way, people familiar with the matter said.
Exxon withdrew from its Arctic project, and Mr. Tillerson stayed home from a St. Petersburg economic summit in 2014 for the first time in years. He continued to attend to Russia business, including efforts to build a gas export plant at Sakhalin and other operations.
“Over the years, I think we have earned each other’s respect,” Mr. Tillerson told students at an event in March 2015 at Texas Tech University. When Exxon says “yes,” he told them, the Russians would know that the company would “follow through on that yes. Your commitment means something. And so I think it’s the most important attribute.”
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-names-son-in-law-jared-kushner-as-senior-adviser-1483990270
-
I didn't know anything about Tillerson before this. Don't know yet if I will agree with him on policy. The appearance of having an Exxon (or the Goldman Sachs) guy is lousy. Suddenly, personally knowing Putin is a big negative. All the negatives make me think he is quite an impressive guy.
Like with Cheney and Haliburton, people think he will put loyalties to old friends and old business ahead of the interests of the nation. It's possible but I don't think that way. Not everyone is a Clinton.
I don't see him as any kind of pushover; Trump wanted the best negotiators and Sec of State is the highest one. But even if he is too nice of a guy, we have the Defense Secretary to play the role of bad cop with some of these characters on the world stage.
Acts as small as the Taiwan phone call or not flinching during negotiations send a message to leaders of countries more than just the one currently at the table.
-
""The tweet is unnecessary, it's unfortunate," former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, who is African-American, said on MSNBC"
I dunno. It is not like Lewis comments were also not unnecessary or unfortunate. It is not like Lewis will ever say anything good about Trump or anything GOP. It is not like Lewis has not become a total anit-GOP partisan and works to discredit them at every turn for many years.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-clashes-with-civil/2017/01/15/id/768626/
Like Paul Ryan who caves with the setup question at a CNN townhall meeting . If he is not prepared to stake a conservative position at the meeting then why go on it when we all know CNN is going to have the bleeding heart stories pleaded to make him and the GOP and Trump looks bad.
Once again Republicans cave .
-
The alternative for Trump would have been to not punch back because he is black, and that would be racist.
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/people-power/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DayByDayCartoon+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367908.php
January 16, 2017
The Intel Community "Deep State" Is Conducting Political Warfare inside the US
They do this a lot -- ineffectually -- in foreign countries.
Now they're doing the same thing here, and just as ineffectuality.
Video at the link, but here are some quotes:
"It cast doubt, not on CNN, but on the intelligence community and what they're doing exactly," Hemingway said. "Obviously they're leaking like sieves in an ongoing war against the president [elect]. So BuzzFeed kind of pulled the curtain back, showing how the intelligence community -- particularly the more partisan brass, not the intelligence officers who do the good work -- how they use the media to punish or destroy their political enemies."
"That is a very important journalistic story, and one that I think should be covered as journalists are sort of cooperating with this intelligence community campaign against the president [elect]," she said. "As we take this information from them we should also apply skepticism."
Asked if she thought intelligence officials were pushing these stories, Hemingway said U.S.Director of National Intelligence James "Clapper is a guy who lied to Congress about whether he was spying on them, he lied under oath about whether he was collecting information on hundreds of millions of Americans. We've had the intelligence community get in trouble for some political decisions about releasing information on Syria, creating an echo chamber to push the Iran deal. So as we take this information from them, we should also be applying skepticism and that’s something that’s not just right now but really going back decades. It's a lesson we keep failing to learn."
What scares me here is not the sinisterness of this -- but the gross incompetence, clumsiness, and obviousness of it.
This is the agency "covertly" attempting to influence foreign nations to our advantage? Using this level of deftness of touch? Hiding their hands to this extent?
I always thought Idiocracy was both a plausible and unsettling end-of-days scenario. It was unsettling because there was no heroism in humanity's last stand, just a pitiful stupidity. Other apocalypse scenarios at least give you the mercy of a powerful and capable villain -- so that even if you die, you die nobly and heroically, battling a worthy foe.
This entire episode is revealing our IC to not be some sinister and capable organization, but instead to be sinister and incompetent, incapable, and impotent.
But very energetic -- in a spastic, fumbling way -- in their determination to make their lurching presence felt.
It's frightening to think that the world is controlled by powerful unseen forces -- but it's terrifying to think the world is clumsily manipulated by borderline retards who imagine themselves to be kingmakers and kingbreakers.
-
http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4209&context=nclr
-
BD:
That is 39 pages of serious reading. Do you post it for general reference, or for some reason in particular?
PS: Please post in the Constitutional Law thread on the SC&H forum as well.
-
BD:
That is 39 pages of serious reading. Do you post it for general reference, or for some reason in particular?
PS: Please post in the Constitutional Law thread on the SC&H forum as well.
General reference.
-
I read the preface. Looks like a good reference. Thank you 8-)
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-eyes-10-spending-cuts-20-slash-of-federal-workers/article/2612037
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-trumps/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tipsheet%201-18-17%20%281%29&utm_content=
-
How about a kind tweet like
"I wish Bush sr and Barbara a quick recovery!"
though it might seem strange after his demolition of Jeb it would still be a kind gesture.
Instead of the usual "FU" tweet to whoever pisses him off.
-
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/46958
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314965-five-things-to-watch-for-in-mnuchin-hearing?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5779
=============================
POtH:
‘The rich are different’ — Steve Mnuchin edition
At first blush, Mr. Mnuchin was a busy enough man, with his investment business and his Hollywood endeavors listed on a Dec. 19 questionnaire for the Senate Finance Committee that he swore was “true, accurate and complete.”
But when pushed by committee aides, Mr. Mnuchin conceded there was more. In a revised questionnaire submitted to the committee this month, he disclosed that he was also the director of Dune Capital International Ltd., an investment fund incorporated in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven. He also revealed his management posts in seven other investment funds, which he said he “inadvertently missed,” according to Finance Committee documents obtained by The New York Times.
According to those documents:
In his revised questionnaire, Mr. Mnuchin disclosed several additional financial assets, including $95 million worth of real estate — a co-op in New York City; a residence in Southampton, New York; a residence in Los Angeles, California; and $15 million in real estate holdings in Mexico. Mr. Mnuchin has claimed these omissions were due to a misunderstanding of the questionnaire — he does not consider these assets to be “investment assets” and thus did not disclose them, even though the Committee directs the nominee to list all real estate assets.
He also forgot to disclose the $906,556 worth of artwork held by his children.
-
second post
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315049-trump-keeping-50-obama-administration-officials
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/18/cnn-airs-segment-saying-obama-admin-keep-power-trump-pence-blown-inauguration-day/
-
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZOJAN. 19, 2017
WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.
The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.
Continue reading the main story
Russian Hacking in the U.S. Election
Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
Putin Says Accusations in Trump Dossier Are ‘Clearly Fake’
JAN 17
‘Kompromat’ and the Danger of Doubt and Confusion in a Democracy
JAN 15
C.I.A. Nominee Says He Won’t Balk at Seeking Russian Intelligence
JAN 12
N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications
JAN 12
Fact Check: Trump’s News Conference
JAN 12
See More »
Related Coverage
For Trump, Three Decades of Chasing Deals in Russia JAN. 16, 2017
Russians Ridicule U.S. Charge That Kremlin Meddled to Help Trump JAN. 7, 2017
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.
“We have absolutely no knowledge of any investigation or even a basis for such an investigation,” said Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition.
In an emailed statement Thursday evening, Mr. Manafort called allegations that he had interactions with the Russian government a “Democrat Party dirty trick and completely false.”
“I have never had any relationship with the Russian government or any Russian officials. I was never in contact with anyone, or directed anyone to be in contact with anyone,” he said.
“On the ‘Russian hacking of the D.N.C.,’” he said, “my only knowledge of it is what I have read in the papers.”
The decision to open the investigations was not based on a dossier of salacious, uncorroborated allegations that were compiled by a former British spy working for a Washington research firm. The F.B.I. is also examining the allegations in that dossier, and a summary of its contents was provided to Mr. Trump earlier this month.
Representatives of the agencies involved declined to comment. Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.
First Draft
Every weekday, get political news and analysis from the staff of The New York Times.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, have reported on the F.B.I. investigations into Mr. Trump’s advisers. BBC and then McClatchy revealed the existence of a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government.
The continuing investigation again puts the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, in the middle of a politically fraught investigation. Democrats have sharply criticized Mr. Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Mrs. Clinton has said his decision to reveal the existence of new emails late in the campaign cost her the election.
The F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring, and was an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. In August, The Times reported that Mr. Manafort’s name had surfaced in a secret ledger that showed he had been paid millions in undisclosed cash payments. The Associated Press has reported that his work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Mr. Stone, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump’s, said in a speech in Florida last summer that he had communicated with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that published the hacked Democratic emails. During the speech, Mr. Stone predicted further leaks of documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.
In a brief interview on Thursday, Mr. Stone said he had never visited Russia and had no Russian clients. He said that he had worked in Ukraine for a pro-Western party, but that any assertion that he had ties to Russian intelligence was “nonsense” and “totally false.”
“The whole thing is a canard,” he said. “I have no Russian influences.”
The Senate intelligence committee has started its own investigation into Russia’s purported attempts to disrupt the election. The committee’s inquiry is broad, and will include an examination of Russian hacking and possible ties between people associated with Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Investigators are also scrutinizing people on the periphery of Mr. Trump’s campaign, such as Mr. Page, a former Merrill Lynch banker who founded Global Energy Capital, an investment firm in New York that has done business with Russia.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Page expressed bewilderment about why he might be under investigation. He blamed a smear campaign — that he said was orchestrated by Mrs. Clinton — for media speculation about the nature of his ties to Russia.
“I did nothing wrong, for the 5,000th time,” he said. His adversaries, he added, are “pulling a page out of the Watergate playbook.”
The lingering investigations will pose a test for Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who has been nominated for attorney general. If Mr. Sessions is confirmed, he will for a time be the only person in the government authorized to seek foreign intelligence wiretaps on American soil.
Mr. Sessions said at his confirmation hearing that he would recuse himself from any investigations involving Mrs. Clinton. He was not asked whether he would do so in cases involving associates of Mr. Trump.
-
funny this is reported now.
I was watching a sort of documentary on Sinatra this past week and was wondering what he would have thought of Trump.
I think he would have liked him especially if he and Trump had some sort of relationship.
He was a JFK fan till JFK dissed him after he was elected though used him prior. He also liked Reagan I recall.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/20/nancy-sinatra-congrats-trump-slams-cnn-lie-cnn/
-
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/20/document-first-message-defense-department-secdef-mattis
-
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-20/jacksonian-revolt
https://www.city-journal.org/html/plain-and-powerful-inaugural-address-14978.html
-
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/fake-new-hq-new-york-times-caught-again-with-fake-news/
-
A credit to our republic, but yesterday looked to me like kind of a slow news day.
Barack Obama had to schedule a vacation in order to actually leave town. No big, new pardons that I heard; his most controversial ones were already out there.
President Trump didn't say anything particularly new or divisive. Looks like he plans to govern about the way he said he would.
Protests looked like just the obligatory ones to get on the news. 200 arrested, I assume because they wanted to be, amounting to fewer than one out of every million Americans.
No liberal actors moved to Mexico or Venezuela yesterday to escape the fear of lower tax rates and expanding economic freedoms likely to come to them here - against their will.
Mostly it looked like a typical Friday across the fruited plain, with new leaders in Washington sworn in to uphold the same old constitution.
God Bless America.
-
Mark Levin disagrees that Trump's speech is "Jacksonian". It is more like Teddy Roosevelt nationalist.
He is hoping to get Steve Bannon on his show to discuss.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/mark-levin-tells-truth-about-trump-inauguration-speech
-
http://bluelivesmatter.blue/white-house-website-police-issues/
-
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ujh51wi.jpg)
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/21/the-white-house-web-site-for-law-enforcement-has-changed/
-
http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/confidential-david-brock-memo-defeat-trump-impeachment/
https://www.scribd.com/document/337235212/Confidential-David-Brock-American-Bridge-Memo
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-trump-tax-returns/
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumpism-corrupts-spicer-edition/article/2006432
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315990-breitbarts-influence-grows-inside-white-house
-
Another example of Trump inspiring more jobs.
Professional protesters:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/29/soros-bankrolling-effort-to-stop-trumps-temporary-refugee-halt-order/
I guess these people have nothing to do but protest.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317302-gop-changes-rules-to-push-through-nominees-after-dem-boycott
-
President Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions is too broad and the White House rollout was a fiasco, but Mr. Trump was exactly right in sacking Sally Yates as acting Attorney General Monday night. Ms. Yates, the Deputy AG in the Obama Administration, chose to be a progressive martyr rather than do her duty under Justice Department canons, and she deserved to be fired.
Spare us the Watergate comparisons, please. This was no “Saturday Night Massacre,” and if anything Ms. Yates is the one who violated proper procedure and her obligations as a senior official in the executive branch. We know Democrats are eager to impeach Mr. Trump, but the real White House offenses here are arrogance and incompetence.
In a letter to Justice employees late Monday, Ms. Yates explained that she and the department would refuse to defend the executive order from legal challenges. This would have meant that no one appeared in court on behalf of the executive branch to respond to lawsuits across the country. The zealous defense of a client is every lawyer’s duty, and the Justice Department is the government’s lawyer. Ms. Yates was essentially leaving the President without a legal defense.
Such a decision could be justified in some extreme circumstances like a patently unjust or illegal order, but Ms. Yates made no such case. She had to concede that the department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the Justice professionals who vet such orders—had declared Mr. Trump’s order to be “lawful on its face and properly drafted.”
But Ms. Yates went on to opine that mere legality isn’t enough—in particular, the OLC ruling “does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.” And she averred that her “solemn obligation” is “always to seek justice and stand for what is right.” Therefore, “I am not convinced that the Executive Order is lawful” and she would not enforce it.
This is preposterous. Ms. Yates is basing her defiance not on the law but on her own moral and political misgivings. Her differences are about policy, not legality. If she felt she couldn’t in good conscience defend Mr. Trump’s order, the honorable decision would have been to resign. Instead, she decided to offer the equivalent of a press release advertising her legal services as Attorney General to the next Democratic President.
Mr. Trump was obliged to dismiss Ms. Yates to defend the integrity of the executive branch. The U.S. has a “unitary executive” whose functioning depends on a line of political accountability that ends with the President. If cabinet officers can ignore orders based on policy disagreements, democratic accountability is impossible.
Perhaps Ms. Yates should have consulted President Obama’s first AG, Eric Holder. In explaining his decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in 2014, Mr. Holder said that “any decisions at any level not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare” and that “they must be reserved only for exceptional, truly exceptional circumstances. And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements—hinging instead only on firm constitutional grounds.”
Ms. Yates’s department also had no legal qualms enforcing a similar refugee order from Mr. Obama. After the FBI disrupted a plot in 2011 by Iraqi nationals in Kentucky to support al Qaeda with weapons and explosives, Mr. Obama suspended visas for Iraqi refugees including translators for six months. Refugee admissions were also halted after 9/11.
And in 2015, following the San Bernardino rampage, Mr. Obama signed legislation that excluded from the U.S. visa waiver program citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia who had visited those countries after March 2011. Ms. Yates hasn’t explained why Justice could defend those orders but not Mr Trump’s.
***
None of this absolves the Trump White House of its failure to adequately prepare to issue such a controversial order. White House aides Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller were so eager to demonstrate their power that they didn’t wait until Mr. Trump’s AG was at Justice. They also didn’t bother to consult Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who could be forgiven if he had resigned in protest.
In their triumphal disdain for Washington mores, Mr. Trump and his advisers are making too many rookie mistakes. They were right to fire Ms. Yates, but the mess has emboldened their opponents, and a smarter White House staff would have avoided putting the President in position where he had to
-
"In their triumphal disdain for Washington mores, Mr. Trump and his advisers are making too many rookie mistakes. They were right to fire Ms. Yates, but the mess has emboldened their opponents, and a smarter White House staff would have avoided putting the President in position where he had to"
Maybe or maybe not. Maybe no matter what Trump and team do the LEFT will find every way they can to twist and spin the appearance of everything Trump does to his disadvantage.
Rookie mistakes? Name a single President that has undergone this much fury from the media, the entire tech industry, and the rest.
I guess I am simply not big fan of the WSJ frankly.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317883-trumps-top-diplomat-enters-pressure-cooker
-
https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/the-war-among-the-generals/
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/318189-gop-gets-bolder-in-breaking-with-trump
"Congressional Republicans are becoming more critical of President Trump amid the shaky rollout of his executive order on immigration and the lack of clear progress on his legislative agenda."
-
This is really bad if the President cannot even have confidential conversations :
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-foreign-leaders-phone-calls-234770
-
"The Resistance" of the perma-state is strong and will become stronger yet the more Trump challenges it. This is why it is all the more important he fg tighten up his game.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318804-white-house-says-it-will-investigate-leaks
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.21c12d0d423a&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/opinion/americas-so-called-national-security-adviser.html?smid=fb-share
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/world/europe/bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fascism.html?smid=fb-share
Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists
By JASON HOROWITZFEB. 10, 2017
Stephen K. Bannon referred to the Italian philosopher Julius Evola in a Vatican speech in 2014. Credit Todd Heisler/The New York Times
ROME — Those trying to divine the roots of Stephen K. Bannon’s dark and at times apocalyptic worldview have repeatedly combed over a speech that Mr. Bannon, President Trump’s ideological guru, made in 2014 to a Vatican conference, where he expounded on Islam, populism and capitalism.
But for all the examination of those remarks, a passing reference by Mr. Bannon to an esoteric Italian philosopher has gone little noticed, except perhaps by scholars and followers of the deeply taboo, Nazi-affiliated thinker, Julius Evola.
“The fact that Bannon even knows Evola is significant,” said Mark Sedgwick, a leading scholar of Traditionalists at Aarhus University in Denmark.
Evola, who died in 1974, wrote on everything from Eastern religions to the metaphysics of sex to alchemy. But he is best known as a leading proponent of Traditionalism, a worldview popular in far-right and alternative religious circles that believes progress and equality are poisonous illusions.
Evola became a darling of Italian Fascists, and Italy’s post-Fascist terrorists of the 1960s and 1970s looked to him as a spiritual and intellectual godfather.
They called themselves Children of the Sun after Evola’s vision of a bourgeoisie-smashing new order that he called the Solar Civilization. Today, the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn includes his works on its suggested reading list, and the leader of Jobbik, the Hungarian nationalist party, admires Evola and wrote an introduction to his works.
More important for the current American administration, Evola also caught on in the United States with leaders of the alt-right movement, which Mr. Bannon nurtured as the head of Breitbart News and then helped harness for Mr. Trump.
“Julius Evola is one of the most fascinating men of the 20th century,” said Richard Spencer, the white nationalist leader who is a top figure in the alt-right movement, which has attracted white supremacists, racists and anti-immigrant elements.
In the days after the election, Mr. Spencer led a Washington alt-right conference in chants of “Hail Trump!” But he also invoked Evola’s idea of a prehistoric and pre-Christian spirituality — referring to the awakening of whites, whom he called the Children of the Sun.
Photo
Evola, who died in 1974, is best known as a leading light of Traditionalism.
Mr. Spencer said “it means a tremendous amount” that Mr. Bannon was aware of Evola and other Traditionalist thinkers.
“Even if he hasn’t fully imbibed them and been changed by them, he is at least open to them,” he said. “He at least recognizes that they are there. That is a stark difference to the American conservative movement that either was ignorant of them or attempted to suppress them.”
Mr. Bannon, who did not return a request for comment for this article, is an avid and wide-ranging reader. He has spoken enthusiastically about everything from Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” to “The Fourth Turning” by William Strauss and Neil Howe, which sees history in cycles of cataclysmic and order-obliterating change. His awareness of and reference to Evola in itself only reflects that reading. But some on the alt-right consider Mr. Bannon a door through which Evola’s ideas of a hierarchical society run by a spiritually superior caste can enter in a period of crisis.
“Evolists view his ship as coming in,” said Prof. Richard Drake at the University of Montana, who wrote about Evola in his book “The Revolutionary Mystique and Terrorism in Contemporary Italy.”
For some of them, it has been a long time coming.
“It’s the first time that an adviser to the American president knows Evola, or maybe has a Traditionalist formation,” said Gianfranco De Turris, an Evola biographer and apologist based in Rome who runs the Evola Foundation out of his apartment.
“If Bannon has these ideas, we have to see how he influences the politics of Trump,” he said.
A March article titled “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” in Breitbart, the website then run by Mr. Bannon, included Evola as one of the thinkers in whose writings the “origins of the alternative right” could be found.
The article was co-written by Milo Yiannopoulos, the right-wing provocateur who is wildly popular with conservatives on college campuses. Mr. Trump recently defended Mr. Yiannopoulos as a symbol of free speech after demonstrators violently protested his planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley.
The article celebrated the youthful internet trolls who give the alt-right movement its energy and who, motivated by a common and questionable sense of humor, use anti-Semitic and racially charged memes “in typically juvenile but undeniably hysterical fashion.”
“It’s hard to imagine them reading Evola,” the article continued. “They may be inclined to sympathize to those causes, but mainly because it annoys the right people.”
Evola, who has more than annoyed people for nearly a century, seems to be having a moment.
“When I started working on Evola, you had to plow through Italian,” said Mr. Sedgwick, who keeps track of Traditionalist movements and thought on his blog, Traditionalists. “Now he’s available in English, German, Russian, Serbian, Greek, Hungarian. First I saw Evola boom, and then I realized the number of people interested in that sort of idea was booming.”
Interactive Feature
Stephen Bannon in 2014: We Are at War With Radical Islam
Stephen K. Bannon, the former chief of Breitbart News and now President Trump’s chief strategist, was the main driver of President Trump’s rapid signing on Friday of the executive order on immigration, which set off a political firestorm.
OPEN Interactive Feature
Born in 1898, Evola liked to call himself a baron and in later life sported a monocle in his left eye.
A brilliant student and talented artist, he came home after fighting in World War I and became a leading exponent in Italy of the Dada movement, which, like Evola, rejected the church and bourgeois institutions.
Evola’s early artistic endeavors gave way to his love of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and he developed a worldview with an overriding animosity toward the decadence of modernity. Influenced by mystical works and the occult, Evola began developing an idea of the individual’s ability to transcend his reality and “be unconditionally whatever one wants.”
Morning Briefing: Europe
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Under the influence of René Guénon, a French metaphysicist and convert to Islam, Evola in 1934 published his most influential work, “The Revolt Against the Modern World,” which cast materialism as an eroding influence on ancient values.
It viewed humanism, the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution all as historical disasters that took man further away from a transcendental perennial truth.
Changing the system, Evola argued, was “not a question of contesting and polemicizing, but of blowing everything up.”
Evola’s ideal order, Professor Drake wrote, was based on “hierarchy, caste, monarchy, race, myth, religion and ritual.”
That made a fan out of Benito Mussolini.
The dictator already admired Evola’s early writings on race, which influenced the 1938 Racial Laws restricting the rights of Jews in Italy.
Mussolini so liked Evola’s 1941 book, “Synthesis on the Doctrine of Race,” which advocated a form of spiritual, and not merely biological, racism, that he invited Evola to meet him in September of that year.
Evola eventually broke with Mussolini and the Italian Fascists because he considered them overly tame and corrupted by compromise. Instead he preferred the Nazi SS officers, seeing in them something closer to a mythic ideal. They also shared his anti-Semitism.
Photo
A demonstration last month by Golden Dawn, the Greek neo-Nazi party, which includes Evola’s works on a suggested reading list. Credit Michalis Karagiannis/Reuters
Mr. Bannon suggested in his Vatican remarks that the Fascist movement had come out of Evola’s ideas.
As Mr. Bannon expounded on the intellectual motivations of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, he mentioned “Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the Traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian Fascism.”
The reality, historians say, is that Evola sought to “infiltrate and influence” the Fascists, as Mr. Sedgwick put it, as a powerful vehicle to spread his ideas.
In his Vatican talk, Mr. Bannon suggested that although Mr. Putin represented a “kleptocracy,” the Russian president understood the existential danger posed by “a potential new caliphate” and the importance of using nationalism to stand up for traditional institutions.
“We, the Judeo-Christian West,” Mr. Bannon added, “really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as Traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.”
As Mr. Bannon suggested in his speech, Mr. Putin’s most influential thinker is Aleksandr Dugin, the ultranationalist Russian Traditionalist and anti-liberal writer sometimes called “Putin’s Rasputin.”
An intellectual descendant of Evola, Mr. Dugin has called for a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary, and consistent fascist fascism” and advocated a geography-based theory of “Eurasianism” — which has provided a philosophical framework for Mr. Putin’s expansionism and meddling in Western European politics.
Mr. Dugin sees European Traditionalists as needing Russia, and Mr. Putin, to defend them from the onslaught of Western liberal democracy, individual liberty, and materialism — all Evolian bêtes noires.
This appeal of traditional values on populist voters and against out-of-touch elites, the “Pan-European Union” and “centralized government in the United States,” as Mr. Bannon put it, was not lost on Mr. Trump’s ideological guru.
“A lot of people that are Traditionalists,” he said in his Vatican remarks, “are attracted to that.”
-
"Mr. Dugin sees European Traditionalists as needing Russia, and Mr. Putin, to defend them from the onslaught of Western liberal democracy, individual liberty, and materialism — all Evolian bêtes noires."
This is my beef. Broad labels such as traditionilism, liberalism, etc conflate things like materialism and individual liberty in a way which makes no sense.
If anyone can tell me that living in a progressive's world is increasing my individual liberty I would vehemently disagree.
Having one central authority control the entire world and telling all 7 billion how they can and can't live and measuring everything about them from pre birth to post death and using data for armies of policy engineers, lawyers , technocrats, bureaucrats micromanage in ways THEY see fit is not liberty. It is control.
and what does it mean materialism being associated with western liberal democracy? Is stealing other's monies to bribe voters not materialism
Bottom line every thing does not fit neatly into categories ready for manipulation.
As for Bannon I am not clear exactly how much influence he does have but I am concerned about it. Perhaps the LEFT is not wrong about him
-
Taking this discussion over to the Fascism thread.
At the moment I am definitely not at ease with some of the things I have read.
-
Many other potential Yateses—holdovers from the Obama administration who have found their way into spots throughout the Trump administration—await throughout government.
“They’re hiding like sleeper cells everywhere,” one source said.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/14/flynn-resigns-priebus-future-doubt-trump-allies-circulate-list-alternate-chief-staff-candidates/
-
http://time.com/4670027/rahm-emanuel-reince-priebus-jared-kushner-donald-trump/
-
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/how-white-house-advisor-stephen-miller-went-from-pestering-hispanic-students-to-designing-trumps-immigration-policy
-
With full understanding of the fact that this comes second-hand from Foreign Policy magazine via InfoWars - I offer it for what it's worth. Rush Limbaugh today opined on his radio program that Washington establishment insiders - including Republicans - will do anything to discredit and eliminate Trump, as he poses a threat to their comfortable positions of power and influence. Limbaugh advised that Trump should aggressively root out these disloyal operators and name names. He also stated that he feels that it is a grave mistake on Trump's part to ask for Flynn's resignation IF it were done primarily because of the media screaming for his scalp. It will only embolden them, said Limbaugh.
http://www.infowars.com/russian-insiders-fear-washington-establishment-will-assassinate-trump/
-
Insiders murder Trump and then blame Russia
NO doubt that thought must be going through many of the "insiders" minds every waking minute
-
http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/cleared-fbi-says-nothing-wrong-with-15498603/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445005/flynn-phone-call-coverup-searching-crime
-
MELBOURNE, Fla. — During President Trump’s transition to power, his team reached out to Elliott Abrams for help building a new administration. Mr. Abrams, a seasoned Republican foreign policy official, sent lists of possible candidates for national security jobs.
One by one, the answer from the Trump team came back no. The reason was consistent: This one had said disparaging things about Mr. Trump during the campaign; that one had signed a letter opposing him. Finally, the White House asked Mr. Abrams himself to meet with the president about becoming deputy secretary of state, only to have the same thing happen — vetoed because of past criticism.
Mr. Abrams’s experience has become a case study in the challenges Mr. Trump still faces in filling top positions a month into his presidency. Mr. Trump remains fixated on the campaign as he applies a loyalty test to some prospective officials. For their part, many Republicans reacted to what happened to Mr. Abrams with dismay, leaving them increasingly leery about joining an administration that cannot get past the past.
As Mr. Trump brings candidates for national security adviser to meet with him in Florida this weekend, he presides over a government where the upper echelons remain sparsely populated. Six of the 15 statutory cabinet secretaries are still awaiting Senate confirmation as Democrats nearly uniformly oppose almost all of the president’s choices. Even some of the cabinet secretaries who are in place may feel they are home alone.
It is not just Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson who has no deputy secretary, much less Trump-appointed under secretaries or assistant secretaries. Neither do the heads of the Treasury Department, the Education Department or any of the other cabinet departments. Only three of 15 nominees have been named for deputy secretary positions. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has a deputy only because he kept the one left over from President Barack Obama’s administration.
That does not even begin to cover the rest of the more than 4,000 appointments that a president typically makes. In some cases, the Trump administration is even going in reverse. A senior political appointee at the housing department, who had already started the job, was fired this past week and marched out of the building when someone discovered his previous statements critical of Mr. Trump.
The president’s top Latin America official at the National Security Council was likewise fired after just weeks on the job for complaining about internal dysfunction at an off-the-record discussion at a Washington research organization, according to officials, who confirmed a Politico report. The State Department has laid off six top career officials in recent days, apparently out of questions about their loyalty to Mr. Trump.
“Many tough things were said about him and by him” before last year’s election, Mr. Abrams, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s assistant secretary of state and President George W. Bush’s deputy national security adviser, said in an interview. “I would have hoped he would have turned toward just hiring the most effective people to help him govern rather than looking back to what we said in that race.”
Mr. Trump has fallen behind the pace of his last three predecessors both in naming senior officials who require Senate confirmation and in securing their confirmations, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. Whereas Mr. Obama had nominated 40 senior officials by Feb. 11, 2009, Mr. Trump had named 34 of them as of Friday. Mr. Obama had 24 confirmed at that point, while Mr. Trump has 14.
The trouble assembling an administration reflects the deeper rift between Mr. Trump and the Washington establishment of both parties. A reality-show businessman with no government experience, Mr. Trump catapulted to power on a promise to break up the existing system. Even after he won the Republican nomination last year, he did little to win over those who had opposed him, while his “never Trump” critics within the party kept up a steady assault on his qualifications and temperament.
Mr. Trump faces other hurdles, too. With no cadre ready to go from past political service, he has been starting from scratch. His team has been slow to vet candidates, and in some cases his choices have had troubles with their business backgrounds or other matters. And Democrats have mounted a wall of resistance to his nominations, slowing the process down.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but Mr. Trump has disputed reports of troubles. “The White House is running so smoothly, so smoothly,” he told a rally of supporters in Melbourne, Fla., on Saturday. “And believe me, we inherited one big mess, that I can tell you.”
The ill will between Mr. Trump and much of the Republican establishment works both ways. Many Republicans who might have agreed to work for the president have been turned off by what they consider his sometimes erratic behavior and the competing power centers inside his White House. After firing his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump found that his initial choice for a replacement, Robert S. Harward, a retired vice admiral, would not take the job.
“The problem is that with each successive episode, it raises the stakes for the next one,” said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who was a strategic planning adviser to Mr. Bush. “It’s going to be hard for the next outsider to accept the national security job and not request the ability to make personnel changes.”
Richard N. Haass, a former Republican official and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Trump had “ruled out much of an entire generation of Republican public policy types” and alarmed others with his empowerment of Stephen K. Bannon, his chief strategist, to shape national security. Even some cabinet secretaries appear unable to pick their own staff.
Photo
Former Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said the roster of business veterans that Mr. Trump had enlisted for his cabinet was “the most positive thing about his administration so far.” Credit Cooper Neill for The New York Times
“This is unprecedented, it’s untraditional, it’s outside the mainstream,” said Mr. Haass, whose own name had been floated for a position. “And so it’s just that you’d be signing on for, at a minimum, tremendous uncertainty, and quite possibly for being associated with a set of policies you deeply disagree with.”
Stuart Holliday, an ambassador under Mr. Bush, said many Republicans would want to work for Mr. Tillerson or Mr. Mattis. “However, the Republican foreign policy bench is not that deep at senior levels,” he said, “especially if you factor in people who took themselves off the field.”
Former Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said the business veterans that Mr. Trump had enlisted for his cabinet were “the most positive thing about his administration so far.” But he added that the president’s disregard for advice could complicate his efforts to fill posts. “You get the feeling that he’s still flying by his own experiences,” he said, “and that’s got to concern anyone who cares about these issues.”
For Mr. Trump, the challenge is more pronounced because he and his advisers feel they cannot trust some of the senior career professionals still working at the White House or cabinet departments. Leaks about Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders have convinced White House officials that they face an opposition within.
“You have a new administration that also has fewer people familiar with the processes and systems of government, including the importance of the vetting process,” said Max Stier, the chief executive of the Center for Presidential Transition at the Partnership for Public Service. “You can’t operate as they did in the campaign context, with a smaller than usual group — it doesn’t work.”
Indeed, Mr. Trump’s failure to vet candidates in advance has led to some stumbles. A White House scheduler was fired this past week because of an issue that surfaced in her background check, something that normally would have been completed weeks ago.
Another challenge has been Mr. Trump’s implementation of ethics rules that bar White House officials from lobbying for five years after they leave the government, prompting senior congressional officials and lobbyists to demur.
Mr. Trump has faulted the Democratic minority in the Senate for obstructing his choices. Democrats have voted almost as a bloc against many of his nominees, breaking with long tradition in which the opposition party largely went along with a president’s selections, except in specific cases of controversy. “The Democrats are making it very difficult,” Mr. Trump said at his news conference on Thursday. “This is pure delay tactics.”
Despite his own experience, one person still urging Republicans to take jobs in the administration is Mr. Abrams. “I have been encouraging everybody to go into the government if offered an appropriate position,” he said. “That was my view, and it’s still my view, because you have one president and one government at a time.
-
"The question, then, arises: Why were former Obama-administration appointees or careerist officials tapping the phone calls of an incoming Trump designate (and Trump himself?) and then leaking the tapes to their pets in the press? For what purpose?"
Probably simple - cold hard cash. Does anyone think some of these moles are bribed by NYT or WP or by other organizations? I am sure some of it is that.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445091/never-trumpers-subvert-presidency-talk-coup-impeachment-assassination
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445091/never-trumpers-subvert-presidency-talk-coup-impeachment-assassination
-
The man seems to be an outstanding choice.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13659/7-things-you-need-know-about-trumps-new-national-aaron-bandler?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=013117-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal
https://warisboring.com/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-hates-simple-truth-2f4cd6d18a2e#.6nurhwthc
-
The man seems to be an outstanding choice.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13659/7-things-you-need-know-about-trumps-new-national-aaron-bandler?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=013117-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#exit-modal
https://warisboring.com/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-hates-simple-truth-2f4cd6d18a2e#.6nurhwthc
No matter other issues, Trump has picked some great people.
-
No matter other issues, Trump has picked some great people.
Agreed, starting with Pence, Gorsuch, Mattis, DeVos, Pruitt (EPA). Tilleson looks good. Haley is doing great at the UN. https://www.unwatch.org/u-n-obsess-israel-nikki-haley/
I feel frustrated at the pace of things but that all changes fast if they get the next two things right, healthcare and tax reform.
-
Someone isn't taking any crap when it cmes to the US/Israel relations....
Basically tells the UN to get stuffed. I applaud this approach.
http://www.yesimright.com/trumps-un-ambassador-nikki-haley-shows-the-united-nations-why-america-is-not-to-be-fcked-with/#
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mcmaster-idUSKBN1602Q5
-
When Rex Tillerson showed up for his first day of work at the State Department earlier this month, he moved quickly to allay the concerns of diplomats and others alarmed by President Trump’s security policies and his disparaging comments about allies and partners.
Addressing a crowd in the department lobby, the new secretary of state spoke of his “high regard” for the public servants he was appointed to manage, extolled the importance of teamwork and pledged to “depend on the expertise of this institution.” Mr. Tillerson generated good will that day, but there have since been worrying signs that the man many hoped would provide thoughtful balance to Mr. Trump’s more impetuous, hard-line advisers has in fact been marginalized, along with the department he runs, with potentially unfortunate consequences for the country and a world facing multiple crises.
Mr. Tillerson has largely been absent from White House meetings with foreign leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and reportedly was excluded from such major decisions as Mr. Trump’s withdrawal of support for a Palestinian state and his declaration that Iran is now “on notice” for testing ballistic missiles. Mr. Trump’s rejection of Mr. Tillerson’s choice for deputy secretary of state was a public rebuke that undermined the secretary within his department and raised further doubts about his standing with the president.
For now at least, Mr. Tillerson, a former CEO of Exxon Mobil who has no foreign policy or government experience, has been eclipsed by Jim Mattis, the defense secretary; Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser; and John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security. All three men are generals, and while they are respected experts in their fields, their backgrounds could lead to an overly militaristic approach to foreign policy. That makes the voice of the State Department, with its focus on diplomacy, more important than ever. But too often this voice has seemed muffled.
A case in point was Mr. Tillerson’s trip to Mexico this week to calm tensions inflamed by Mr. Trump’s criticisms of the Mexican people and his crackdown on immigrants. Mr. Tillerson wound up playing second fiddle to Mr. Kelly, who dominated the news on Thursday when he was forced to rebut Mr. Trump’s inaccurate description of moves along the border to deport undocumented immigrants as a “military operation.”
Opinion Today
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Another complication is that Mr. Trump’s two closest aides, Stephen Bannon and Jared Kushner, are both seeking to influence foreign policy, and both have close personal relationships with Mr. Trump. Even more than other recent presidents, Mr. Trump has centered decision making in the White House, a process Mr. Bannon has reinforced by setting up a structure called the Strategic Initiatives Group to compete with the National Security Council.
Mr. Tillerson has not helped himself by moving too slowly to build a competent staff. He is also said to have isolated himself from career diplomats who know the issues best by restricting the number and types of officials who attend senior staff meetings or have access to him. Every secretary needs his own people in top positions, but it is impossible to devise or execute good policies without the support of the institution — something Mr. Tillerson must know from his Exxon days.
Meanwhile, he has made few public statements, given no public interviews, tightly restricted the number of reporters he allows to travel on his plane and suspended the daily State Department press briefings — a decades-old practice that is useful in explaining the administration’s policies and reactions to world events. (The department said Friday that briefings would resume on March 6 but not necessarily on a daily basis.) No president can expect Americans to support his policies if they are not explained.
The bottom line: If Mr. Tillerson is going to be the secretary of state, he needs to start acting like one.
-
WASHINGTON — As commander of an armored cavalry troop, H. R. McMaster fought in the largest tank battle of the Persian Gulf war, earning a Silver Star in the process. Afterward, the young captain reflected on how different his experience had been from the accounts he had read about Vietnam.
So when he arrived at the University of North Carolina for graduate studies in fall 1992, questions swirled through his head: How had Vietnam become an American war? Why did American troops die without a clear idea of their mission? “I began to seek answers to those questions,” he later wrote.
The result was a dissertation that turned into a book that would become, for a whole generation of military officers, a must-read autopsy of a war gone wrong. Now, as a three-star general and President Trump’s national security adviser, General McMaster will have the opportunity to put the lessons of that book to the test inside the White House as he serves a mercurial commander in chief with neither political nor military experience.
The book, “Dereliction of Duty,” published in 1997, highlighted the consequences of the military not giving candid advice to a president. General McMaster concluded that during Vietnam, officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff “failed to confront the president with their objections” to a strategy they thought would fail. Twenty years later, the book serves as a guidepost to how he views his role as the coordinator of the president’s foreign policy team.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.
Will the Real Democracy Lovers Please Stand Up?
FEB 25
Trump Plans to Skip White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner
FEB 25
Trump Ruled the Tabloid Media. Washington Is a Different Story.
FEB 25
H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam
FEB 24
U.S. List of Those Detained for Trump’s Travel Ban Is Called Incomplete
FEB 24
See More »
Related Coverage
The Islamophobic Huckster in the White House FEB. 24, 2017
H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam FEB. 24, 2017
McMaster May Reorganize Trump’s Foreign Policy Team Once Again FEB. 22, 2017
Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser FEB. 20, 2017
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“It’s a history, but he obviously draws conclusions about the need for what you might term brutally forthright assessments by military and indeed also by civilian leaders,” David H. Petraeus, the retired Army general and a patron of General McMaster, said in an interview. “That’s a hugely important takeaway. He has a record of being quite forthright.”
In his first week on the job, General McMaster has already shown an independence familiar to past colleagues. He has begun moving to revise an organizational order issued last month that seemed to downgrade the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence, and he told an all-hands staff meeting that he did not consider the term “radical Islamic terrorism” helpful, even as the president insists on using it.
But those are relatively small matters compared to what may come. Already, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general, has led the president to put aside his desire to reinstitute torture in interrogations of terrorism suspects, at least by the military. Mr. Trump places great faith in the generals he has surrounded himself with, but he and General McMaster had never met until a week ago, and the book’s reputation may set a hard-to-meet standard for the general.
“The difficulty is that Trump has a lot of crazy ideas in his head — like we should steal Iraq’s oil or we should kill the relatives of terrorists or we need to ban Muslims from coming here,” said Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And I’m sure someone like McMaster, like Mattis, understands how crackpot these ideas are.
“So can you say to the president, ‘Hey, Sir, you’re full” of it? Mr. Boot continued. “Or do you have to sugarcoat it and handle him with kid gloves? I suspect it’s the latter, and that’s not been H. R.’s approach. We’ll see if Trump is man enough to take it.”
The book is central to General McMaster’s identity and career. As he embarked on graduate studies after the gulf war, he approached his adviser, Richard H. Kohn, a professor who specialized in civil-military relations, and said he wanted to explore the role of the Joint Chiefs during Vietnam.
Photo
From right, President Lyndon B. Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Gen. William Westmoreland and Gen. Earle Wheeler in July 1967, during the Vietnam War. General McMaster’s book became a must-read autopsy of how the war went wrong. Credit Associated Press
Using newly declassified records, General McMaster came to a conclusion that upended the conventional wisdom within the military that it had been betrayed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and undercut by antiwar protesters and never given the chance to win the war.
General McMaster concluded that the chiefs had been absorbed by the parochial interests of their different services and had never adequately pressed their opposition to the gradual escalation strategy favored by Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara.
After finishing the dissertation, he published it as a book while still a major. It quickly became a sensation. Mr. Petraeus recalled bringing it to the attention of Gen. Hugh H. Shelton after the general took over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1997. General Shelton made it required reading for all of the chiefs and combatant commanders. “It is a valuable resource for leaders of any organization,” he later wrote in his memoirs.
First Draft
Every weekday, get political news and analysis from the staff of The New York Times.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who served in the Army, said officers of his age all read it. “We took the analysis to heart,” he said. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and a Vietnam veteran, called it “one of the very important books that anyone aspiring to leadership should read.”
Still, while praising General McMaster, Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said it may not have made a difference had the Joint Chiefs been more outspoken with Johnson. “It’s not like the president didn’t know they wanted to do more and do it quickly,” he said. “And it’s not like they really had a better idea for winning the war, other than using more violence right away.”
Others said General McMaster’s book had been misread. The shorthand is that generals should have “stood up to Johnson” or even stopped him somehow. Among those who think that is a misinterpretation is Mr. Kohn, General McMaster’s graduate adviser. “McMaster’s book neither says nor implies that the chiefs should have obstructed U.S. policy in Vietnam,” other than by candidly presenting their views, he wrote in the Naval War College Review in 2002.
Peter D. Feaver, a specialist in civil-military issues at Duke University and a national security aide to President George W. Bush, even coined the term “McMasterism” to describe the common overstatement of his thesis.
“They read McMaster’s book as supporting this defend-against-the-civilians role, but his actual argument is more subtle,” Mr. Feaver said. As a result, he added, the misinterpretation may haunt General McMaster. “McMaster’s challenge is that some may hold him to this inappropriate standard, and then he will be open to even more criticism if he disappoints,” he said.
Mr. Cohen agreed that General McMaster would now be held to an impossibly high bar. “This book will hang over him being national security adviser,” he said. “He has to be very aware that he now represents integrity and a forthrightness about speaking truth to power.”
This is not the first administration to find itself absorbed by a book on Vietnam. When President Barack Obama contemplated sending more troops to Afghanistan, he and his staff read “Lessons in Disaster,” by Gordon M. Goldstein, an account of McGeorge Bundy, the national security adviser to Johnson. The book found that Johnson had failed to question the underlying domino theory that the fall of one country to communism would lead to others.
Whether Mr. Trump has read or will read “Dereliction of Duty” and, if so, what lessons he will draw remain to be seen. “This will really be a test of Trump as commander in chief,” Mr. Goldstein said in an interview. “Can he absorb and benefit from the advice of a strong adviser who probably doesn’t share many of his biases?”
He added: “This is why this movie’s going to be really fascinating to watch. I don’t think we know how that conflict is going to be resolved.”
-
I found this to be a worthy read:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/what-does-steve-bannon-want.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
-
http://forward.com/news/national/364085/sebastian-gorka-trump-aide-forged-key-ties-to-anti-semitic-groups-in-hunga/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/sebastian-gorka-has-links-to-anti-semitic-groups.html?mid=fb-share-di
-
http://forward.com/news/national/364085/sebastian-gorka-trump-aide-forged-key-ties-to-anti-semitic-groups-in-hunga/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/sebastian-gorka-has-links-to-anti-semitic-groups.html?mid=fb-share-di
Funny, it's much easier to link Obama to a domestic terrorist and infamous anti-semites.
(http://mychal-massie.com/premium/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Al-Sharpton-and-Obama.jpg)
(http://cdn.newsbusters.org/images/wrightobamabuddies.jpg)
-
Which is not a reason to cast a blind eye here.
I note the article may be smearing in some of what it writes, but there are things in it that leave me with a raised eyebrow over a hairy eyeball.
-
Caroline Glick, the Israeli journalist/commentator, who has my great respect, posts the following article accompanied by these words:
"For the second time, Sebastian Gorka is a friend of Israel's and doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in his body.
It's terrible and shameful that American Jewish groups are participating in disinformation campaigns against the Trump administration which unlike the Obama White House and the Democrat Party, is friendly to Israel and Jewish interests"
That settles it for me.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/attacks-top-trump-adviser-gorka-product-obama-admin-holdovers-targeted-leaks/
-
That beats like a war drum till it is ground into our brains:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/meet-the-medias-latest-target-for-political-destruction-in-trumps-white-house-dr-sebastian-gorka
-
"“I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” he said. “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.” :|
https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-trump-nobody-knew-health-161803919.html
-
Certainly on the short list , , , :-P :roll:
Anyway, here's this
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/meet-the-medias-latest-target-for-political-destruction-in-trumps-white-house-dr-sebastian-gorka?utm_content=buffer5a90d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
Cory Booker and Wyden didn't make a fuss when it was Clinton using personal emails. Pruitt broke no laws and no evidence he destroyed electronic evidence .
He was obviously very lawyerly set up for this with pre planned questions. So why did he deny using personal email?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/records-show-epas-pruitt-used-private-email-despite-203908715--politics.html
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321468-trumps-unconventional-new-guru-for-messaging
-
Great speech last night - > A+
I liked his sticking it to Obama a few times too.
I am here to represent America not the world!!! :-D
-
Agreed! A+! 8-) 8-) 8-)
Chris Wallace and Van Jones both (!) said "Last night he became The President".
-
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/obama-officials-reportedly-rushed-preserve-152754896.html
As expected. Lindsey Graham called for special prosecutor into the claims Russian interference into the election. I have not heard if his useful idiot bossom buddy McCain has done so but more likely then not he will too. They were just on Hillary's fan's show on CNN, Dana Bash.
:x
-
:x
Of all the stupid things. The Repubs again play right into the hands of the DEms. They control Washington but as they always have, simply buckle.
Now we may have a special prosecutor that WILL dog Trump for the entire 4 yrs. EVen if they limit the investigation they will find other avenues along the way and get judge's permission to go down all the roads this takes them:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/now-obama-appointee-name-special-223921337.html
ALREADY they are caving.
-
:x
Of all the stupid things. The Repubs again play right into the hands of the DEms. They control Washington but as they always have, simply buckle.
Now we may have a special prosecutor that WILL dog Trump for the entire 4 yrs. EVen if they limit the investigation they will find other avenues along the way and get judge's permission to go down all the roads this takes them:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/now-obama-appointee-name-special-223921337.html
ALREADY they are caving.
The Stupid party is also known for it's weakness.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/SD.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/SD.jpg)
-
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/the-basic-formula-for-every-shocking-russia-trump-revelation-e9ae390d9f05#.clxyfwyeh
-
"“The most important job any woman can have is being a mother and it shouldn’t mean taking a pay cut,” she stated in the advertisement. “My father will change outdated labor laws so that they support women and American families.”
So legislate having your employer pay for child care? Someone has to pay for this.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/07/democrats-love-ivanka-trumps-child-care-paid-family-leave-plan/
-
IIRC her brothers and she could not vote for him in the NY primary because they were still registered Dems , , ,
Anyway, for further discussion of this subject please take it to a policy based thread, -- Entitlements or something like that.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/08/trump-finds-his-10th-justice-and-its-not-miguel-estrada/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.c999e21f0729
-
I've posted how I like Bharara's corruption fighting efforts before.
I didn't know he worked with Schumer in the past:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Alberto-Gonzales-Bharara-arrogant-quit/2017/03/11/id/778218/
-
This guy is no longer popular with me. He is arrogant, has a big mouth. He also seems to have a sense of entitlement.
The Left will help him run for office. He is perfect for them. Fits right in:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Bharara-tweet-fired-Trump/2017/03/12/id/778290/
-
The Hermitage is an interesting museum. Huge beautiful plantation with house intact. Not much remains of the slave houses, or if I recall, nothing of them does:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/14/report-donald-trump-to-lay-wreath-at-andrew-jacksons-tomb-before-rallying-supporters-in-tennessee/
Jackson is buried out back with his wife and I think a dog is buried there?
-
When your president is better at trolling than you are....
If you missed it, Donald Trump Jr, hammered Rachel Maddow tonight for proving that his father paid 40 million dollars in taxes. It is a thing of beauty.
http://www.chicksontheright.com/donald-trump-jr-hilariously-thanks-rachel-maddow-tax-return-bombshell/
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/841833345604583424
-
It would appear that due to the pressure to fill the empty positions (500+?!?) in the tier immediately below cabinet level are creating some serious errors:
Caroline Glick says:
I'm glad that Secretary of Defense James Mattis withdrew his nomination of Muslim Brotherhood supporter and Israel detractor Anne Patterson from consideration to serve as the #4 official at the Pentagon.
Here's someone else that needs to go. Pronto
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/iran-deal-architect-is-now-running-tehran-policy-at-the-state-department
-
"I'm glad that Secretary of Defense James Mattis withdrew his nomination of Muslim Brotherhood supporter and Israel detractor Anne Patterson from consideration to serve as the #4 official at the Pentagon.
Here's someone else that needs to go. Pronto"
:-D
Huff Compost wonders if "Trump himself" released this to the liberal reporter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-donald-trump-tax-return_us_58c8a110e4b022994fa317ba?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
:lol:
-
http://ijr.com/2017/03/824623-secretary-zinke-spent-snow-day-shoveling-giving-tours-closed-lincoln-memorial/
-
I'm hearing that something like 500 second tier positions are still open/being held by Obama holdovers. :cry: :cry: :cry: This is a serious error, as the saying goes "People are policy".
Here is an article about what is going on with foreign policy.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/227526/obamas-foreign-policy-wizards
-
Instead of doing the job we elected him to do he is wasting time with this stuff:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-Legal-Action-Tax-Returns-Leak/2017/03/17/id/779263/
Maybe stop flying to his estate in Palm Beach already too:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-florida-mar-a-lago-resort-almost-quarter-palm-beach-a7616171.html
why can't he keep himself in DC?
-
Threatening to sue is something Trump does. Frankly, as a businessman it looks like has bullied "smaller" people with this tactic , , , not infrequently. It is quite unappealing about him.
As for time in Florida, to a certain extent I can get his wanting to get out of Washington, but , , ,
Wherever he is, I'd like to see him exert the CEO skills he purports to have and fill the second tier.
-
The man's resume impressed me greatly, but this concerns me greatly , , ,
http://raymondibrahim.com/2017/03/16/evidence-mcmaster-shares-obamas-views-islam-terror/
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-installs-political-aides-at-cabinet-agencies-to-be-trumps-eyes-and-ears/2017/03/19/68419f0e-08da-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.cbb9bb16a8e0
-
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2017/03/17/i-denounce-the-shameful-slanders-against-sebastian-gorka-friend-of-israel/
-
From politico. I don't disagree with the ethical questions the article raises and at a minimum at least the appearance of this. It serves to undermine everything else and give great fodder to the political opposition:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ivanka-trump-white-house-236273
-
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2017/03/17/i-denounce-the-shameful-slanders-against-sebastian-gorka-friend-of-israel/
I Denounce the Shameful Slanders Against Sebastian Gorka, Friend of Israel
BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN MARCH 17, 2017
"My father walked Jewish classmates to school to protect them from the anti-Semites during the war," Dr. Sebastian Gorka (pictured above with the author) told me in Washington yesterday. He is still astonished by the allegations in left-wing media (and particularly Jewish media) that his father--a hero of the anti-fascist and anti-Communist resistance in Hungary--was a tied up with pro-Nazi elements in Hungary, and that he himself is linked to an Hungarian fascist organization.
Like the campaign of slander against his White House colleague Steve Bannon, these are lies from the whole cloth. As Liel Leibovitz (a liberal journalist at Tablet Magazine) wrote March 16: "I’d like to reach out to my friends and colleagues across town and ask, with clear eyes and a full heart: Have you lost your minds?"
Why the Big Lie About Steve Bannon?
There was an anti-Communist organization called Vitézi Rend, destroyed by the Communist government in the 1950s. Gorka’s father, Paul, was a dedicated member of the anti-Communist underground, and had risked his life to organize the Hungarian resistance and deliver vital information about the Soviets to western intelligence agencies, including the MI6. He was eventually arrested, badly tortured, and spent two years in solitary confinement and some more in forced labor in the coal mines before eventually escaping to England. The elder Gorka received a medal from the old Vitézi Rend and wears it on formal occasions to honor his father. After Communism fell in 1989 a number of new organizations called themselves Vitézi Rend, and some of them harbor anti-Semites. By this obtuse chain of indirect association, Sebastian Gorka--according to the liberal media--must also be an anti-Semite.
All the booze in Georgetown couldn't have gotten Sen. Joseph McCarthy drunk enough to spin a dumb story like this one. As a writer, teacher and Fox News contributor, Dr. Gorka has been in the public eye for years. He is a fierce enemy of radical Islamic terrorism and a dedicated friend of Israel and the Jewish people. He has made this clear in countless public statements, for example, this one in the New English Review March 3. Dr. Gorka said:
There is no greater partner of the United States in the Middle East. We are very close and we help the Jordanians, Egypt, UAE redressing and improving the very negative relationship that was established between the White House under the Obama administration and Egyptian President Sisi’s government. Israel, as a beacon of democracy and stability in the Middle East, is our closest friend in the region and the President has been explicit in that again and again So it would be difficult to overestimate just how important Israel is not only to America’s interest in the region but also to the broader stability of the Middle East.
Everyone in the Israel advocacy community in Washington knows Dr. Gorka's strong commitment to the Jewish State.
As Congressman Trent Franks, the chairman of the Israel Allies Caucus in the House of Representatives, stated in a February 27 statement, "I have followed the recent press and social media attacks against Dr. Sebastian Gorka and am compelled to respond with disgust at the attempt to libel this American patriot. Most disturbing of all is the attempt to portray Dr. Gorka in any way as anti-Semitic. Having called upon his expertise on Counterterrorism repeatedly in Congress and used his analysis to inform our work, I can attest that Dr. Gorka is the staunchest friend of Israel and the Jewish people.”
The liberals at The Forward and other fake-news media should hang their heads in shame. Anti-Semitism is a serious business. We remember our dead at the hands of Jew-haters, from Pharaoh up to Hitler and Hamas. A false accusation of anti-Semitism dishonors their memory; it is what religious Jews call a hillul haShem, a desecration of the name of God.
Last year I denounced the "big lie" about Steve Bannon, who is one of the most philo-Semitic Gentiles I have ever met. I am disgusted that the same slander has been directed against Dr. Gorka. Israel is fortunate to have friends like Dr. Gorka advising the president. I personally am fortunate to know Dr. Gorka. The slanders directed at him are shameful and inexcusable.
-
Well I voted for him. Better then Hillary but I am getting tired of this kind of crap. And get off the darn golf course especially after you criticized Obama for doing the same thing::
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-Slams-Neil-Gorsuch/2017/03/22/id/780112/
I am losing patience.
-
I just posted a harsh WSJ editorial about Trump, but on this one, I agree with Trump. Judges are NOT above criticism!
-
" Judges are NOT above criticism!"
Of course not. See my post today under Constitutional law. political hack Judges who clearly cross the laws as written by any reasonable interpretation for partisan purposes need to be held personally accountable. That said Trump is wasting time and resources with this kind of stuff.
-
An Unfair Hit on Rex Tillerson
The Washington Post offers a particularly unflattering portrait of Rex Tillerson’s early days as secretary of state, with a few details that don’t pass the smell test. For starters…
Most of his interactions are with an insular circle of political aides who are new to the State Department. Many career diplomats say they still have not met him, and some have been instructed not to speak to him directly — or even make eye contact.
Matt Lee, the chief diplomatic writer for the Associated Press, calls BS on the implausible “no eye contact” rule: “This is not true and people repeating it are making it more difficult to address very real issues. I was told of this allegation — weeks ago — and checked it out.”
I heard through the grapevine that Tillerson has held at least one getting-to-know-you meeting with career foreign-service employees and that the event went well. Of course, not everyone’s going to instantly bond over one casual meeting with snacks, but in the eyes of the people I heard from, he was making an effort, and they appreciated it.
I’ve heard a couple key impressions through the grapevine:
1. He’s a competent manager, but running Exxon is different from running the U.S. State Department, and he recognizes that. He’s smart enough to know what he doesn’t know, and he’s listening more than he’s talking. He understands that he’s got a steep learning curve.
2. With that lack of experience in mind, he’s doing pretty well. His experience in high-level negotiations shows.
3. He’s seriously undermined by the lack of staff around him. See this week’s article about the 110 or so State Department positions that still don’t have a nomination from Trump.
(MARC: C'mon Donald!!!)
Also notice the sources who offer critical quotes in the Post article:
• Representative Eliot L. Engel (D., N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee
• a foreign diplomat posted in Washington
• a senior Senate Democratic aide
• one former State Department employee
• “another official”
• “one department official”
So we’ve got one congressional Democrat, one Senate Democratic aide, one foreign diplomat, one current official, and what is likely two former State employees who worked under Kerry or Clinton. Somehow it is less than stunning that they would be critical of Tillerson.
Two sources offer quotes of praise or explanation; an unnamed senior Tillerson aide and the British ambassador to the United States Kim Darroch.
Most would agree the decision to bring only one reporter on his first foreign trip, and not to make it a “pool reporter” (acting as the reporter for all news agencies covering the State Department) was a major mistake. Informing the American public back home of what the secretary of state is doing is part of the job. Maybe Tillerson is used to having a lower-profile, but that simply doesn’t work when you’re the country’s chief diplomat.
The Post article says Tillerson skipped the traditional meeting with American embassy employees on his first three foreign trips, another avoidable mistake… but he met with embassy employees in Ankara this week. Also while in Ankara, Tillerson held a surprise meeting with Norine Brunson, wife of imprisoned American Pastor Andrew Brunson — the sort of gesture that turns heads and sends a clear signal.
So, yes, he’s made some early mistakes, but he’s learning the ropes.
-
Well Tillerson has tough shoes to fill , that is in having to follow in the footsteps of SoS *GIANTs* like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton for pete's sake!!!!
Usual leftist crap with their "jornolister" mafia networks
:roll:
-
WTF with Donald leaving the second tier empty?!? :x
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/us/politics/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushner-still-benefiting-from-business-empire-filings-show.html?emc=edit_na_20170331&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/30/i-worked-with-jared-kushner-hes-the-wrong-businessman-to-reinvent-government/?utm_term=.f44f4e3f7aef&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
It takes a HUGE leap of faith to think this 36 yo guy Jared can do what his designated responsibilities are . What happened to the real proven business genius people Trump promised us?
I personally don't like this and I think the risk of failure goes up. Just my take .
-
It takes a HUGE leap of faith to think this 36 yo guy Jared can do what his designated responsibilities are . What happened to the real proven business genius people Trump promised us?
I personally don't like this and I think the risk of failure goes up. Just my take .
Thus it looks like: "I fought the swamp, and the swamp won"!
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/326797-irs-chief-is-unexpected-survivor-in-trump-era
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/326797-irs-chief-is-unexpected-survivor-in-trump-era
He should be in custody. So should Hillary and her crew as well.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/02/us/politics/trump-china-jared-kushner.html?emc=edit_th_20170403&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
-
http://taskandpurpose.com/jared-kushner-iraq-storybook-pictures/
Jared Goes To Iraq! A Picture Story
-
GM,
What a 'nice' story
Frankly I am having a hard time taking any of Trumps seriously to be honest.
Even when Trump speaks of the [Syrian] 'children' it just doesn't seem to have the moral gravitas it would say if Mike Pence said the same thing.
-
GM,
What a 'nice' story
Frankly I am having a hard time taking any of Trumps seriously to be honest.
Even when Trump speaks of the 'children' it just doesn't seem to have the moral gravitas it would say if Mike Pence said the same thing.
I think we a seriously close to ending up in a serious SH*T storm, if we are not careful.
-
What a pleasure it is to see her elevated to the national and international stage. Besides principles, substance and skill, what a great demeanor she has. I would be happy to see her as Pence or Rubio's running mate, or the first woman President.
US Ambassador to the United Nations will not be the highest office she will attain.
-
"Politically, this is the lesson of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s governorship. He decided that he’d rather be a successful liberal governor than a failed conservative one."
With life long liberal Democrat Jared , the son of a rich liberal Democrat, married to Trump's apparently liberal daughter, we are seeing more and more signs that Trump will go down the path of terminator.
The Republicans in the legislative branches need to stick together and present Trump with 'winning' conservative legislative options only.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/446552/trump-syria-strike-obama-red-line-enforced
-
CCP (China thread): "China Learns How to Get Trump’s Ear: Through Jared Kushner"
This seems true of everybody - got to suck up to such a "nice" man. (kushner)
This is all too weird.
----------------------
Everything to do with Trump is weird. It's weird when he gets things right! I actually think Kushner is getting trust and assignment on the merit system. Trump sees something in him, certainly have to bring him in. Liberal pundits can't stand the nepotism aspect - like he can't be fired. He can't be fired as son and law, but he can be reassigned or sent back to make money. Doesn't Trump have a whole lot of other relatives that are closer? It would be weirder if Donald Jr was in that role, or Melania or Tiffany. Non-relatives that are that close to the top have the same kind of loyalty, or they fail.
Every top manager has people they trust, people who tell it to them straight, get to the point, don't waste their time, can sort out what is important and make the boss look good. With every President, we distrust the person in that role. Unelected power, etc. There tends to be turnover in that role. Valerie Jarrett lasted the whole two term Presidency. What were her qualifications? The President trusted her.
I'd rather see a President choose someone like a Milton Friedman to whisper in his ear on every issue and decision, a Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn. We are lucky this non-ideological President is governing as conservatively as he is. So far...
-
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/328588-trumps-army-pick-faces-tough-confirmation-fight
-
http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/04/george-soros-backed-jared-kushner-venture-cadre-with-250-million/
Bannon vs. Kushner: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=71047
-
"Soros invested $250 million in Jared Kushner?!?"
Seems like all the NY liberals gaining a foothold in the WH vis v vis this Jared liberal.
His old man is a the stereotype big time donating liberal.
-
Isn't that the one Christie put in jail?
-
It would seem they are not getting a good return on their investment, with a conservative picked for VP, an originalist picked for the court, the dismantling of the federal CO2 police, the return of a backbone to foreign policy using military strength to empower diplomacy, and tax rate cuts coming.
Trump could just as easily have turned this far to the left, and he hasn't. MHO.
-
"getting a little nervous":
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/delingpole-donald-trump-is-turning-into-david-cameron-this-is-bad/
-
Giving credit for where due, President Trump made some great appointments including Justice Gorsuch, has shown strength in foreign policy, and made regulatory moves like approving the pipeline, but the largerl economic policy begs the question Walter Mondale asked of Gary Hartpence, where's the beef?
Scott Grannis: "If we don't get substantial progress on healthcare and taxes before year end, the economy could weaken as uncertainty mounts and people delay income and investment decisions."
"No sign here of a Trump bump [on private sector job growth], and it's premature to expect one: we need to see meaningful tax and regulatory reform [first]."
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2017/04/market-based-chart-updates.html?m=1
Insanity is to expect better results without enacting better policies.
Economically, it is Year 9 of the Obama administration. There isn't a tax increase that Obama and the Democrats added that has been repealed. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, a medical device tax, Obamacare surcharge, and higher capital gains rates - all still in place. America has the worst estate tax rate in a dozen years, confiscatory 48% (plus up to 10% in state rate). Last time estate taxes were jacked up that dramatically we had a Great Depression going on. We have the highest social welfare benefit participation in our history. Why would anyone want to earn or build wealth? We have the lowest worker participation rate for males and the worst hiring rules in our history and lowest entrepreneurial startup rate. Who would want to risk capital or hire someone today? Who even knows how to do that legally anymore?
Trump took a weak first swing at healthcare reform by letting the House who couldn't get a majority to back it write it. They have taken no visible shot at tax reform at this time. It's hard to get something, anything through congress, but with both chambers in his party, but it's not harder than what most other recent President faced.
Treasury's Mnuchin said today: "We're 'pretty close' to bringing forward 'major tax reform' ".
Now would be a good time to get major tax reform done and done right - unless you want another year of the economic results of the Obama administration.
Mnuchin said he hoped passing a tax overhaul will not "take till the end of the year."
How could it get done any sooner? They haven't proposed anything yet.
-
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/329817-pentagon-experiences-communications-breakdown
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/donald-trump-white-house.html?emc=edit_ta_20170422&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330341-infighting-cools-down-in-trumpland
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330341-infighting-cools-down-in-trumpland
Feeling a little snarky, I was wondering who were the greatest staffers of all time were, maybe Erskine Bowles or Rahm Emmanuel :wink:, and which transformational President didn't have staff infighting...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_White_House_Chiefs_of_Staff
If the Kushner-Bannon feud overshadowed coverage of the Gorsuch confirmation, that is a sign of a failed media more than a failing Presidency IMHO.
-
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/231133/gorka-forward-vitezi-rend-trump?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=295f15046a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-295f15046a-207194629
-
No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!
You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.
Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.
Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”
No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them.
It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.
He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-not-building-wall-government-shutdown/
-
Yes.
No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!
You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.
Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.
Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”
No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them.
It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.
He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-not-building-wall-government-shutdown/
-
Coulter was out front on this. The kickoff to his campaign and its main theme all the way through was based on her book Adios America and the painstaking research she put into it.
He negotiate down in a lot of different ways and control illegal immigration in other ways but he has to build some kind of physical barrier at the border.
-
"If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished."
The Republicans in Congress and the Senate are probably to blame . With majorities in both houses why can't they fund the wall?
I looked up the estimated cost and all the LEFT wing media outlets from Wash composte to the New York Slimes are all in unison coming out and trying to brain wash every one into thinking the wall would cost double - triple and even more then the original estimate.
No hidden agenda there of course - :roll:
Paul Ryan if he can't get this done has to go. I am finished with him. He is really a big Rino - really a big government Republican.
Watch them cave on taxes too. Rush was laughing at even the thought that we will ever get any real significant tax cut through without them finding ways to make us, the portion of the the country that pays the bills, pay up.
Unbelievable.
-
The Wall belongs in Homeland Security and/or the Budget thread. Ryan and his failures belong in the Congress thread.
This thread is more for Administration personel matters.
Thank you.
-
@ making his life as miserable as they can:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-says-he-thought-being-president-would-be-easier-than-his-old-life_us_5902b2c6e4b0bb2d086c6c09?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
-
Of course the source is Breitbart but this sounds positive:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/hill-steve-bannon-reasserts-influence-100-days-push/
Jared and Ivanka are ok as trusted organizers of conduits to Donald but I certainly don't want them influencing/shaping policy.
They have no role for that IMHO.
-
For all the Bush and company suck eggs patronizing for Latino votes with their open borders they never got to this level of Latino support:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/03/poll-finds-hispanic-support-for-president-trump-up-to-45-since-election/
-
Ivanka Trump to review climate change as US mulls Paris pullout
The president’s daughter and adviser will look at the issue as he weighs taking the US out of a global emissions-cutting deal
http://www.timesofisrael.com/ivanka-trump-to-review-climate-change-as-us-mulls-paris-pullout/
-----------------------
His liberal daughter is the best person in the country to advise on this most important decision?
He should have elevated an expert to take on the experts, someone like Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, John Christy.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html?m=1
-
I thought Trump should have fired him on January 21st.
This makes sense about why now:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/09/james-comey-simple-explanation/
Comey would let the Dems drag out the "Russian connection " thing for four years it appeared.
And of course the Democrat Party PR division, CNN, is IMMEDIATELY picking up the baton on the Russia thing: (with of course the Dems useful idiot Senator Graham)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html
-
Compare this :
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-james-comey-fbi-firing/2017/05/09/id/789173/
with this:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Morning-Joe-Joe-Scarborough-FBI-James-Comey/2017/05/09/id/789166/ AND
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-gop-chairman-of-senate-intelligence-1494375798-htmlstory.html
I call Republicans like this as being fake self righteous.
-
Maybe Trump read our posts...
I thought Trump should have fired him on January 21st.
This makes sense about why now:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/09/james-comey-simple-explanation/
Comey would let the Dems drag out the "Russian connection " thing for four years it appeared.
And of course the Democrat Party PR division, CNN, is IMMEDIATELY picking up the baton on the Russia thing: (with of course the Dems useful idiot Senator Graham)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html
-
When Loretta Lynch recused herself from the Hillary Clinton matter, that did not make James Comey in charge of prosecutorial decisions. He pulled an Alexander Haig there, took charge, and blew it.
People asking why now should ask why their guy didn't do it when they thought he was failing at his job. Or it is all just talk...
He didn't ask her any question about intent then said he didn't find intent, when the law clearly states that intent is not required.
She was guilty and then uncharged, treated differently from others because he did not want to upset the ongoing election.
Now she is still uncharged because he cannot or will not read the law, or enforce it. He was fired once they had an assistant AG in place to do that.
Rightfully fired. Good riddance.
-
Doug:
"Rightfully fired. Good riddance."
Agreed.
But now we have too many on OUR side who are ready to abandon the President because:
they planned to all along,
or they are simply political cowards.
some illusion about the "country first" phony lecturing. If they really believed that they would realize our biggest threat is the LEFT and they would be sticking together. Not they have to agree with everything Trump does or says but Comey certainly is not worth running and fleeing under the covers for.
One thing about the crats they mostly stick together.
And they have guts - I will give them that.
Our side is lacking the same.
-
http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/2017/05/federal-bureau-of-incompetence.html
(http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/2017/05/federal-bureau-of-incompetence.html)
-
My question to Jonah why does he think people are not "running to the phones" after every meeting because they are bribed to do so.
I couldn't think of anything that would get people to run to a phone to be the first to give a good scoop then a 5 or 10 K bundle of cash. Can you?
How does he know there are not ways they are being bugged?
How do we know the media is not simply making some of it up. Or that their "sources" (those on their payrolls) are not making it up? They can say they heard anything they want and who or how can we refute them?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447567/trump-white-house-leaks-show-president-dramatic-personality
Wasn't it Clapper or another spy who said once the best way to get information from enemies is not to torture them , but simply to pay them?
I've seen first hand how *nearly anyone* can be bribed.
all people in the spy business know this to be true. so wouldn't the NYslimes or Clinton news network simply offer insiders money under the table?
-
Leaking classified information is a crime.
But when the 'leak' is false information, it is not a crime.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIARMMtUdZQ
-
“Right now, I’m going with naivete, and that’s not particularly comforting for me,” he said. “What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?”
-
This piece does not mention the possibility of the Kushner story being based on Russian dis-intel, nor does it address this: http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/how-team-obama-tried-to-hack-the-election/ but it does make points of interest:
======================================================
God Save America from Naive Princelings Convinced They Know Everything
Just a point to add to Andy McCarthy raking Jared Kushner over the coals for the “galactically stupid” idea . . .
I get why someone who voted for Donald Trump would defend the president. Trump descended that escalator and went about the process of winning over your vote. He did it in the primaries and in the general election.
What I don’t get is any reflexive defense of . . . Jared Kushner. Trump earned your vote, and presumably, some amount of trust. What did Kushner ever do for you?
If someone like, say, Carl Higbie, the former Navy SEAL who is often on CNN International with me and who is a reliable Trump defender, said he was going to meet with the Russian government in an attempt to establish a back channel of communication, my attitude would be . . . well, he’s a former Navy SEAL, he’s surely been trained in handling classified information, he knows the risks, and he’s put his neck on the line for his country, which probably ought to earn him a least a little bit of trust or the benefit of the doubt.
But Jared Kushner?
Kushner is a 36-year-old who’s been doing New York City real-estate deals. What the heck does he know about U.S. foreign policy with Russia? Maybe he’s a bright guy, maybe he isn’t, but he surely hasn’t been spending most of his life preparing for handling situations and issues like this.
Now he’s getting his own intelligence briefings?
The inevitable defense is, “the president trusts him.” Yes, but perhaps the president shouldn’t. We’ve already seen one example of president’s interests and the Kushner family’s interests diverging:
The most serious point of contention between the president and his son-in-law, two people familiar with the interactions said, was a video clip this month of Mr. Kushner’s sister Nicole Meyer pitching potential investors in Beijing on a Kushner Companies condominium project in Jersey City. At one point, Ms. Meyer — who remains close to Mr. Kushner — dangled the availability of EB-5 visas to the United States as an enticement for Chinese financiers willing to spend $500,000 or more.
For Mr. Trump, Ms. Meyer’s performance violated two major rules: Politically, it undercut his immigration crackdown, and in a personal sense, it smacked of profiteering off Mr. Trump — one of the sins that warrants expulsion from his orbit.
In the following days during routine West Wing meetings, the president made several snarky, disparaging comments about Mr. Kushner’s family and the visas that were clearly intended to express his annoyance, two aides said. Mr. Kushner did not respond, at least not in earshot.
When you suggest “using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications” — basically, a “SCIF” or Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility, a room that’s considered bug-free and safe for communicating secret information — you’re basically announcing that you’re doing something that you want to hide from your own government’s counterintelligence agencies.
The version of Kushner’s discussion in the Washington Post sounds terrible; Fox News offered a differing account, contending the Russians suggested the idea using their secure facilities. You’d like to think that even with zero professional foreign-policy experience, Kushner would recognize, “that is a terrible idea. That means Russian intelligence will be able to listen to our discussions, but not U.S. intelligence. I’m basically inviting the FSB to the discussions, but not the National Security Agency.”
I don’t care how much you hate the alleged “deep state” or the NSA or the CIA or the FBI counterintelligence guys. All of the employees at those institutions take an oath of loyalty to the country and to the Constitution. No one in Russia’s government takes that oath. Everyone in the Russian government must be assumed to be acting in Russia’s interest first, which may or may not align with America’s interests, and certainly does not align with America’s top national-security interests. If you trust the Russians more than you trust the Americans . . . and you see your interest more aligned with the Russian government than with the American government . . . whose side are you really on?
-
WASHINGTON — Few Republicans were quicker to embrace President Trump’s campaign last year than Jeff Sessions, and his reward was one of the most prestigious jobs in America. But more than four months into his presidency, Mr. Trump has grown sour on Mr. Sessions, now his attorney general, blaming him for various troubles that have plagued the White House.
The discontent was on display on Monday in a series of stark early-morning postings on Twitter in which the president faulted his own Justice Department for its defense of his travel ban on visitors from certain predominantly Muslim countries. Mr. Trump accused Mr. Sessions’s department of devising a “politically correct” version of the ban — as if the president had nothing to do with it.
In private, the president’s exasperation has been even sharper. He has intermittently fumed for months over Mr. Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election, according to people close to Mr. Trump who insisted on anonymity to describe internal conversations. In Mr. Trump’s view, they said, it was that recusal that eventually led to the appointment of a special counsel who took over the investigation.
Behind-the-scenes frustration would not be unprecedented in the Oval Office. Other presidents have become estranged from the Justice Department over time, notably President Bill Clinton, who bristled at Attorney General Janet Reno’s decisions to authorize investigations into him. But Mr. Trump’s tweets on Monday made his feelings evident for all to see and raised questions about how he is managing his own administration.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Democrats Sought Inquiry of Testimony by Sessions at His Confirmation Hearing JUNE 1, 2017
Sessions Was Advised Not to Disclose Russia Meetings on Security Forms MAY 24, 2017
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
“They wholly undercut the idea that there is some rational process behind the president’s decisions,” said Walter E. Dellinger, who served as acting solicitor general under Mr. Clinton. “I believe it is unprecedented for a president to publicly chastise his own Justice Department.”
In his Twitter posts, Mr. Trump complained that his original executive order barring visitors from select Muslim-majority nations and refugees from around the world was revised in hopes of passing legal muster after it was struck down by multiple federal courts. The second version, however, has also been blocked, and last week the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court.
“The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.,” Mr. Trump wrote.
Then he added, “The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court — & seek much tougher version!”
But the messages caused considerable head scratching around Washington since it was Mr. Trump who signed the revised executive order and, presumably, agreed to the legal strategy in the first place. His posts made it sound like the Justice Department was not part of his administration.
The White House had little to add to the president’s messages on Monday. Asked why Mr. Trump signed the revised order if he did not support it, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, said he did it only to convince a California-based appeals court. “He was looking to, again, match the demands laid out by the Ninth Circuit and, for the purpose of expediency, to start looking at the best way possible to move that process forward,” she said.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy
Opt out or contact us anytime
Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School who has frequently defended Mr. Trump on cable news, said the president was clearly voicing frustration with Mr. Sessions. But he said it was not clear to him that it was a personal issue as opposed to an institutional one with the office.
“What he’s saying is, ‘I’m the president, I’m the tough guy, I wanted a very tough travel ban and the damn lawyers are weakening it’ — and clients complain about lawyers all the time,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “I see this more as a client complaining about his lawyer. The lawyer in this case happens to be Jeff Sessions.”
David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, said Mr. Trump clearly looked at the case from the lens of a businessman who did not get his money’s worth.
“He’s unhappy when the results don’t come in,” Mr. Rivkin said. “I’m sure he was convinced to try the second version, and the second iteration did not do better than the first iteration, so the lawyers in his book did not do a good job. It’s understandable for a businessman.”
Mr. Sessions and the Justice Department remained silent on Monday. But at least one lawyer close to the administration suggested that there was consternation in the department over the president’s messages. George T. Conway III, who until last week was Mr. Trump’s choice for assistant attorney general for the civil division and whose wife, Kellyanne Conway, is the president’s counselor, posted a Twitter message suggesting that Mr. Trump’s tweets “certainly won’t help” persuade five justices on the Supreme Court — the majority needed — to uphold the travel ban.
In subsequent posts, Mr. Conway said that “every sensible lawyer” in the White House Counsel’s Office and “every political appointee” at the Justice Department would “agree with me (as some have already told me).” Mr. Conway stressed that he strongly supports Mr. Trump — “and, of course, my wonderful wife” — and was making his points because the president’s supporters “should not be shy about it.”
The frustration over the travel ban might be a momentary episode were it not for the deeper resentment Mr. Trump feels toward Mr. Sessions, according to people close to the president. When Mr. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, Mr. Trump learned about it only when he was in the middle of another event, and he publicly questioned the decision.
A senior administration official said Mr. Trump has not stopped burning about the decision, in occasional spurts, toward Mr. Sessions. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who was selected by Mr. Sessions and filled in when it came to the Russia investigation, ultimately appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel to lead the probe.
In fact, much of the past two months of discomfort and self-inflicted pain for Mr. Trump can be tied in some way back to that recusal. Mr. Trump felt blindsided by Mr. Sessions’s decision and unleashed his fury at aides in the Oval Office the next day, according to four people familiar with the event. The next day was his fateful tweet about President Barack Obama conducting a “wiretapp” of Trump Tower during the campaign, an allegation that was widely debunked.
However, Mr. Trump is said to be aware that firing people now, on the heels of dismissing James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, would be risky. He has invested care and meticulous attention to the next choice of an F.B.I. director in part because he will not have the option of firing another one. The same goes for Mr. Sessions, these people said.
Mr. Dershowitz said he thought any frustration over Mr. Sessions’s recusal, like the travel ban, was probably not personal. “I think that’s also institutional,” he said. “Almost any A.G. would recuse himself. I think he’s railing against lawyers.”
-
Can Trump Really Be Fed Up with Sessions after Just Four Months?
This story is deeply troubling — assuming it is true; wariness about unnamed sources is understandable.
President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have had a series of heated exchanges in the last several weeks after Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe, a source close to Sessions told CNN Tuesday.
A senior administration official said that at one point, Sessions expressed he would be willing to resign if Trump no longer wanted him there.
Tuesday afternoon, White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to say whether Trump has confidence in Sessions.
“I have not had a discussion with him about that,” Spicer said.
As of 9 p.m. ET Tuesday, the White House still was unable to say whether or not the President backs his attorney general, a White House official said. The official said they wanted to avoid a repeat of what happened when Kellyanne Conway said Trump had confidence in Flynn only to find out hours later that the national security adviser had been pushed out.
Remember that huge confirmation fight over Sessions? That was four months ago! What’s the point of going through all that trouble if Trump is going to get into a fight with his attorney general and want to get rid of him by June? Yesterday, I mentioned that there are only three people nominated by Trump working in the Department of Justice. Do you think Trump will be better off with only two? And if Trump has this much friction with Sessions, one of his earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, who’s out there who he’s going to work with better?
If Trump did ditch Sessions, how long would it take for him to find a replacement?
Remember at the end of May, when communications director Mike Dubke resigned? Sean Spicer is filling that job and the press secretary job… but of course, we’ve heard a lot of rumors that Trump has contemplated firing Spicer, too.
Remember all the reports back in April that Trump was considering getting rid of both Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon?
There’s one argument of management that says you shouldn’t get rid of someone until you have a good plan to replace them or at least have someone else who can temporarily handle their duties.
Michael Dubke, the White House communications director, said he would step down, but four possible successors contacted by the White House declined to be considered, according to an associate of Mr. Trump who like others asked not to be identified discussing internal matters [my emphasis].
Is it any wonder this White House is having a hard time attracting people?
We discussed how Trump tweets out messages that directly contradict the arguments of his lawyers. He gave Spicer an hour’s warning about the decision to fire Comey.
He didn’t even fire Comey face-to-face. And it’s Trump who apparently fumes that his staff is “incompetent.”
-
"Is it any wonder this White House is having a hard time attracting people?"
No wonder at all.
Who wants to work for Trump?
One second he can tell everyone what a great guy you are the next second your a piece of garbage and fired.
The LEFT has his number. Just keep the pressure on him and he cannot stop himself from making the flippant statements , tweets etc.
He falls for it every time.
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-chooses-family-event-planner-run-n-y-housing-programs-article-1.3251314
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kushner-firms-285-million-deutsche-bank-loan-came-just-before-election-day/2017/06/25/984f3acc-4f88-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.200672244aaa&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
-
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/world/americas/rex-tillerson-american-diplomacy.html?emc=edit_th_20170626&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=31307437&referer
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449141/nikki-haley-our-de-facto-secretary-state
-
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/29/how-rex-tillerson-destroying-state-department-215319
-
CD posted:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/29/how-rex-tillerson-destroying-state-department-215319
Sounds like this could be a bunch of disgruntled Federal employees not getting their way as they have been used to.
Sounds like they don't like policy change and thus everything is chaos.
OTOH maybe there is truth here.
-
While I take delight at the chaos and chagrin at CNN and this is sort of funny on one hand I have to admit there is something unnerving about this with a person whose ego is in outer space on the other hand:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-tweets-media-attacks/2017/07/02/id/799370/
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/us/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump.html?emc=edit_ta_20170702&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
While I take delight at the chaos and chagrin at CNN and this is sort of funny on one hand I have to admit there is something unnerving about this with a person whose ego is in outer space on the other hand:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-tweets-media-attacks/2017/07/02/id/799370/
Actually, it was a very humorous way to expose how the media was OK with Shakespeare's Julius Casesar being altered in Central Park to have a Trump lookalike stabbed to death in the Roman Senate. That was just free expression said the media and the Left in reply to criticisms of the Right that it would incite violence.
OK, how about we show CNN being body-slammed by Trump to prove a point? The media responds with the same refrain that they criticized the Right for making in reply to the play. WWE is fake wrestling. CNN is fake news.
Point. Counterpoint.
-
While I take delight at the chaos and chagrin at CNN and this is sort of funny on one hand I have to admit there is something unnerving about this with a person whose ego is in outer space on the other hand:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-tweets-media-attacks/2017/07/02/id/799370/
Actually, it was a very humorous way to expose how the media was OK with Shakespeare's Julius Casesar being altered in Central Park to have a Trump lookalike stabbed to death in the Roman Senate. That was just free expression said the media and the Left in reply to criticisms of the Right that it would incite violence.
OK, how about we show CNN being body-slammed by Trump to prove a point? The media responds with the same refrain that they criticized the Right for making in reply to the play. WWE is fake wrestling. CNN is fake news.
Point. Counterpoint.
(http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2017/05/griffin-865x430.jpg)
The people with no decency try for their "Have you no decency" gambit once again. :roll:
-
"Point, Counterpoint." I agree. It makes a point, demonstrates his power to go around them, shows a sense of humor they lack, and helps put the uglier tweets behind him.
In my little part of the fruited plain, everyone seems to know of the MSNBC feud and no one is following tax reform or strategic talks last week with India Prime Minister Modi.
We need someone who fights back and exposes our disgusting media. As they say with parenting, choose your battles. Then win them.
More important though might be to learn a bit from Reagan in terms of staying on message if you want the coverage to stay on message - assuming policy matters to Trump and he wants to make America great again. From a tax and spend point of view, it is year nine of the Obama administration, not year one of Trump, and it is year eleven since the Pelosi-Reid domestic policy arrow changed to anti-growth economics, still unrepealed after Republicans won elections in all branches at all levels. A lot of this may be Congress's fault but Reagan's agenda didn't glide through congress either without intense Presidential leadership.
-
RN posted:
"Actually, it was a very humorous way to expose how the media was OK with Shakespeare's Julius Casesar being altered in Central Park to have a Trump lookalike stabbed to death in the Roman Senate."
When looking at it that way I agree.
I wonder though if this is as much calculated rather then an emotional reflex response by Trump.
Someone on MSNBC asked this very question this am though I don't recall what the context was.
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/07/03/heres-how-to-deal-with-trumps-tweets-stop-caring-about-them-n2349760
Here's How To Deal With Trump's Tweets: Stop Caring About Them
Kurt Schlichter |Posted: Jul 03, 2017 12:01 AM
If the hyperventilating faux outrage over Donald Trump's tweets about that pair of home-wrecking nobodies on MSNBC was actually presented in good faith, it would be merely be stupid. But it is not presented in good faith. It is a transparent attempt to drag Trump off-point and tie him up in a never-ending discussion about his completely irrelevant personal failings, even though liberals slobber over all sorts of people with personal failings who just happen to support their fascist dreams. It's not working, because Trump cares nothing about what these fussy nannies shriek while clutching their pearls, nor do his voters really care. But it is still annoying.
No, his tweets are not annoying. I don't care about his tweets, so they don't annoy me. I didn't vote for Donald Trump to be a role model or a moral paragon. I voted for him to not be Hillary Clinton, and to incrementally move towards actual conservatism. Like everyone else who voted for him, I knew he wasn't a doctrinaire conservative. But he believed in some conservative things, and that was better than someone who believed in no conservative things, and who wanted to stamp her sensible shoe into our faces forever.
Was he my first choice? No. Was he my second? No. But was there any other choice when it came down to him or Felonia von Pantsuit?
No. Which is something a lot of the cogs in the machine that is Conservative, Inc., still don't choose to acknowledge.
Liberals don’t annoy me when they whine about Trump’s tweeting because I know it's all a lie and a scam, just like everything else liberals say. They don't care that Trump is mean to girls. These cretins brought us Bill Clinton. They don't care that Trump is vulgar. You should see what liberals, including proggy blue checks, say to me on Twitter. Let me put it this way: after the nonstop parade of death wishes, perversion accusations, and general mouth-foaming hostility the liberals traffic in every day, I'm distinctly unimpressed by Trump calling out Mika’s chin lift.
So I refuse to care. And I don't care. Not even a little. At most, I'm entirely indifferent to these playground spats, though I do enjoy seeing these leftist schmucks getting a taste of their own medicine. And do I love seeing the frustration of the hapless establishment when Trump just ignores its tantrums and keeps firing off tweets long after they've been decreed unacceptable. Trump galls them because he refuses to submit to the moral authority of the immoral. It's beautiful.
I think a lot of his voters feel that way – oh, they’ll tell pollsters they don't like his tweeting, because you're supposed to say you don't like stuff like that, but at the end of the day they don't really care about his tweeting enough to withdraw their support. Tweets are part of the Trump package, and they're okay with the package.
I refuse to spend one iota of my limited allowance of outrage on Trump’s imperfections. I didn't vote for Donald Trump to be a nice guy. I didn't vote for him to be a Jeb!-like sap. I voted for him to fight the liberal establishment, and I voted for him with my eyes open. I'm not surprised that he is who he is. I just don't give a damn.
And I especially refuse to give a damn because this is so obviously a ploy to peel-off weak, Fredocon Republicans so that Trump can't implement policies those Republicans are supposed to endorse. These poser Republicans yearn for the chance to undercut the guy who humiliated their kind. Of course Ben Sasse has to get in on the moral preening act – that grinning donkey has never met a virtue he didn't want to signal, and if I had shown the utter lack of moral character he did when he smiled while Bill Maher used a racial epithet, I’d want to distract attention too. As for Lindsey Graham, every time he pipes up, I see a vision of him in his little blue sailor suit, disapprovingly wagging his lollipop at me.
Those guys are narcissistic clowns and I expect nothing more from them. But what is annoying are the otherwise useful people on our side who immediately do exactly what the liberals want and latch on to whatever bogus Trump is Awful! meme is dominating the airwaves that day.
Here’s a crazy idea you might want to think about it. You don't have to grab a pitchfork and torch every time the liberals start rounding up a mob. You can actually not join in the stupidity.
I reject the notion that Trump is stepping on his own message when he tweets something obnoxious. There are plenty of days – the vast majority of days – when Trump tweets nothing obnoxious, so name one of those days when the mainstream media transmitted his preferred message. Come on – get out your little calendars and tell me the exact date the media cooperated and transmitted his message.
There isn't one. If he's not in a fight with Mika Discount Megan Kelly Brzezinski, then it's going to be Russians Russians Obstruction Russians Treason More Russians.
“Okay, CNN reporters, Trump hasn't tweeted anything today, so let's focus on the President’s priorities! Camarota, do a segment on how important it is to deport illegal aliens. Acosta, I need a report on how consumer confidence is up up up! And Cuomo, put down that fidget spinner and clean up the mess your new puppy Woofy left in my office.”
If you're so offended and outraged by his tweets, here's an idea. Don't pay any attention to them. Don't read them. Don't talk about them. And don't join the freaking Democrats in a lynch mob to emasculate the guy who brought us Justice Gorsuch and who we’d like to see replace a couple more robed dictators.
Yeah, I get it. Trump's aesthetically displeasing to your delicate sensibilities. Do you think this is news to us? Do you presume you're the only ones who have detected that Donald Trump is not a proper gentleman? Get over it, and yourselves.
And cut out the freaking clichés. What am I going to tell my children about Donald Trump? Whatever it is, it’ll be hell of a lot easier than explaining Bill Clinton's humidor habits.
I haven't really thought about it, but if I was one of those weirdos who pester their kids about politics, and if I had weirdo kids who cared, I’d probably say something like: “Trump doesn't take any crap, and if you swing at him, he kicks your butt. Don't you take any crap from jerks either. Punch back twice as hard. Just don't date anyone like him.”
And if I hear one more pompous doofus tell me I “have no honor” because I refuse to spin up every time Trump offends their tender feelz, I may slap a dork. The submissive gentleman ship has sailed, or rather, the USS Jeb! ran into an iceberg.
I get that you're offended. Okay. I choose not to care. Some people do care, and they’re sincere and they’re wrong. I’m friends with a lot of them.
But the psuedo-cons don't care, yet cynically exploit this nonsense to undercut Trump to regain their diminished status. All you soft boys whose mommy and/or daddy handed you a conservative magazine and made you think you had a divine right to be taken seriously by us normals, pay attention. The issues Trump is talking about matter to us. Sometimes it's our livelihoods, sometimes it's our very lives - often put at risk in wars you pushed from behind your laptop. I get that under Hillary Clinton, your mediocre positions in the big DC/NY scheme of things would've been secure, but I've got to break it to you – we don't care. Your pathetic status as obedient gimp-cons serving your liberal masters in the establishment big house may mean everything you, but it means nothing to us.
Normal Americans – the ones you hold in utter contempt – are hurting, and the only person who paid any attention was Donald Trump. You sure didn’t. You would have fed us to Hillary Clinton if you had your way, because under her your measly positions would have been secure, and under Trump everyone sees that we don't need you.
We followed you for years, but when it came time to fight for what you said you believed in and risking your mediocre sinecures, you defected to the other side. You betrayed us. Don't you ever dare talk to me about honor.
In an ideal world, I would love to get back to presidency dominated by gentlemen like Ronald Reagan. But we don't live in an ideal world. Here's the ugly reality – there is a cultural war going on, one that could get worse. This isn’t a game; there are real stakes. If you volunteer to join conservatism’s enemies to allegedly protect an ideal of decorum that this culture has long since left behind, you’re being played for a sucker. You're either serious about winning, or you’re serious about losing.
-
How dare anyone scrutinize them, I mean they are "career" officials above reproach :roll: :roll: :roll:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/07/trumps-leak-vendetta-sends-chills-240274
swamp water level is down a 1/2 centimeter.
must be climate change and the libs are pissed............
all I can say is, it is about time.
-
I saw that-- the mind boggles at the clueless sense of entitlement and lack of responsibility.
-
To come out publicaly and criticize your own AG like this and blame him rightly or wrongly is really unbelievable. If I were Sessions I would resign. If I were Trump I would replace Sessions (not because Sessions deserves it) due to T burning his bridge which he keeps doing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html
I am agreeing with Michael Savage. I am giving up on hoping Trump can do much. Still we have to keep fighting and holding on....
No other choice
-
quote author=ccp
To come out publicaly and criticize your own AG like this and blame him rightly or wrongly is really unbelievable. If I were Sessions I would resign. If I were Trump I would replace Sessions (not because Sessions deserves it) due to T burning his bridge which he keeps doing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html
It is bad and done in bad taste but I agree with Trump on the substance of it. Sessions should not have wrongly recused himself on what turned out to be a very big deal. And if he was so compromised that he couldn't perform his duties he shouldn't have taken the position. MHO
Recusal was seen as the Administration'a first admission of guilt where there was none.
It weakened the adminstration, let an investigation grow out of control and it conceded acceptance of the Democrat's double standard of Justice. It opened a one sided case where the other actually has guilt.
The original bond of Sessions and Trump was over border security, a small to medium sized piece of the AG job.
-
" It is bad and done in bad taste "
well it is even worse
Sessions should resign. It is best now. IMHO
additionally Trump has stepped into this mess multiple times with OWN his big mouth
and the fact his family tried to cover up this meeting rather then simply reporting to start with has just destroyed what little credibility they have
he trustfulness is in the tank . VEry difficult to bring it back he could still come out of this for sure but.........you know the rest
was bad before but now we cannot believe anything he says. we had not choice could not vote for Hillary Trump was not my first choice - Cruz was
-
Sessions has been a major disappointment.
-
"Trump has stepped into this mess multiple times with OWN his big mouth"
Very true, however only criminality should be the test in the Russia matter - from the point of view of the AG, DOJ, FBI, IC etc.
-
Doug : " Very true, however only criminality should be the test in the Russia matter - from the point of view of the AG, DOJ, FBI, IC etc."
The key word is *SHOULD" be
but the real operational word is *WILL BE*
Today Rush said of the 14 attorneys the IG hired 13 are Clinton or Obama connected!!!!
It would be a huge surprise if they cannot keep this stuff going till the next election which is the plan - in his view - and usually he is right.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/07/20/krauthammer-sessions-tenure-as-ag-is-limited-its-only-a-matter-of-time-before-he-leaves/
-
Comey needed to be fired, but in firing him in the manner which in did, Trump unnecessarily-- and therefor stupidly-- antagonized a man whom was going to be pissed off enough as it was.
It is the kind of mistake he makes again and again.
-
Comey needed to be fired, but in firing him in the manner which in did, Trump unnecessarily-- and therefor stupidly-- antagonized a man whom was going to be pissed off enough as it was.
It is the kind of mistake he makes again and again.
It's almost as if the president comes from a reality TV background. One where people were dramatically fired.
-
he claimed he did not hire Christie for doing : throwing his people under the bus.
And I don't want to see more pictures of him playing golf.
Getting fed up :
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-lashes-beleaguered-attorney-general-134127188.html
-
Scaramouche seems to be a very strong selection so far.
-
Replace Sessions With Rudy Giuliani
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 24, 2017
Jeff Sessions, in recusing himself from the two key matters before his office: The phony Russia investigation and the issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's conduct as Secretary of State, has effectively left his post, AWOL. He cannot act in either of these key investigations because he has recused himself -- recusals which are tantamount to resignation.
Trump should ratify what Sessions has done by replacing him entirely as Attorney General and bringing on someone who will vigorously defend him on the issues of Russia and will play offense in investigating "corrupt Hillary" and the leaks from Mueller and the intel community.
He should name Rudy Giuliani as the new Attorney General.
Rudy is only 73 (Sessions is 71). A national hero, his actions would have great credibility and he would out duel Mueller in a public contest.
The new Attorney General should:
• Investigate the leaks that are proliferating from the prosecutor's office
• Demand that Mueller fire the newly hired members of his staff who have compromised their objectivity by having donated to either political party or any of the 2016 presidential candidates.
• Insist that Mueller limit his investigation to only that conduct by Trump or his associates that is recent. He should not be allowed to act as a sort of appellate court to see if the electorate elected the right person president by rummaging through Trump's 71 years to come up with something to hang on him.
Sessions has neither the strength nor the ability -- in light of his self-emasculating recusals -- to act on this level.
Trump needs and AG who will fight for him and battle the usurpations of the special prosecutor.
And he needs one of sufficient prestige to be able to fire Mueller and assure that the public (or at least Trump's half of it) sides with the Administration.
Giuliani is his man.
-
Doug pointed out there would only be impeachment if Republicans themselves turn.
We may well be getting close to that:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article163424468.html
Trump if you are listening:
Don't expect anyone to be there for you if you are not loyal to even your friends.
Psssst: this ain't about you !
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343588-ex-bush-ethics-lawyer-trump-calling-for-clinton-to-be
Though the question comes up:
Who the heck would want to be the AG for Trump now?
On one hand we want someone strong willed like a Guliani but then again if that person ever disagrees with the king then risk another public spectacle like we are seeing with Sessions.
So perhaps a weaker "follower " is the only type of person that would work in Trumps world?? not sure
-
Coulter solves who should be AG : Jared! :cry:
Watching the right go down in flames:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/25/buchanan-coulter-other-voices-of-the-right-cry-out-in-dismay-as-trump-steps-up-attacks-on-sessions/
-
Trump is losing his support. He keeps stepping in it. He is done unless he shuts the blank up, and of course he won't.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-ratchets-attacks-sessions-says-201842703.html
-
"Doug pointed out there would only be impeachment if Republicans themselves turn."
Removal requires 67 Senators (2/3rds) and some Trump state Democrats would be the last to turn. The majority of the President's own party would have to turn to get there. But Trump doesn't really have a party so impeachment happens when Trump voters turn on Trump. That will not happen on media/opposition fabricated stories alone. He would have to actually commit high crimes and misdemeanors to be removed. All the noise in the room is just noise in the room until a real crime happens. Tweeting about Sessions, commenting on the French first lady's figure, dissing Morning Joe, general oaf and gaffe behavior, or things that sound horrible or cloddish to people who already hate him won't get him impeached.
-
Trump is losing his support. He keeps stepping in it. He is done unless he shuts the blank up, and of course he won't.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-ratchets-attacks-sessions-says-201842703.html
Very strange that he needs a public fight with Sessions. The recusal mistake turned out to be a disaster but it seems something more immediate is driving this. I would have to guess Trump is furious that the current AG leadership refuses to fire Mueller.
Sessions backed Trump because of the wall. Sessions gave up a secure, senior Senate spot for this. I suppose he liked being an instant crowd hero too. Now he can have a book deal.
-
No surprises here for a former head of Exxon I suppose.
https://clarionproject.org/secretary-state-disappoints-muslim-brotherhood-qatar/
Secretary of State Shills for Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar
Home > Political Islam > In the US > Government > Secretary of State Shills for Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar
By Ryan Mauro Tuesday, July 25, 2017
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
The Trump Administration still hasn’t designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization as it was expected to do. Designation falls under the purview of Secretary of State Tillerson, who has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood and its backers in Qatar and Turkey over their Arab rivals.
Tillerson recently signaled his opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood in mid-June. He only has negative things to say about the idea.
His main point is that the Brotherhood’s political parties have representatives in governments like those in Bahrain and Turkey. That is irrelevant. If it was such a problem, Bahrain itself wouldn’t have banned the Brotherhood and the U.S. wouldn’t be dealing with the Lebanese government that has Hezbollah in it, which is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Tillerson also repeated the “non-violent” and “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. He claimed that the Brotherhood’s political parties in governments “have become so by renouncing violence and terrorism.” That was false when the Obama Administration said it, and it is false now.
The disappointment in Tillerson’s position is made exponentially greater by the fact that now is an optimum time to designate the group.
The Arab world is putting unprecedented pressure on Qatar over its support of the Brotherhood and other jihadists in the Islamist swarm. Muslim foes of the Brotherhood are left wondering where the U.S.stands because Trump and Tillerson aren’t on the same page.
Counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole goes so far as to assert that Tillerson is “sabotaging” Trump’s foreign policy and urges his departure from the administration.
While President Trump expressed his support for the Arab measures against Qatar and unequivocally described Qatar as a major terrorism-financier, Tillerson did the opposite. He described Qatar as “very reasonable” in its reaction to the Arabs’ pressure.
His spokesperson read a scripted statement accusing the Arab states of having ulterior motives, saying the U.S. is “mystified” by their complaints. The State Department even cast doubt on the credibility of the Arabs’ accusations, claiming that they haven’t provided supporting details. Qatar’s lavish sponsorship of terrorism and extremism is uncontestable.
As Poole documents, far from offering support for those Arab states opposing Qatar, Tillerson publicly made moves towards Qatar’s Turkish allies and increased criticism of Qatar’s Saudi adversaries. The Trump Administration also agreed to sell up to 36 fighter jets to Qatar right after the Arabs began their campaign.
Tillerson even signed a counter-terrorism agreement with Qatar, spitting in the faces of the Arab countries fed up with Qatar’s repeated breaking of its promises to change its behavior. Immediately after signing the deal, Qatar reiterated its firm commitment to Hamas (and therefore, the broader Muslim Brotherhood organization of which it is an official branch).
Tillerson’s Ties to Qatar
People are inevitably influenced by those they surround themselves with, especially if that interaction is lucrative. Perhaps Tillerson’s favoring of Qatar has something to do with the close relationship he had with the Qatari government as a businessman with ExxonMobil, which has a decades-long association with the rulers.
ExxonMobil was a founding member of the U.S.-Qatar Business Council in 1996, an entity created by the Qatari regime. Tillerson was a senior official at the time. Another listed founding member is Al-Jazeera, the jihadist-friendly propaganda network run by Qatar and the Brotherhood. One of the Arab states’ top demands is the closure of the network headquartered in Doha.
After becoming chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, Tillerson became a member of the U.S.-Qatar Business Council’s advisory board. He apparently held this position up until when he became Secretary of State, as his name is still listed with that title on the website.
The Vice President of ExxonMobil Production’s name is currently listed as a member of the Council’s board of directors. Al-Jazeera officials also appear on the advisory board and board of directors.
The organization’s website says that the U.S.-Qatar Business Council “played a major role in the formation of Qatar Foundation International (U.S.-based).” The Qatar Foundation headquartered in Doha is a major promoter of Islamist extremism, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, including Islamists in America.
When the Arab campaign against Qatar began, the Qataris immediately began utilizing their contacts to try to win the State Department over. It deployed its lobbyists in America and they had leverage: The West’s three biggest energy companies, including ExxonMobil, were trying to strike a deal with the Qatari government for expanding liquified natural gas production.
But Qatar isn’t the only country working aggressively to influence U.S. foreign policy in a direction favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey’s government is also leading the Islamist charge.
Tillerson’s Ties to Turkey
ExxonMobil is a member of the U.S.-Turkish Business Council. The chairman is Ekin Alptekin, the very same Turkish businessman at the center of the controversy with President Trump’s former National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn.
Alptekin’s company had a $600,000 contract with Flynn to promote the Erdogan government’s interests. Flynn’s firm registered as a lobbyist but did not register as a foreign agent. The Justice Department’s National Security Division began an investigation last November. Flynn registered as a foreign agent of Turkey after he was fired and replaced by General H.R. McMaster.
We do not currently know of direct dealings between Tillerson and Alptekin, but ExxonMobil’s involvement in the U.S.-Turkish Business Council highlights how his prior relationship with the Turkish government may influence his behavior.
At a time when Erdogan has few defenders, the Islamist dictator finds a supporter in Tillerson.
On July 9, Tillerson traveled to Istanbul to receive an award from the World Petroleum Congress. There, he heaped praise upon those who defended Erdogan against a coup attempt last year, going so far as to describe the Islamist government as a democracy. He said:
“Nearly a year ago, the Turkish people – brave men and women – stood up against coup plotters and defended their democracy. I take this moment to recognize their courage and honor the victims of the events of July 15, 2016. It was on that day that the Turkish people exercised their rights under the Turkish constitution, defended their place in a prosperous Turkey, and we remember those who were injured or died in that event.”
Tillerson doesn’t defend Erdogan in all circumstances, as he did condemn the Turkish security personnel who attacked protesters in Washington D.C. in May. But that’s not exactly a bold stand; it’s something that any public official would condemn.
When it comes to the tough issues, Tillerson has sided with Qatar and Turkey, even when it contradicts the commander-in-chief who picked him for secretary of state.
On designating the Muslim Brotherhood, Tillerson sides with Qatar and Turkey
When the Arab states piled unprecedented pressure on Qatar for its sponsorship of terrorism and extremism including the Brotherhood and Hamas, Tillerson sided with Qatar and Turkey.
When it comes to last year’s coup in Turkey, Tillerson sided unequivocally with Erdogan’s Islamist dictatorship. He didn’t even necessarily have to talk about it during his visit to Istanbul. He chose to.
When it comes to the Kurds, our best allies in fighting ISIS, Tillerson’s State Department sided with Turkey in criticizing the Iraqi Kurds’ referendum on independent statehood. It also implied opposition to Kurdish independence, reacting to the referendum with a statement in support of a “united” and “federal” Iraq.
Political analysts always say that Trump was elected because people wanted change from an outsider. Tillerson is not bringing change. When it comes to Islamism, it’s the same-old same-old. Possibly worse.
-
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/a-cast-of-thousands-of-possible-acting-ags?utm_term=.jmVkpLZgL8#.kp46G1r51N
-
From 7/24 post:
" Scaramouche seems to be a very strong selection so far. "
Sadly that lasted for about 2 days! That's right , he calls a lib reporter who undoubtedly tapes him and makes the kind of comments that are headlines within 24 hrs:
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/mark-levin-blasts-wh-infighting-stupid-moronic-pathetic
Coulter makes good point about Jared here though Trump must ultimately take responsibility which he won't:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/27/coulter-trump-in-mess-because-jared-kushner-thought-dems-would-cheer-firing/
-
This is crazy . Trump or his WH officials cannot even speak in the WH without having to fear it will headlines the next day .
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/leaks-journalists-Alan-Dershowitz-White-House/2017/07/27/id/804226/
do we need a separate thread on "leaks"
-
Just a few weeks ago ! 9 months pregnant ! Oh my Lord ! Give me a break. More soap opera ! Just what we don't need !
https://pagesix.com/2017/07/29/scaramuccis-fed-up-wife-filed-for-divorce-while-nine-months-pregnant/
-
But Trump may not be listening to her much :-D
WHITE HOUSE
Ivanka and Jared find their limits in Trump's White House
The president's daughter and son-in-law continue to hold sway over personnel decisions, but last week's decision on transgender military service was a reminder that they have so far had little effect on his policies.
By ANNIE KARNI and ELIANA JOHNSON 07/30/2017 06:38 PM EDT
Ivanka Trump is pictured.
“She’s in there doing what she can,” said R. Couri Hay, a publicist and a longtime friend of the Trump family. “It’s unrealistic, unfair and cruel to expect her to change climate policy and pre-K and women’s issues in six months.” | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo
POLITICO MAGAZINE
By one measurement, last week was a good one for Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
President Donald Trump’s daughter and son-in-law had been double-teaming for weeks to persuade him to oust chief of staff Reince Priebus, pushing for a new chief who could “professionalize the West Wing,” according to multiple White House officials. On Friday, Trump finally announced he’d replace Priebus with John Kelly, his secretary of Homeland Security, starting Monday.
That victory followed Trump’s appointment a week earlier of financier Anthony Scaramucci, a campaign surrogate and donor, as communications director, a move the couple also strongly supported.
But if Ivanka Trump and Kushner, socially liberal former Democratic donors, remain influential voices with Trump on personnel decisions, they have so far had little effect on his policies.
Last week they were blindsided by the president’s tweet saying he planned to ban transgender people from serving in the military, according to several White House aides, a major coup for conservatives who had been quietly lobbying the administration on the issue for months.
White House officials said the first daughter was surprised by her father’s posts; in the past, Trump has been a supporter of gay rights. Ivanka Trump, according to these officials, learned of the decision when she saw her father’s tweet on her phone.
The most reliable politics newsletter.
Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.
Email
Your email…
Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The decree came less than a month after the first daughter tweeted, in honor of Pride Month: “I am proud to support my LGBTQ friends and the LGBTQ Americans who have made immense contributions to our society and economy.” And it spurred another wave of liberal rage directed at Ivanka Trump.
For all the talk of a White House war between New York City liberals and traditionalist conservatives, it was the latest example of the limited influence the moderates have been able to wield on policy.
Six months ago, few would have thought the president would have been circumventing his daughter to deliver victories to fiscal and social conservatives—but that’s precisely what happened with the transgender military ban, which the Pentagon has put on hold pending review.
Now, as Ivanka Trump runs up against some of limits of her power in the White House, she appears to be narrowing her objectives—and disappointing those progressives who had pinned their hopes on the president’s family members exerting more of a moderating influence on his presidency.
“Actions speak louder than words,” said Sarah McBride, national press secretary for the nonprofit Human Rights Coalition. “Either Ivanka is ineffective in her advocacy within the building, or her voice doesn’t matter to the president as much as she hopes it does.”
Ivanka Trump has had some victories. While she lost out on persuading her father not to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, she had much more success in limiting a religious liberties executive order to abortion and procreation issues, cutting out many other possibilities that would have angered the LGBT community.
“She’s in there doing what she can,” said R. Couri Hay, a publicist and a longtime friend of the Trump family. “It’s unrealistic, unfair and cruel to expect her to change climate policy and pre-K and women’s issues in six months.”
But Ivanka Trump — who once met with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards to discuss a needle-threading way to potentially fund the organization — is staking out her reputation on getting a child care tax credit passed in a Republican Congress as part of tax reform, and fighting for paid family leave to be included in the budget.
She has told allies that she wants to be held accountable solely on those issues she is actively working on — uphill battles that will count as major victories if she is successful — and the success of a World Bank fund she helped start, geared at helping female entrepreneurs gain access to capital. She has also said she wants to make ending human trafficking a White House priority.
Kushner, for his part, remains focused on projects that are peripheral to the White House’s main domestic agenda, like introducing technological innovations to the federal government. In the first six months of the administration, he has steered clear of the legislative battles that have been the meat of the work of Trump’s policy shop, focusing instead on relations with Mexico, China, Canada and the Middle East.
Ivanka Trump has explained to critics that she doesn’t want to ruin her credibility with Republicans, whose support she will need, by being perceived as what she sometimes refers to as a “super-lib” and expressing her personal disagreement with the administration’s most conservative policies.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty
1600 PENN
Without Priebus, Trump Is a Man Without a Party
By TIM ALBERTA
Meanwhile, she desperately wants to lower expectations of what she can achieve in an administration where she views herself as one person on a large team — even though other White House officials said she still has access to the president whenever she desires it. Allies have bucked up her spirits by telling her that her legacy will look better in hindsight if she is successful in moving the needle on her stated issues. And as she navigates the unique role of working-daughter-in-the-White House, she is reading Eleanor Roosevelt’s biography for guidance and inspiration.
Both Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner declined to comment for this story.
People close to her say Ivanka Trump is aware of the criticism hurled at her — and sometimes frustrated by the misunderstanding of the limits of her power.
From her newly renovated, all-white office in the West Wing, Ivanka Trump often fields messages from progressive friends pushing her to speak out on their pet issues. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio messaged her ahead of the climate decision, begging her to do more to intervene.
She’s no newcomer to the difficult balancing act. In the early aughts, as she sought to make a name for herself in New York society, she had to simultaneously embrace the family brand while trying to distance herself from the gaudy reputation of the Trump name, already unwelcome in the upper echelons of Manhattan society.
One well-known socialite who was friendly with Ivanka Trump put it bluntly: “Everyone knew that Jared’s father was a felon and her father was a buffoon, but you looked past that because they stood on their own two feet and were sophisticated and presentable. They were accepted despite their parents. Now, there’s no separating the two.”
But friends and acquaintances who knew Ivanka Trump before her move into politics said they are not surprised that she has remained publicly in lockstep with her father. “I know her well enough to know her relationship with her father, which is that she will never, ever, go against the grain,” said one former fashion-world friend who has socialized with Ivanka for years but has not spoken to her since she moved to Washington.
Another close friend of the family, who has known Ivanka Trump her entire life, said: “She wanted to be the apple of her father’s eye. There’s no question, she worked hard to be the perfect image her father wanted.”
In the wake of one of the most tumultuous weeks in Trump’s presidency, his daughter had a private lunch with the United Nations secretary-general Friday to discuss economic empowerment for women. She’s made similar diplomatic excursions, traveling to Berlin in April to join German Chancellor Angela Merkel for a women-themed summit and meeting with female entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia.
It’s a world apart from her father’s domestic policies — and one more in line with the first lady-like role that she bristles at. The prime movers behind Trump’s decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military were two of the House’s most conservative members: North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows and the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Jim Jordan.
Lindsey Graham is pictured. | Getty Images
CONGRESS
As Trump steams, Senate Republicans consider new repeal effort
By BURGESS EVERETT, JOSH DAWSEY and RACHAEL BADE
After the failure of an amendment that would have stripped Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, the duo approached Defense Secretary James Mattis. They discussed a number of options, including a two-year delay on the implementation of Obama administration policy guidelines that permitted Pentagon funding for the surgeries. When that path lead nowhere, they took their case directly to the White House, where they spoke with several officials including Marc Short, the director of legislative affairs.
Inside the White House, the issue was so closely held — and resolved so quickly — that just a handful of West Wing aides were aware of what was transpiring. In addition to Kushner and Ivanka Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, a Catholic evangelical with a history of pushing religious liberty policies, had no inkling of what was underway.
Meadows and Jordan had also corralled a group of conservatives capable of sinking the appropriations bill, making it clear to the White House they were willing to do so if the funding issue wasn’t resolved. “They were frustrated with Mattis and DOD, and the White House was sympathetic to them on the policy,” said a senior White House aide. Neither Meadows nor Jordan responded to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, Christian conservatives such as Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer were also lobbying the Trump White House, a factor that boosted the congressmen’s cause, according to a second senior White House official.
Their requests ran the gamut: While the congressmen asked the White House to resolve the funding issue, which had riled both fiscal and social conservatives, some Christian leaders came asking for the blanket ban the president delivered on Wednesday. But even they were surprised when Trump came down on their side. “I wish the Republican Congress was as bold as the president is on a wide range of issues,” said Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. “But unfortunately, like on health care, they don’t seem to be.”
Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in an interview with Fox News radio, cheered the president for “showing that the bottom line is the bottom line is the bottom line.”
The other bottom line: Ivanka Trump is aware she needs a real win — not just starting a conversation about paid family leave that may or may not materialize in a final budget — to win back credibility.
Her old circles are skeptical. When asked what her view was on Ivanka Trump, the fashion designer Charlotte Ronson wrote in an email: “Fortunately, I don’t know her well enough to give any good accounts.”
-
Rumor has it that Ivanka and Jared will have to go through Kelly to get to Dad.
GOOD!
-
CD wrote :
" Rumor has it that Ivanka and Jared will have to go through Kelly to get to Dad. "
But then there is this: :x :|
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/01/ivanka-trump-says-looking-forward-working-alongside-gen-kelly/
-
Sounds like some discreet elbowing is going to be in play , , ,
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/evaluating-john-kellys-record-at-homeland-security?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20%28194%29&CNDID=50142053&spMailingID=11612091&spUserID=MjAxODUyNTc2OTUwS0&spJobID=1220182297&spReportId=MTIyMDE4MjI5NwS2
-
The Israel angle on McMaster's purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council is that all of these people are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that Trump holds.
McMaster in contrast is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump. According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.
Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump's visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall.
What hasn't been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn't. It was McMaster.
And even that, it works out wasn't sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial -- ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.
Victoria Coates, Senator Cruz's former foreign policy advisor served until two weeks ago at the strategic communications department of the National Security Policy. She just made a lateral move to work under Jason Greenblatt. Had she not made the move away from McMaster, she too would have been fired, I am told. Coates is a friend of mine. She is deeply committed to a strong US-Israel alliance.
In May, Adam Lovinger, a pro-Trump national security strategist on loan from the Pentagon's office of net assessment was summarily informed that his security clearance was revoked. He was fired and escorted from the White House like a spy and put on file duty at the Pentagon.
Lovinger is a seasoned strategic analyst who McMaster hated because he supported India over Pakistan, among other things.
Lovinger has not been told the grounds for his sudden loss of clearance but Mike Cernovich reported that the grounds were that he traveled to Israel for a family bar mitzvah. In other words, there were no grounds for dismissal. His boss at the Pentagon -- unbelievably named James Baker, is an Obama hire who hates Trump and supports Obama's agenda.
As for Iran, well, suffice it to say that McMaster supports the deal and refuses to publish the side deals Obama signed with the Iranians and then hid from the public.
The thing I can't get my arms around in all of this is why in the world this guy hasn't been fired. Mike Flynn was fired essentially for nothing. He was fired because he didn't tell the Vice President everything that transpired in a phone conversation he had with the Russian ambassador. Whoopdy doo! Flynn had the conversation when he was on a 72 hour vacation with his wife after the election in the Caribbean and could barely hear because the reception was so bad. He found himself flooded with calls and had no one with him except his wife.
And for this he was fired.
McMaster disagrees and actively undermines Trump's agenda on just about every salient issue on his agenda. He fires all of Trump's loyalists and replaces them with Trump's opponents, like Kris Bauman, an Israel hater and Hamas supporter who McMaster hired to work on the Israel-Palestinian desk. He allows anti-Israel, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Iran Obama people like Robert Malley to walk around the NSC and tell people what to do and think. He has left Ben (reporters know nothing about foreign policy and I lied to sell them the Iran deal) Rhodes' and Valerie Jarrett's people in place.
And he not only is remaining at his desk. He is given the freedom to fire Trump's most loyal foreign policy advisers from the National Security Council.
One source claims that Trump's political advisers are afraid of how it will look if he fires another national security adviser. But that makes no sense. Trump is being attacked for everything and nothing. Who cares if he gets attacked for doing something that will actually help him to succeed in office? Why should fear of media criticism play a role here or anywhere for this president and this administration?
Finally, there is the issue of how McMaster got there in the first place. Trump interviewed McMaster at Mara Lago for a half an hour. He was under terrible pressure after firing Flynn to find someone.
And who recommended McMaster? You won't believe this.
Senator John McCain. That's right. The NSA got his job on the basis of a recommendation from the man who just saved Obamacare.
Obviously, at this point, Trump has nothing to lose by angering McCain. I mean what will he do? Vote for Obamacare?
If McMaster isn't fired after all that he has done and all that he will do, we're all going to have to reconsider Trump's foreign policy. Because if after everything he has done, and everything that he will certainly do to undermine Trump's stated foreign policy agenda, it will no longer be possible to believe that exiting the nuclear deal or supporting the US alliance with Israel and standing with US allies against US foes -- not to mention draining Washington's cesspool - are Trump's policies. How can they be when Trump stands with a man who opposes all of them and proves his opposition by among other things, firing Trump's advisers who share Trump's agenda?
-
The above is in line with the Drudgereport headline from a Weekly Standard piece about McMaster trying to oust Bannon and all his allies:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/inside-the-mcmaster-bannon-war/article/2009109
-
The more I read about Mc Master the more I want him to be purged. If McCain recommended him than that says it all frankly. He has to go from what I can see from my armchair.
His world view and policy stance is not what i voted for:
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/trump-loyalist-ezra-cohen-watnick-fired-from-nsc-sources-say
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450120/jeff-sessions-is-not-going-anywhere?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=170803_Jolt&utm_term=Jolt
-
http://pamelageller.com/2017/08/mcmaster-fires-top-counter-jihad.html/
-
relevant to Susan Rice's security clearance from McMaster
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/former-intel-officials-call-for-revocation-of-clintons-security-privileges/
-
A story last week said only 14% of Republicans support the job the (Republican) Congress is doing, right after health care reform imploded. The correct number should be zero. Who on the right can approve of failure? That may hurt fundraising, turnout and brand polling but doesn't make anyone who hates big government switch to favor failed government programs amd the party that brought us that.
Trump approval apparently has hit new lows while nothing seems to get done, yet I would bet he has increased in stature since becoming President and would defeat Hillary more handily now than he did last year.
With his tweeting, his mis-steps, his big mouth, his ego-centric personality, his loose connection with accuracy or truth etc, I could never say I approve of him as President or tell a son or daughter to grow up to be like him. But I would vote for him over every possible Democrat imaginable.
We had a 180 degree turn on almost everything important. The Supreme Court, environmental regulation over-reach, attempts to roll back Obamacare, tax reform effort coming, and on and on. The question is not whether you approve of him. The question is whether you want him to keep going. I do.
-
http://pamelageller.com/2017/08/mcmaster-cair-terror-blocked-hirsi-ali.html/
http://pamelageller.com/2017/08/mcmaster-israel-illegitimate.html/
-
John Batchelor show podcast discussing McMaster who believes and preaches Obama ideology : *There is no connection between Islam and radical terror*
McMaster's beliefs are clearly different to Trumps and he is a "danger" to Trump:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePodcastFeed/comments/6rvlht/the_john_batchelor_show_mcmaster_is_a/
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/official-mcmaster-calls-israel-illegitimate-occupying-power
-
Caveat lector, it is Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/08/06/mcmaster-worked-think-tank-backed-soros-funded-group-helped-obama-sell-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20170807
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/06/liberal-anti-trump-media-group-goes-embattled-gen-mcmaster/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20170807
-
on Trump vs sanctuary cities:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sanctuary-cities-funding-justice-department/2017/08/07/id/806360/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2017/08/05/mcmaster-mattis-rare-assets-not-deep-state-liabilities/
-
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-officials-say-under-fire-mcmaster-a-great-friend-of-israel/
-
I dunno. There are Israelis who will to this day proclaim Barack is /was a great friend of Israel
OTOH VDH defends McMaster and I trust his opinions:
https://amgreatness.com/2017/08/05/mcmaster-mattis-rare-assets-not-deep-state-liabilities/
-
see my post three above :-D
-
"see my post three above"
you beat me to the punch :))
-
Anyway, with thermonuclear war on the horizon, now may not be the time to change the National Security Advisor , , , :-o
-
This week, the Forward, a purportedly Jewish newspaper placed ZOA Chairman Mort Klein behind Nazis and ahead of Ayatollah Khamenei and Hassan Nasrallah on a list of bigger threats to the Jews than anti-Semite Democratic kingmaker Linda Sarsour.
In recent days and weeks, the Jewish left has claimed ever more stridently that anyone who attacks George Soros, a living breathing Jew hater who has poured millions of dollars into groups that wage political warfare against both Israel and its American Jewish supporters. Soros' critics -- like Sarsour's critics -- are anti-Semites. Why? Because Soros was born Jewish.
So critics of a Jewish anti-Semite, who criticize him because he is anti-Semitic, are anti-Semites because they criticized an anti-Semite who happens to have been born Jewish.
Which brings us to McMaster.
In the article linked below we see slate.com calling Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein an anti-Semite for reporting earlier today that McMaster worked for a think tank funded by Soros.
In the second article posted below from Frontpage Magazine's Daniel Greenfield we learn that the ADL has again sprung into action. No, it isn't attacking the Forward for calling Mort Klein. It is attacking McMaster critic Mike Cernovich alleging he is an anti-Semite. As Greenfield notes in the link below, this from a group that gave a hechsher to Jew hating Keith Ellison when he ran to lead the Democratic National Committee, was silent on the California imam who called for the genocide of world Jewry and can't decide if it has an opinion one way or another about Jew hating Linda Sarsour.
As Daniel and others point out, it is quite notable that people who despise Trump and attack him at every opportunity are lining up to defend McMaster.
-
" As Daniel and others point out, it is quite notable that people who despise Trump and attack him at every opportunity are lining up to defend McMaster "
very insightful observant statement. (VDH excepted here - does VDH know something we don't or do we know something he does not believe?)
-
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/08/09/mcmasters-former-group-quietly-took-massive-funding-from-sharia-ruled-bahrain/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20170809
-
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/hugh-s-one-on-one-with-gen-h-r-mcmaster-1018099779985
-
Interesting article on Steve Bannon, one of the voices competing for the President's sense of direction, if you can wade through the bias of the writier.
Bannon is partly right in his assessment of trade and China. (More so than the BS over NAFTA IMHO) WHy do we allow them to steal our intellectual properties? The President's willingness to take a stronger stance with China and his threat to go further is empowering the US in negotiations over N.K. for one thing.
http://prospect.org/article/steve-bannon-unrepentant
-
Reading two sides of this story and with VDH on his side, I will just keep an open mind about the value of this guy. Here is the Jerusalem Post with military opinion that McMaster is a friend to Israel: http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Former-top-Israeli-security-officers-McMaster-is-a-friend-to-Israel-502294
And I notice a Powerline post taking a second look at what was written previously:
"I continue to have reservations about him. However, I now believe that one of my posts on the subject was unfair and needs to be revisited. " http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/mcmasters-obama-holdovers-a-second-look.php
If nothing else I think we can assume he is hundreds of times more competent and more right thinking than whoever would be in that position if the other side had won.
-
Reading two sides of this story and with VDH on his side, I will just keep an open mind about the value of this guy. Here is the Jerusalem Post with military opinion that McMaster is a friend to Israel: http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Former-top-Israeli-security-officers-McMaster-is-a-friend-to-Israel-502294
And I notice a Powerline post taking a second look at what was written previously:
"I continue to have reservations about him. However, I now believe that one of my posts on the subject was unfair and needs to be revisited. " http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/mcmasters-obama-holdovers-a-second-look.php
If nothing else I think we can assume he is hundreds of times more competent and more right thinking than whoever would be in that position if the other side had won.
Very good point.
-
Bannon goes on major NYC liberal's show and gives to him the next big smash into his boss's face. Here is Kuttner . The rest is all over the news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kuttner
and completely contradicts Trump on NK
obviously to cover his own back side:
to tell the world he is not a white supremacist..........
and he does not want to kill Koreans ..........
---------------------------
A world with a Korea and an Iran capable of ICBMs????
No biggie.
It is looking more and more Trump will have to step aside
He can't do this alone.
It is becoming every man for himself it seems.
-
Another underling who basically undercuts and disqulifies the President's statements.
Like Bannon undercutting N Korea who he stated won their their nucs and it is over .
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450831/donald-trump-afghanistan-plan
maybe we should have a threat "the cognitive dissonance of the Trump administration"
-
https://conservativedailypost.com/security-advisor-mcmaster-soldiers-kiss-koran-honor-muslims-deployed/?utm_source=Push&utm_medium=OneSignal&utm_campaign=21_August-1
-
I don't know what to make of Tillerson frankly.
when i hear him on TV like the weekend interview with Chris Wallace he sounds very reasonable but then i read very negative things about how he has not really taken over the State Department and just defers to Obama philes
that many positions are simply still not being filled
perhaps he has too much on his plate
I just am not sure .
Tillerson's job is talk and Mattis' job is action.
Trump "speaks for himself" is only controversial if people want it to be:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/opinions/tillerson-trump-values-miller-sokolsky-opinion/index.html
The incident did not affect him, why be drawn into it?
-
Caroline Glick endorses this article
https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/08/27/name-calling-critics-fail-to-refute-zoas-concerns-about-mcmaster/
-
basically contradicting him. We need ANOTHER panel of EXPERTS to discuss this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/transgender-members-u-military-may-serve-until-study-001743003.html
-
Maybe-- and maybe just politically and legally astute.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kushners-white-house-role-crushed-efforts-to-woo-investors-for-nyc-tower/2017/09/13/723a9732-82c8-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.2d0fc3179412&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
"family’s network of federally subsidized apartments"
whaaaa ??????
Sounds like a Charles Kushner scam
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/25/jared-kushner-private-email-investigation-243117
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/25/jared-kushner-private-email-investigation-243117
Now it matters! Not like before, for some reason.
-
"They're privately hoping Kushner's attorney was correct that there were fewer than 100 emails sent and received on his personal account. That would suggest, the source argued, that Kushner's email wasn't created to dodge federal record keeping laws — particularly if he was simultaneously using a work account and forwarding those emails to his work email address."
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/09/secretary-tom-price-resigns/
I would think that Price's inability to help get any healthcare legislation through didn't help in his situation any.
-
Jeanine made an error. She neglected to ask Jason the obvious question WHY? Why is Sessions Trump not pursuing these issues?
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/10/jason-chaffetz-sessions-told-hillary-democrats-will-not-prosecuted/
-
Normally I don't watch JJ because a) her voice is really fg grating on my ears, and b) she is a mental mediocrity.
However I did catch exactly this segment because it happened to be on when I turned the TV on and I heard what Chaffetz was saying. Overall, I like him and given his Congressional background I think he brings quite a bit to FOX.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-calendar-industries-coal-oil-environmentalists.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
-
POTH = Pravda on the Hudson
The scandal of it all! Wined and dined at a steakhouse inside the Trump hotel conniving to destroy the environment. :roll:
He must have blown off the the *Green's lobbies* dinner offers to go to the local vegetarian salad bar for dinner. :-D
Just think of all the trees that were murdered by that stinking genocidal POTH over the years. :cry:
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/353963-stephen-miller-solidifies-influence-in-white-house
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/09/trump-aides-guard-rails-243608
-
The message vs. messenger.
Victor Davis Hanson, always worth a read.
https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/09/message-v-messenger-the-trump-enigma/
VDH: "...did any recent past Republican nominee—forget Trump’s motivations or questions about his relative sincerity—even run on the premise that working Americans were ignored and losers in the redirects of globalization, open borders, and outsourcing and offshoring? Or that consequently they deserved empathy and a second-chance at the American dream? Was there a chance that Trump saw not just a political opening but an injustice perpetrated against political outcasts deserving of concern in a way that other more politically qualified and supposedly empathetic candidates of 2016 did not?"
----------
[Doug] I supported Rubio and others supported Cruz. There is a very good chance neither would have broken the 'blue wall' as Trump did, or run the table on the swing states to win. The obstacles to restoring this country right now are a few easily identifiable individuals in the Senate. Trump, with all his warts, is not the problem (at this point).
-
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-neilsen-dhs-secretary-20171011-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
-
New Trump strategy to send everything over to Congress with a order to fix or come up with a plan?
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iran-decertification-trump-friday/2017/10/12/id/819390/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/21/how-the-state-department-is-undermining-trumps-agenda/
How the State Department is Undermining Trump’s Agenda
By The Editors| October 21, 2017
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has isolated himself from his own department and allowed subordinates to fill a handful of top positions with people who actively opposed Donald Trump’s election, according to current and former State Department officials and national security experts with specific knowledge of the situation.
News reports often depict a White House “in chaos.” But the real chaos, according to three State Department employees who spoke with American Greatness on the condition of anonymity, is at Foggy Bottom.
Rumors have circulated for months that Tillerson either plans to resign or is waiting for the president to fire him. The staffers describe an amateur secretary of state who has “checked out” and effectively removed himself from major decision making.
Hundreds of Empty Desks
About 200 State Department jobs require Senate confirmation. But the Senate cannot confirm nominees it does not have. More than nine months into the new administration, most of the senior State Department positions—assistant and deputy assistant secretary posts—remain unfilled.
What’s more, the United States currently has no ambassador to the European Union, or to key allies such as France, Germany, Australia, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Meantime, Obama Administration holdovers remain ensconced in the department and stationed at embassies in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East.
The leadership vacuum has been filled by a small group opposed to the president’s “America First” agenda.
At the heart of the problem, these officials say, are the two people closest to Tillerson: chief of staff Margaret Peterlin and senior policy advisor Brian Hook, who runs the State Department’s in-house think tank.
Peterlin and Hook are longtime personal friends who current staffers say are running the department like a private fiefdom for their benefit and in opposition to the president and his stated policies.
‘Boxing Out’ Trump Supporters
The lack of staffing gives the duo unprecedented power over State Department policy. Since joining Tillerson’s team, Peterlin and Hook have created a tight bottleneck, separating the 75,000 State Department staffers—true experts in international relations—from the secretary. As the New York Times reported in August, “all decisions, no matter how trivial, must be sent to Mr. Tillerson or his top aides: Margaret Peterlin, his chief of staff, and Brian Hook, the director of policy planning.” In practice, however, that has meant Peterlin and Hook make the decisions.
More important, sources who spoke with American Greatness say, Peterlin and Hook have stymied every effort by pro-Trump policy officials to get jobs at the State Department.
Margaret Peterlin
Margaret Peterlin
“Peterlin is literally sitting on stacks of résumés,” one national security expert told American Greatness. Together, Peterlin and Hook are “boxing out anyone who supports Trump’s foreign policy agenda,” he added.
Peterlin, an attorney and former Commerce Department official in the George W. Bush Administration, was hired to help guide political appointments through the vetting and confirmation process. She reportedly bonded with Tillerson during his confirmation hearings, and he hired her as his chief of staff.
Brian Hook
Brian Hook
Peterlin then brought in Hook, who co-founded the John Hay Initiative, a group of former Mitt Romney foreign-policy advisors who publicly refused to support Trump because he would “act in ways that make America less safe.” In a May 2016 profile of NeverTrump Republicans, Hook told Politico, “Even if you say you support him as the nominee, you go down the list of his positions and you see you disagree on every one.”
Hook now directs the department’s Office of Policy Planning, responsible for churning out policy briefs and helping to shape the nation’s long-term strategic agenda.
NeverTrumpers on Parade
In September, Peterlin and Hook hired David Feith, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer and the son of Douglas J. Feith, one of the architects of the Iraq War. Feith shares with Peterlin and Hook a deep dislike for President Trump. Feith, according to one State Department employee with knowledge of the hire, had been rejected by the White House precisely because of his opposition to the president and his policies. Peterlin and Hook forced him through anyway.
Incredibly, even the State Department’s spokesman, R.C. Hammond, was an outspoken NeverTrumper before the election, frequently tweeting jibes and barbs at the candidate. Hammond, a former aide to Newt Gingrich, is now the face and one of the leading voices of U.S. public diplomacy.
Many of these anti-Trump hires have occurred in the face of a hiring freeze Tillerson imposed earlier this year following an executive order to review agency and department staffing, along with the White House’s request to cut the State Department’s budget by 30 percent. But rather than put a check on untrustworthy career bureaucrats, the move had the opposite effect of empowering the president’s opponents.
State’s anti-Trump climate has shut out several top-notch foreign policy hands.
Kiron Skinner, founding director of the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University and a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, worked on Trump’s national security transition team and was hired as a senior policy advisor. She was considered for the job Hook now has in the Office of Policy Planning. But she was isolated from career staffers and quit after a few days.
At least Skinner managed to get into the building. Another former Reagan Administration staffer with decades of experience in U.S.-Russian affairs and international economics had spent months in 2016 campaigning for the president in critical battleground states, including Pennsylvania and Ohio. As soon as Trump won the election, this experienced analyst and several other pro-Trump associates were passed over for State Department jobs. It’s to the point that even internship candidates are being rejected if they volunteered for the Trump campaign.
Tillerson or No, Personnel is Policy
When he agreed to take the top diplomat’s job, Tillerson reportedly asked President Trump for autonomy‚ and got it. Unfortunately, his leadership style has changed from his days running ExxonMobil. In his definitive history of ExxonMobil, journalist Steve Coll described Tillerson’s approach as open and informal. By contrast, Tillerson’s modus operandi at state has been described as isolated, unapproachable, even “draconian.”
In government today, the maxim that “personnel is policy” is truer than ever. As a result, the State Department mirrors the management style not of its leader, but of Tillerson’s chief aides who are at odds with the president’s stated foreign policy agenda.
Tillerson this week told the Wall Street Journal he would remain on the job “as long as the president thinks I’m useful.” But whether it’s Tillerson behind the secretary’s desk, or CIA Director Mike Pompeo, or any other foreign policy hand, a State Department staffed with opponents of the president is hardly useful to Americans who voted to reject the failed foreign policies of the past two administrations.
President Trump made “draining the swamp” a cornerstone of his campaign. How can he drain the swamp if the swamp dwellers control his administration and drown out voices of his most innovative supporters?
-
This is the fork in the road, tax reform. (I have written plenty about it on the tax thread.)
The preliminary bill is now passed, setting the table for Senate passage with 50 votes, and I am optimistic.
Their is a chance that Republicans will get it; this is their defining moment. And there is a chance they won't.
This is not a great bill, but it may be a clever bill - clever enough to get passed and to set off rapid economic growth. If we can get 4% sustained growth, well that changes everything. Also the appointment of John Taylor to head a rules-based Fed. [Did I jump the gun announcing that?]
[Economic growth coming out of] tax reform will be the determinant in the 2018 elections, the future of the country and of our lives. Pass it, we win. Fail to pass it and it joins the swamp dump of failed reform efforts (Obamacare repeal?) and this country turns leftward into a downward, crashing spiral.
No pressure.
-
I say this with sadness but I agree with Trumps questions here:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/03/donald-trump-justice-department-hillary-clinton/
-
Sessions' recusal status appears to be preventing the initiation of necessary investigations/prosecutions.
-
I thought this as worth a watch; she is sharper than your average Presidential offspring. Also note it was her daughter speaking Mandarin to the Chinese leaders.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/13/ivanka-trump-optimistic-about-tax-reform-helping-american-businesses-families
Ivanka Trump: Tax Reform Is Critical to Growing the Economy & Helping the Middle Class
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/state-department-tillerson-pompeo-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20171130&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
On Tillerson and some other thoughts
obviously he is not on inside anymore and was railroaded by the LEFT with false accusations ( because he very much like Trump was a real warrior ) but I like to get his take on these things:
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/rex-tillerson-deep-state-secretary-of-state-palace-intrigue/2017/11/30/id/829149/
-
I don't know enough about Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's views to have an opinion of him in his job. The Sec State is supposed to have more of a diplomatic lean than the Sec of Defense and that contention can be healthy. But from (fake?) news reports, his relationship with the President is lousy.
The president deserves someone in that role that can bring the President's view to allies and foes, not fight the President's views in those venues. For example, look at the great job Nikki Haley is doing at the UN.
Reports (fake?) are saying Tillerson will be out in January and Mike Pompeo will be in. According to NYT that trades a moderate out for a hawk in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/mike-pompeo-state-cia.html
Sounds good to me.
But putting the CIA Director in at State and making Tom Cotton CIA Director leaves another opening in the Senate. At least it's in a now-red state (and hopefully no Roy Moore there). Appoint Arkansan Sarah Huckabee Sanders to the Senate? Or elevate Nikki Haley to the chain of succession and put Sanders over there, and Ivanka Trump to be the President's spokes(man).
-
Gee .......
Flynn leak on same day as tax bill vote..........
no coordination there, eh Mueller?
-
Will this crap ever end?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/14/omarosa_explosive_interview_on_trump_white_house_exit_profound_story_world_will_want_hear.html
-
Did not Ben Shapiro warn us about Bannon? :
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro#
-
Trifling With the Nuclear Button
Why Trump’s approval is so low despite his first-year successes.
By WSJ Editorial Board
Jan. 3, 2018 7:10 p.m. ET
There’s little benefit in lunging at Donald Trump’s regular Twitter bait, as his opponents prove nearly every day. But you don’t have to be CNN to think that the President should stop popping off about nuclear weapons, whether he’s joking or not.
“North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times,’” Mr. Trump tweeted Tuesday. “Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”
Trifling With the Nuclear Button
Photo: istock/getty images
.
Perhaps Mr. Trump figured this was a clever line about comparative manhood, but it’s an example of why even many of Mr. Trump’s voters wonder if he has any sense of self-restraint. He was trolling a dictator, and boasting about himself in the process, which makes the President look small. He also distracted from the Iran protests that are vindicating his support for the Iranian people and discrediting his predecessor’s appeasement strategy.
But more troubling is that Mr. Trump looked to be trifling with the world’s most serious security threat—a nuclear-armed rogue nation. Mr. Trump has been trying to convince the world that North’s Korea’s nuclear warhead and missile arsenal is so serious a threat that it might require pre-emptive military action. His main advisers, and hundreds of American officials, are working day and night to diminish the threat short of war. If Mr. Trump ever does have to strike the North, he needs the world to believe he is acting as a last resort, not because he thinks he has a bigger Button.
Comments like these explain the paradox of Mr. Trump’s first year. He has genuine accomplishments to boast of—including tax reform, judicial nominees who are reshaping the federal courts, and a stop to new regulation. Yet even with the economy growing faster, and a tight labor market beginning to bid up wages, Mr. Trump’s job approval remains below 40% in the Real Clear Politics average.
The paradox results from Mr. Trump’s governing behavior. His attacks on all and sundry have polarized the electorate even more than it was on Election Day in 2016. He retains the support of his most fervent base but he has lost support among many who voted against Hillary Clinton more than they did for him. Those Americans tend to think that a nuclear missile exchange isn’t a laughing matter.
And please don’t compare this tweet to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 quip about Russia that “we begin bombing in five minutes.” The Gipper said that during a sound check as a joke to radio technicians. Mr. Trump sent his tweet around the world as a personal boast.
Voters now tell pollsters they want a Democratic Congress by more than 12 percentage points. If this holds, Democrats will retake the House and Mr. Trump may be impeached. Mr. Trump needs to win over more voters if he wants to avoid that fate, and that means acting more like a President. If he won’t do it for the sake of his office, or for the Americans who took a gamble on him in 2016, he should at least consider his own self-preservation.
-
Anyone care to bet on a Dem vs Rep win in '18?
Doug?
:evil:
-
Until I pay my old ones...
Anyone care to bet on a Dem vs Rep win in '18?
Doug?
:evil:
A prediction not a bet. The "hugely unpopular" tax bill will grow the economy like we haven't seen in a long time and the political effect of that will barely come soon enough to help Rs in the 18 elections. Dems will be disappointed after leading right up until the election.
-
"The "hugely unpopular" tax bill will grow the economy like we haven't seen in a long time and the political effect of that will barely come soon enough to help Rs in the 18 elections. Dems will be disappointed after leading right up until the election."
That is exactly why what is Mueller for. The *insurance policy*. They keep paying the monthly payments to keep it going for as long as they have to. Till '20 if need be. :wink:
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/53465
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455625/nikki-haley-un-ambassador-voice-america?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Week%20in%20Review%202018-01-21&utm_term=VDHM
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370577-six-months-in-kelly-emerges-as-policy-force
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
-
Lots of interesting background mixed with POTH palace intrigue gossip:
n a Saturday afternoon last July, the day after John Kelly agreed to become President Trump’s chief of staff, an email arrived in his inbox. “Congratulations!” it began. “(I think!)”
The sender was Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide and image buffer since her time in the Senate. Reines met Kelly while working for Clinton at the State Department, when Kelly was a senior military aide to Leon Panetta, then the defense secretary. The two stayed in touch. After Kelly left military service in 2016, he joined the advisory board at Reines’s consulting firm, Beacon Global Strategies, cashing a couple of checks before he was summoned to Trump Tower.
“Can’t say I’m rooting for your boss, but I’m absolutely rooting for you,” Reines wrote to Kelly. “Especially if it takes the edges off him.” He offered some unsolicited advice: Stay off television. Tend to the mystique. Let the Kellyanne Conways and Anthony Scaramuccis talk up the president on cable. “You don’t want to be in that basket,” Reines said.
Kelly replied the next day. “Thanks for taking the time,” he wrote. “I came to these same conclusions. I may be in this job for a day, or a few years, but I will stay true to my values. We are in dangerous times, Philippe, and the POTUS — any POTUS — needs all the help he can get. What I do I do for the country. That’s been my North Star for 46+ years of service and it’s worked thus far.”
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
Nancy 18 minutes ago
The president does not need a chief of staff who thinks just like the president but is at times a little more organized. Stay or go, I...
James M Locke 19 minutes ago
Each and ever one of those within the West Wing deserve those written words when this debacle has concluded, hoping sooner then later,...
Scott Montgomery 24 minutes ago
Trump's a fungus. This man is now infected along with all the others Trump has rubbed up against and watched wither as they were tossed out...
See All Comments Write a comment
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Seven months later, over Presidents’ Day weekend, Air Force One touched down, as it often does, in Florida, for a spell of distinctly Trumpian president-ing: Trump visited a hospital that treated victims of the Parkland school massacre before decamping to Mar-a-Lago, where a Studio 54-style disco party was waiting. The next night, he shared a meal at the club with his adult sons, Don Jr. and Eric, and Geraldo Rivera. Near, but not so near, was Kelly, dining at another table. Some guests approached Kelly to pay tribute, thanking him for keeping the president on course. “That’s what the White House needs: discipline,” Wayne Allyn Root, a Trump-loving radio host who introduced himself to Kelly that night, told me. “I won’t say he’s a celebrity. That’s probably a bad word. But he’s a person that’s respected by everybody.”
Continue reading the main story
For most of his 67 years, Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general who projects the weary asceticism of a TV cop perpetually two weeks from retirement, might have been out of place among Mar-a-Lago’s bronzed faces and gilded trimmings. But by mid-February, this was one of the few rooms where he could still expect such a warm reception. Back in Washington, the scandal surrounding his handling of abuse claims against a top aide, Rob Porter, hummed through its second week — an unusual longevity in a White House where news of a Trump lawyer’s pre-election hush payment to a porn star had come and gone without great consequence. More surprising still was how quickly, and unshakably, the crisis attached itself to Kelly, whose sins — praising the aide too forcefully before his departure, purportedly sitting on the allegations for months without acting — felt airlifted from an era of more traditional Washington cover-ups. Kelly held onto his job through the weekend, which did not initially seem like a given. But Trump had already been musing privately about possible replacements.
Even among Trump critics, Kelly once inspired uncommon sympathy. While other high-level officials, like Jeff Sessions and Rex Tillerson, had invited doubts about how long they could possibly tolerate working in the administration, Kelly’s responsibilities seemed uniquely masochistic: He was the chief disciplinarian in a famously undisciplined White House. “You never run into somebody like Trump in the military,” Panetta told me. “They’d usually get kicked out.” The job itself was premised on a paradox: If Trump weren’t Trump, Kelly’s position would be bearable. And if Trump weren’t Trump, you would not need a John Kelly.
Now, Kelly’s struggle has grown lonelier — informed, even before the Porter affair, by yawning cracks in his once-broad base of support. Some of Trump’s deepest skeptics had convinced themselves, despite a career’s worth of counterevidence, that a well-traveled military man might temper the president’s instincts, particularly on immigration. Then there were Kelly’s friends, who had already worried that the job was bending Kelly to its will, and not the other way around.
Shortly after Election Day, Senator Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican, went to Trump Tower to see the president-elect. Trump was preparing to staff his cabinet, and he asked Cotton, an Iraq war veteran, to name the best general of this generation. Cotton chose Kelly. “The president didn’t know about General Kelly and asked me to tell him more,” Cotton told me. In December, Trump nominated Kelly to run the Department of Homeland Security.
Unlike many prospective additions to the administration, Kelly had stayed out of the 2016 campaign. In an interview with Foreign Policy that July, he said he would be willing to serve in either a Trump or a Clinton administration but made plain his distaste for the “cesspool of domestic politics.” “To join in the political fray, I don’t think it convinces anyone,” he said, chiding fellow military leaders who had lined up behind candidates. “It just becomes a talking point on CNN.”
His confirmation process was mostly incident-free, specked with the kind of John Wayne dialogue that had dazzled Trump from the start. Before Kelly’s Senate hearing, an aide who helped him prepare, Blain Rethmeier, noticed the general had neglected to attach a flag pin to his lapel. “Blain,” Kelly told him, declining the pin, “I am an American flag.” He was confirmed on Inauguration Day, 88 votes to 11. “A great choice,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said at the time.
Kelly grew up in Boston’s Brighton section, the Catholic-school-educated son of a postal worker; fellow Marines later joked that his accent required a Boston-to-English translator. In his own telling, he was shaped by two forces in the neighborhood: men who had worn the military uniform — his father, his uncles, everyone on the block — and the ubiquitous drug use among his peers. “He would claim that growing up in South Boston, he lost most of everybody he grew up with to drugs,” Adam Isacson, the director of defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, told me, recalling meetings with Kelly when he led the United States Southern Command. “It was part of his persona.”
By the time the Iraq war began, Kelly, by then a three-decade veteran of the corps, had become the first Marine promoted to brigadier general in an active combat zone in over half a century, according to the Marines. On Barack Obama’s first trip to Iraq as the presumed Democratic nominee in July 2008, Kelly rode with him in an armored truck across Anbar Province. His career advanced rapidly during Obama’s first term, and in 2012, he was named to head the Southern Command (“Southcom”), charged with overseeing United States military operations in Central and South America and the Caribbean.
Under Obama, Kelly — a typically conservative Marine, friends say — was nominally tasked with steering the country toward policies he often abhorred. After officials pushed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Kelly seethed. “Marines will die from this,” he told colleagues at the Pentagon. (The Trump White House disputes this.) He was also a fierce defender of the status quo at Guantánamo Bay, which fell under his command, publicly criticizing efforts to close the facility and chafing at media accounts that humanized those being held there. When some detainees began a hunger strike during Obama’s second term, Kelly feared that the issue was being framed too sympathetically. His charges were instructed to call the act “long-term nonreligious fasting” instead.
But perhaps Kelly’s most instructive experiences at Southcom involved the scourge of trafficking — drugs, weapons, people. From command headquarters, just outside Miami, he tracked narcotics production in Colombia and Guatemala. At a forum in 2015, Kelly recalled meeting an official from Customs and Border Protection who oversaw some 200 miles of the Mexico-Texas line. “I asked her how much cocaine she got last year. She said, proud as she could be, ‘642 pounds,’ ” Kelly said. “That’s pocket litter to me. I got 191 metric tons last year.” He also charted the rise of MS-13, an international criminal gang that had become a security threat across Central America.
Kelly seemed to see immigration almost entirely through the prism of security — paralleling Trump’s campaign, which nodded to the zero-sum economic view of immigration prominent on the right for years, but dwelled far more on blood-and-guts anecdotes of violent crime by immigrants. Although Southcom’s area of responsibility does not include Mexico, this did not discourage Kelly from holding forth on the country, making claims that, according to Obama-administration officials, sometimes contradicted the intelligence of Northcom, the Pentagon command covering Mexico. At the height of the Ebola scare of 2014, he suggested publicly that the disease would spark a stampede across the border, incensing White House staff members who thought he was stoking panic. “If it breaks out, it’s literally, ‘Katie, bar the door,’ ” Kelly said. “And there will be mass migration into the United States.”
As he assumed control at Homeland Security, Kelly implied that his views on immigration were more nuanced than Trump’s, infused with compassion for a region whose leaders he had come to know personally. In preconfirmation testimony, Kelly accused the United States of “ignoring what our drug demand does to the people of Central and South America,” whose countries had devolved at times into “nearly failed narco-states.” He positioned himself as a moderate voice in sessions with lawmakers, casting doubt on the wisdom of a massive border wall. Speaking to a group of Democrats last year, he suggested that undocumented immigrants without a serious criminal footprint would not be enforcement priorities. “He said, ‘I’m the best thing to happen to DACA recipients,’ ” Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, told me.
‘You’ve been fiddling around for years on immigration,’ Kelly told lawmakers. The time had come, he said, to ‘do your job.’
The benefit of the doubt lasted nine days. On Jan. 29, Trump signed an executive order barring entry to the United States by residents of seven predominantly Muslim countries, inciting large protests at airports across the country — and a backlash against Democrats who had voted to confirm Kelly, whose department was left to carry out the order. Kelly told angry lawmakers that responsibility for the chaos was “all on me.” In reality, according to an exhaustive Inspector General’s report released early this year, Kelly and his team were caught almost entirely off-guard. He told investigators that “he had assumed that White House staff had proactively engaged Congress and other stakeholders” before the order was signed, according to the report. Publicly, Kelly cheered the spirit of the measure, arguing that a federal court order blocking the ban was preventing the nation from doing “all that we can to weed out potential wrongdoers from these locations.” Privately, he faulted the execution. “That’s not going to happen again,” he told the White House.
At the same time, Kelly was making good on a signature Trump campaign promise. Immigration officers arrested more than 140,000 people in 2017, a sharp uptick. “We questioned the fact that many of these arrests were taking place when parents were dropping off their children to go to school,” Representative Nydia Velázquez, a Democrat from New York who met with Kelly at the time, told me. “He didn’t back down.”
By then, most Democrats had seen enough. “He’s disappointing to me,” Schumer decided by February of last year, suggesting in an interview that Kelly was probably “regretting going in.”
Kelly betrayed no second thoughts in public. He also began taking on duties that appeared to be outside his jurisdiction. When news broke that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, worked to establish a secret communications channel with Russian diplomats during the transition, it was Kelly who defended the effort on television as “a good thing.” In May, addressing a private breakfast with former diplomats and foreign-policy experts, Kelly said he had suggested to Tillerson, the ever-beleaguered secretary of state, that he could “take care of Central America” while Tillerson confronted first-order headaches like North Korea, according to a person in the room. (A White House spokesman disputes this account.)
It was no secret, by then, that Trump had grown disenchanted with his first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, who presided over a team consumed by squabbling factions, endless leaks and overbroad walk-in privileges for presidential face time. (During one Oval Office meeting Trump had with New York Times reporters in April, no fewer than 20 people came and went.) In an interview with The Times last December, Kelly said that he told Trump around this time that he did not believe the president “was being well served by the staff” in some respects. A month and a half later, Kelly recalled, Trump called and said, “I need you to be chief.”
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
The New York Times Magazine
The best of The New York Times Magazine delivered to your inbox every week, including exclusive feature stories, photography, columns and more.
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy Opt out or contact us anytime
Kelly set out first to slay the meandering, oversize meetings he loathed. “I see these people,” he used to tell staff members at Homeland Security, after returning from the White House. “I don’t even know who they are or what they do.” Almost immediately, he sought to institute new rules: Meetings were to be tight, targeted and surprise-free. Once, Vice President Mike Pence showed up for one unexpectedly. “You guys have the meeting,” Kelly grumbled, walking off, according to a White House official who witnessed the exchange.
For decades, the White House chief of staff’s mandate has been a kind of tough love — the capacity to close the door to the Oval Office and tell the president what he does not want to hear. “Above all, you are the honest broker of information,” Chris Whipple, the author of “The Gatekeepers,” a history of White House chiefs, told me. True to this template, Kelly clamped down on the free flow of information to Trump, who once rifled through Breitbart articles and conspiracy-stuffed printouts with impunity. Some executive riffraff was expelled altogether. “He fired me like a gentleman,” says Anthony Scaramucci, who lasted 11 days as communications director and scolds anyone who suggests it was 10. Those who dared attempt an unsanctioned chat with the president could expect a Kelly follow-up: “You want to be chief of staff?”
The early purges, which included the exits of the advisers Stephen K. Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, restored a measure of good will toward Kelly among Democrats. But again, Kelly’s kinship with Trump on immigration was underestimated. “Part of that is the Marine in him, part of that is the Irish guy in Boston who believes that in the end, you really do have to abide by the laws,” Panetta, a friend of Kelly’s, told me. “I think that’s what’s coming out now.”
In November, as Homeland Security was set to extend residency permits for tens of thousands of Hondurans living in the United States, Kelly made an 11th-hour plea to the department’s acting secretary to reconsider the move. When the administration debated lowering the annual cap on refugees — should it stay at 110,000? Fall to 50,000, the minimum recommended by Defense and State Department officials? Land somewhere in between? — Kelly offered his take: If it were his call, he said, the number would be between zero and one. The administration settled on 45,000.
Even as Kelly has driven out the most flamboyant West Wing agitators — Scaramucci, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Bannon, Gorka — it has not gone unnoticed that Stephen Miller, the 32-year-old senior policy adviser and Trump’s nativist id on immigration policy since the campaign, has thrived on Kelly’s watch. “He turns out to have been more hawkish than I might have expected,” Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the hard-line Center for Immigration Studies, told me of Kelly. “It’s a pleasant surprise.”
In January, several Senate moderates believed they were close to securing Trump’s support for a compromise measure protecting the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, in exchange for border-security funding and other policy adjustments. Trump invited some of them to a televised summit at the White House, where he told them he would approve any legislation they brought him. “I’m not going to say, ‘Oh, gee, I want this, or I want that,’ ” he said. “I’ll be signing it.” He even assured Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that he welcomed a stand-alone bill protecting the Dreamers from deportation — anathema to the negotiating position of Republicans in Congress, some of whom rushed to dissuade him at the table.
Kelly sat silently through the televised session. But after about an hour, when the cameras were dismissed and the meeting began in earnest, he unburdened himself in what four attendees described as a caustic scolding. “You’ve been fiddling around for years on immigration,” he told lawmakers. The time had come, he said before leaving in a huff, to “do your job.” Attendees were handed a document labeled “MUST HAVE’S,” outlining the administration’s demands: billions in border-wall funding, an end to “extended chain migration” and a move toward a “merit-based system” for legal immigration. These were requirements long pushed by Kelly and Miller and likely to sink any deal with Democrats.
‘He’s not a martyr, and he’s not a hostage. John Kelly is not saving us.’
“What’s this?” Trump asked, according to three people present, eyeballing the list of what were ostensibly his own policy directives. He suggested the papers were unhelpful and could be disregarded. Lawmakers left the meeting unsure if the president knew his own administration’s position, or if he was even responsible for it.
Days later, a bipartisan group of senators led by Dick Durbin of Illinois and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thought again that they could sell Trump on their plans, only to be thwarted anew. This time, they did not conceal their frustrations with Kelly in particular. “I don’t think he was well served by his staff,” Graham said of the president to reporters at the Capitol. And Kelly, he said, was “part of the staff.”
In another meeting with Hispanic congressional Democrats later in January, Kelly made the case once more for a “merit-based system” for legal immigration. Members reminded him what he was asking of them. “He’s saying this to 25 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus!” Representative Luis Gutiérrez, an Illinois Democrat, told me. “My mom came with a fifth-grade education. Someone stood up and said to him, ‘So you don’t think we should even be here?’ We’re the children of those parents. And we’re members of Congress.”
Kelly’s active role in immigration policy, Whipple told me, was highly unusual for a chief of staff, setting Kelly apart from even otherwise partisan warriors like Dick Cheney, who served as chief to Gerald Ford, and Rahm Emanuel, the first to hold the position under Obama. “This is abnormal,” Whipple said. “He’s been more partisan than almost any chief of staff I can think of.”
It took a mass shooting and another round of Russia intrigue to elbow speculation about Kelly’s job status, post-Porter scandal, temporarily out of the news. “Trying to keep below the radar particularly after the Porter issue and my involvement was so inaccurately covered,” Kelly told me in an email, declining an interview. But his standing has not necessarily rebounded. This fate seems to flow, in part, from the heightened initial expectations of him. But it also speaks to his shortage of allies in Trump’s inner circle. Rivals, sensing a power vacuum, are wasting no time, spawning a succession of leaks and counterleaks that evoke the Priebus-era West Wing.
Today Kelly holds the support of two incongruous constituencies: those who cheer him on immigration and those who assume, despite the strikes against him, that he is preventing catastrophes no one can see. But this base is shrinking. “One Donald is bad enough,” Reines, one of the last Democratic holdouts, tweeted as Kelly cycled through conflicting explanations of the Porter timeline in February. “We don’t need two.”
Older friends have greeted recent events with a deeper despair. Some war buddies, eager to publicly support Kelly when he took the job, have begged off entirely. “I’d prefer not to talk anymore about him,” Mark Hertling, a retired three-star general who served with Kelly in Iraq, told me, “given what I’ve seen lately.”
For John Allen, a retired four-star general who has known Kelly since the late 1970s and endorsed Clinton in 2016, the first distress signal seemed to come in October. Trump had upset the widow of La David T. Johnson, an Army sergeant who was killed in an ambush in Niger, by telling her that her husband “knew what he signed up for.” Defending himself afterward, Trump falsely accused Obama of not contacting the families of fallen troops at all, adding (truthfully) that Obama did not call Kelly when his son First Lt. Robert Kelly was killed in Afghanistan in 2010.
Kelly, who had long avoided discussing his loss in detail, confirmed as much from the lectern of the White House briefing room. “It must have been enormously painful for him,” Allen told me. “John is very private in his grief.” But Kelly went on to accuse Frederica Wilson, a Florida congresswoman who knew the widow and listened to Trump’s phone call with her, of making self-aggrandizing remarks years earlier. A video from the time quickly proved him wrong, but Kelly never apologized. To friends who had winced often at Trump’s conduct, but never Kelly’s, it was agonizing to watch.
In the months since, Trump and Kelly have found new reasons to grow sick of each other. Even before the Porter maelstrom began dominating Trump’s cable-news diet, the president had been smarting for weeks over Kelly’s suggestion to Fox News that the president had “evolved” on his wall demands. Both episodes stirred latent frustrations with Kelly’s imperious style, which had grated on Trump. “He’s a free spirit,” Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime informal adviser, said of the president. “Nobody handles Donald Trump. Nobody manages him. He resents those who try.” Trump has been floating Gary Cohn, his economic adviser, as a possible replacement.
But on immigration, Kelly’s legacy, such as it is, may already be secure. His tumble has coincided with what was supposed to be a period of congressional progress on the issue — testing the priorities of a president who would still like a wall but thrills at the prospect of any signing ceremony. After appearing inclined at times toward an agreement with Democrats before Kelly helped reel him back, Trump has by now wholly convinced them that he is not to be trusted to cut a deal. Once held up as the administration’s most credible cross-aisle emissary, Kelly has instead become the figure — even more than Miller, from whom Democrats expected nothing less — most closely associated with White House intransigence. “He’s not a martyr, and he’s not a hostage,” Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary at Homeland Security under Obama who has worked with Kelly and who initially cheered his addition to the administration, told me. “John Kelly is not saving us.”
There is a favorite book of Kelly’s that he has said he rereads at key moments of his career. It is “The General,” a 1936 novel by C.S. Forester, set among British forces around World War I. Principally, it is about a commander unable to meet the moment. “He is a brave guy, a dedicated guy, a noble guy,” Kelly said of the protagonist, Herbert Curzon, in a collection of book recommendations by military leaders published last year, “but a guy who in the end has become a corps commander — a three-star general — and when presented with an overwhelming German attack couldn’t figure out how to deal with it because he’d never developed himself intellectually.”
Outmatched by his circumstances, Curzon resolves, at least, to fall on his terms. “He didn’t know the great lessons of the great master, if you will,” Kelly said, “and then he just decided one day to go down to his horse, grab his sword, and attack — with the intent of dying.”
Matt Flegenheimer is a Washington correspondent for The Times. This is his first article for the magazine.
Sign up for our new
-
My understanding is that IG Horowitz has good reputation. The Prez needs to be less knee-jerk sometimes , , , :roll:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tweets-disgraceful-that-sessions-kicked-surveillance-probe-to-obama-appointee/ar-BBJHzEy?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kushners-overseas-contacts-raise-concerns-as-foreign-officials-seek-leverage/2018/02/27/16bbc052-18c3-11e8-942d-16a950029788_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.225c98ffb935&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
FWIW Rush had opinion that the Dems and never turmpers are going to go after Trump's money in every way they can to keep trying to destroy him
so this all makes sense in that regard :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kushners-overseas-contacts-raise-concerns-as-foreign-officials-seek-leverage/2018/02/27/16bbc052-18c3-11e8-942d-16a950029788_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.225c98ffb935&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
I confess to disliking Kushner on a visceral level. His demeanor on camera is that a privileged little cunt, a princeling, whose daddy went to jail.
I remember too the grifting ethics of Trump University, the eminent domain bullying of the old lady in Atlantic City, the apparent bullying of subcontractors, etc etc etc.
I make no assumption that those in the Trump Circle are above getting cute or getting in over their heads ethically.
-
one patient of mine who is a Trump fan
told me a story about a friend who was doing some wall work at one of the Trump hotels in NYC and the union thugs told him to get lost they would do it instead
he saw Trump in the lobby and approached him. Trump went over with him and looked at his work and told him to keep working he is doing fine
That anecdotal story said I agree with everything you said
Jared is just not shall we say charismatic in front of the camera or in the public eye.
I watched one of the left wing networks last night and it was wall to wall Jared's business ties and links to the White House and the risk of corruption or black mail or bribery etc.
I could not say that I would disagree that he is too close to the Trump ongoing business at the same time he is running around the world and advising on policy for my comfort level
In this regard the LEFT does have a point. And THEY will pursue him every inch of the way to try to find something , anything of substance to this.
-
The White House Family Business
Jared and Ivanka have to decide if they’ve become political liabilities.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 28, 2018 7:33 p.m. ET
377 COMMENTS
Politics is blood sport, as presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner is learning the hard way. The 80% of Washington that wants Donald Trump out as President is now targeting Mr. Kushner as a means to that end.
Hiring family for high-profile jobs is always high political risk. Proximity to the throne means they may intimidate dissenting views that need to be heard. Their loyalty can be an asset, but they inevitably become high-profile political targets. Above all they are hard to fire even when they become liabilities. Exhibit A is Hillary Clinton, who brought scandals like Travelgate and cattle futures and the debacle of HillaryCare as first lady.
Mr. Kushner is merely an in-law, but he poses some of the same political risks. The latest uproar concerns the loss of his interim “top secret” security clearance on Friday as the FBI continues its clearance investigation. After the fiasco over former White House aide Rob Porter’s clearance, chief of staff John Kelly has put a limit on interim clearances. Mr. Kelly is right not to make an exception for Mr. Kushner, which would have inevitably leaked and looked like family favoritism. This is another example of Mr. Kelly’s value to the President.
Mr. Kushner’s enemies piled on Tuesday with an egregious leak to the Washington Post that foreign countries including China and Mexico have discussed how to exploit Mr. Kushner’s vulnerabilities in negotiations. Imagine that: A foreign country trying to exploit the weaknesses of American counterparts. The leak gave away to the foreign officials who discussed this that the U.S. was spying on them. Let’s hear no more complaints from the media about compromising “sources and methods.”
However outrageous, the leak is proof that the long knives are out for Mr. Kushner, and they’ll keep slashing. Without a top-secret clearance Mr. Kushner will lack crucial information that could be helpful in his role as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians. He also won’t be able to see the President’s daily intelligence briefing. While Mr. Kushner has other policy portfolios, such as prison reform, his value as a formal White House adviser will be diminished.
The larger problem is that—thanks to another leak—we know Mr. Kushner is on special counsel Robert Mueller’s subject list. This includes his personal business dealings. Last year Mr. Kushner offered the House and Senate Intelligence committees an account of what he said were his complete dealings with Russians during the presidential campaign. But only he and his lawyers know if there are other vulnerabilities. If there are, he and President Trump would both better off if Mr. Kushner were out of the White House before they become public.
Giving up their White House positions would be a bitter remedy, but Mr. Kushner and first daughter Ivanka could still offer advice as outsiders. Every President needs loyal counselors detached from the White House hothouse, and George W. Bush sometimes played that role for George H.W. Bush. There are specific and significant diplomatic roles the two could perform, or projects they could lead, such as Ivanka’s admirable performance at the Olympics.
Mr. Trump’s second year could determine his presidential fate as Mr. Mueller’s probe rolls on and midterm elections give Democrats a chance to take the House and impeach him. Mr. Trump needs the discipline that Mr. Kelly has imposed, and the White House announced Wednesday that communications aide Hope Hicks plans to resign after she became a political target.
Mr. Kushner and Ivanka have to decide if they’d serve themselves and the President better by walking away from their formal White House roles.
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/jared-kushners-conflicts-of-interest-reach-a-crisis-point?mbid=nl_Daily%20030218&CNDID=50142053&spMailingID=13042107&spUserID=MjAxODUyNTc2OTUwS0&spJobID=1360205227&spReportId=MTM2MDIwNTIyNwS2
-
Who knew Trump's top economic adviser was a lifelong Democrat until he left?
Not to be single issue here but what accomplished economist, liberal or conservative, is going to take the job and sign on to the economic agenda that includes economic suicide on trade?
"The President likes to hear dissenting views" - up to a point. Then those voices seem to disappear.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/gary-cohn-resigns.html
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27918/trump-meets-former-un-ambassador-bolton-white-hank-berrien
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/us/politics/trump-tillerson-pompeo.html?emc=edit_na_20180313&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/us/politics/trump-tillerson-pompeo.html?emc=edit_na_20180313&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
It looks like chaos but this means Democrats(?) from Exxon and Goldman Sachs who were not on the same page as the President are out of top spots. Bannon and Manafort are also long gone and that's good. Pompeo is very good and we don't want final policy decisions set by the Sec State anyway. Kelly seems to be doing fine for now; he won't last forever either. Sanders is doing a good job with Trump's message. New CIA Director was deputy director, presumably qualified and he will get some mileage out of appointing a woman. I thought Reince Priebus with party ties had a role to play but they got their bills through Congress after him than with him.
Pence was a great pick. Gorsuch, the best we could hope for (even if I turn on him later). The other judges are good. Markets are up this am. Not much new to worry about, just the same old problems, challenges and opportunities that we faced yesterday and the day before.
-
For God's sake can we please leave GS on Wall Street and not the White House revolving Wall Street revolving turnstyle!
Is there NO one other the GS ?
-
For God's sake can we please leave GS on Wall Street and not the White House revolving Wall Street revolving turnstyle!
Is there NO one other the GS ?
Small world but even with our purist conservative(?) Ted Cruz, his wife works for Goldman Sachs. She is superbly qualified but consistent with criticism of Michelle Obama at U of Chicago and Hillary all the way back to Rose Law Firm, these organizations buy influence because they can.
We can appoint them to high posts but as ccp says isn't a bit weird that so many come from the same places. All 9 Justices on the Supreme Court attended Harvard or Yale. (Ginsburg graduated from Columbia.) We aren't as diverse a nation as we sometimes think we are.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/12/heres-why-progressives-hate-betsy-devos.html
-
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/healthy/
-
Tillerson disagreed with Trump on ....
Paris Accords, Climate
North Korea
Russia, Qatar
Tariffs?
Pretty much everything.
The "moron" controversy.
The kicker on policy was the Iran deal.
Trump on Tillerson: "When you look at the Iran deal, I think it's terrible. I guess he thinks it was OK. I wanted to break it or do something, and he felt a little bit differently. So we were not thinking the same."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/trump-and-tillerson-disagreed-on-key-diplomatic-issues.html
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/378353-rand-paul-to-oppose-pompeo-haspel?userid=188403
-
Kudlow opposed the tariff increases if that gives us a clue where Trump is headed with that.
A very good, supply-side pick if they can get along and he survives.
-
I didn't know this about Kudlow in 2007-8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/larry-kudlow-may-have-been-more-wrong-about-the-economy-than-anyone-alive/2018/03/14/a98f2292-27ce-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.418be1454998&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
============================
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cabinet-members-accused-of-living-large-at-taxpayer-expense/2018/03/14/9f9476c4-27a7-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?undefined=&utm_term=.51acd873f010&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
I am not a huge fan of Kudlow as I have posted in the past.
for every single problem in the universe his answer is and always has been tax cuts and economic growth. ( Just not for ME!) I distinctly remember him saying someone like me does not need a tax cut - while I read his net worth is 75 million! :x
Listening to him speak of this is like listening to Hannity for more then 10 seconds - he gives me a pounding headache
when he talks about anything else I like listening! Just tired of the words "tax cuts" and "growth"[economic] the most spoken 3 words in his vocabulary.
Not that being a capitalist is wrong just that it is not that simple.
That said Milbank is leftist propagandist who can be taken with a grain of salt.
Oh Kudlow did not see the dip in 2008 -9. Like most everyone else did! How about blaming the crats like Dodd Frank and Clinton who pushed the high risk mortgages?
-
I am not a huge fan of Kudlow as I have posted in the past.
for every single problem in the universe his answer is and always has been tax cuts and economic growth. ( Just not for ME!) I distinctly remember him saying someone like me does not need a tax cut - while I read his net worth is 75 million! :x
Listening to him speak of this is like listening to Hannity for more then 10 seconds - he gives me a pounding headache
when he talks about anything else I like listening! Just tired of the words "tax cuts" and "growth"[economic] the most spoken 3 words in his vocabulary.
Not that being a capitalist is wrong just that it is not that simple.
That said Milbank is leftist propagandist who can be taken with a grain of salt.
Oh Kudlow did not see the dip in 2008 -9. Like most everyone else did! How about blaming the crats like Dodd Frank and Clinton who pushed the high risk mortgages?
I don't watch cable so I miss how annoying certain people are. Now Bezos / Wash Post won't let me see articles so i miss how annoying leftist propagandists like Milbank are. ) Yes, optimists like Wesbury missed the call of the crash but I believe warned plenty of the dangers of the government interventions in markets that led to the financial collapse. (CRAp, letting the federal government take 90% market share on mortgages, zero interest rate policy, loans to 100%, 125% of equity!)
Hard to imagine how much talk there was about tax cuts and growth during the Obama years, none happened. Must have been an opposing view! )
It isn't that "someone like you" "needs" a tax cut. It is just the right thing to do on moral grounds and to grow the economy(!) and grow revenues to the Treasury in order to help poor people and support national security.
I have an idea for them that doesn't require constant talk about tax cuts and growth, cut government spending!
-
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-promise-of-pompeo/90214/
-
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Hr0kebN1G0yeVrdAvZpEfQ.aspx
Was there no Kennedy derangement syndrome?
-
walter cronkite would likely never have reported this.
did these things even get into the news 55 yrs ago?
That said you point is otherwise well taken.
Trump didn't say we can do more after the election like the corrupt Obama
-
Bolton articles in the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bolton-in-the-wsj-1521814530
=====================================
The editorial board's reaction today:
By The Editorial Board
March 22, 2018 8:06 p.m. ET
175 COMMENTS
President Trump has said he is at last assembling a Cabinet team to his liking, and late Thursday he announced that John Bolton will replace General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Adviser. It is a solid and experienced choice.
General McMaster, like others, reportedly had fallen out of favor with Mr. Trump. But there should be no doubt that General McMaster helped the President through a challenging first year, which included an array of problems inherited from the Obama Administration, not least the North Korean nuclear threat.
John Bolton in the WSJ
John Bolton, President Trump’s new national security adviser, has been a regular contributor to the Journal for many years. Here are a few examples:
The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First, March 1, 2018
Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal, Jan. 18, 2018
America Needs a Post-ISIS Strategy, June 29, 2017
The New Foreign Policy, Same as the Old, May 22, 2017
A Resolute Message for China, April 6, 2017
Trump’s New Start With Russia May Prove Better Than Obama’s, Feb. 14, 2017
Mr. Bolton’s critics often accuse him of belligerence and reactive saber-rattling. He is indeed direct. No listener comes away from a conversation with John Bolton in doubt about where he stands. That must include Mr. Trump, who had Mr. Bolton under consideration to be his first Secretary of State last year and has discussed foreign issues often with him since.
The charge that Mr. Bolton can be an unguided missile misconstrues his ideas and experience. He served in the State Department during both Bush Presidencies. Under George W. Bush he created the multinational Proliferation Security Initiative in 2003, a useful effort explicitly designed to deter North Korea’s efforts to smuggle weapons materials.
Those wanting an understanding of John Bolton’s thinking on security issues should read the many essays he has written for these pages in recent years—most recently “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First” on Feb. 28.
Mr. Bolton’s first job will be to prepare the President for an historic meeting with Kim Jong Un. We may assume Pyongyang knows now that bluffing the U.S. won’t work.
-
second post
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/us/politics/bolton-cambridge-analyticas-facebook-data.html&ref=cta&nl=top-stories?nlid=49641193-stories
-
http://carolineglick.com/boltons-appointment-is-a-brilliant-america-first-move/
Mattis leery of Bolton
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/380185-mattis-isnt-sure-he-can-work-with-bolton-report
-
http://carolineglick.com/boltons-appointment-is-a-brilliant-america-first-move/
Mattis leery of Bolton
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/380185-mattis-isnt-sure-he-can-work-with-bolton-report
He is free to resign.
-
Sorry, but I find that entirely too glib.
President's Trump selection of Sec Def Mattis was greeted around here with universal acclaim.
Mattis is accorded great respect throughout the Congress, even Dems, and generally with the country as a whole. For many people, his presence at Trump's elbow is a source of reassurance that Trump will be soundly advised. Around the world Mattis has the credibility that if he says that somebody/something positively absolutely has to be blown the fk up that the US has both the will and the capability to do so. Were he to walk away it would be a very negative thing.
===================================
https://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/john-bolton-reagan-realist-brilliant-choice/
-
Sorry, but I find that entirely too glib.
President's Trump selection of Sec Def Mattis was greeted around here with universal acclaim.
Mattis is accorded great respect throughout the Congress, even Dems, and generally with the country as a whole. For many people, his presence at Trump's elbow is a source of reassurance that Trump will be soundly advised. Around the world Mattis has the credibility that if he says that somebody/something positively absolutely has to be blown the fk up that the US has both the will and the capability to do so. Were he to walk away it would be a very negative thing.
===================================
https://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/john-bolton-reagan-realist-brilliant-choice/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/09/mattis_attempts_to_normalize_a_severe_mental_disorder.html
-
"He is free to resign"
I would add to that, he is free to run for president and make all the top appointments himself. But I share Crafty's sentiment. I hope that both of these great men stay on and serve together. They don't have to agree on everything and press reports about grumbling in private are as likely to be wrong as right.
-
https://www.easyreadernews.com/john-thunder-bolton-warns-obama-of-limits-to-diplomacy/?utm_source=Daily+News&utm_campaign=b2adca703e-Daily_EMAIL_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b41a925468-b2adca703e-286697493
-
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/381068-pentagon-braces-for-john-bolton?userid=188403
-
[Crafty] "what to make of Trump's out of left field comments yesterday about leaving Syria soon? WTF? "
There is just no way to accurately decipher all the utterances of this President. On the Optimistic side, let's assume he means with a leave-behind force, but isn't that all we have right now.
Except for the really stupid stuff, most of these statements are designed to leverage someone or something else. In this case, maybe he wants the 'boots on the ground' in the Middle East to be someone else's, to come from the gulf states for example.
-
Watch what he does, rather than what he says.
-
General Keane was on FOX this morning approving how President Trump is holding out on a promised $200M -- apparently until Saudi Arabia (and other Sunnis?) kick in their promised $4B.
OTOH he was disapproving of the President's words here and spoke quite well of the importance of winning the peace.
Perhaps the President's words are simply aimed at getting allies to do their part? If so, they could have been far better chosen , , ,
-
"Perhaps the President's words are simply aimed at getting allies to do their part? If so, they could have been far better chosen , , ,"
Yes. He keeps shocking people with his words. Some of it is just testing to see the reaction and for ohter purposes. I think he enjoys having the media and adversaries think he is nuts, but some of it is quite hard to take for his should-be supporters. He doesn't want a US ground war in the Middle East but he also hired Bolton and (hopefully) isn't about to surrender to a rising Iran, a fall of Israel, or a resurgence of ISIS.
As terrible as his words can be and some of his personal behavior, he only has to improve a little bit to achieve a lot. As G M points out, people are learning to wait and see what he means and will actually do, and pretty soon the results will speak for themselves, for better or worse.
No one else from the right could pull off the disconnect between what he says and what he does.
I suppose his next really big gaffe is coming but I don't think that was it. People like hearing that he isn't heading the US into a new Middle East ground war.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/381713-the-memo-kelly-said-to-be-losing-influence-with-trump?userid=188403
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nikki-haley-john-boltons-disdain-for-u-n/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nikki-haley-john-boltons-disdain-for-u-n/
This is a great thing.
-
https://clarionproject.org/john-boltons-diary-day-one-natl-security-advisor/
-
Someday, a thread of her own.
I predicted, if something happened to Trump she would be Pence's VP pick.
Now this, in a world of upside down political popularities Nikki Haley has a 63-17 approval rating.
https://ntknetwork.com/poll-americans-love-nikki-haley/
Better messaging, better messengers.
-
I like Nikki a lot exactly where she is, but somehow do not (yet?) see her being at that level-- not only would her selection would smack too much of Dem logic but we need to remember how aggressively anti-Trump she was during the presidential campaign.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/387367-pompeo-off-to-fast-start-as-trumps-top-diplomat?userid=188403
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/392640-trump-to-nominate-budget-official-as-next-consumer-bureau-chief
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/393501-mulvaney-aims-to-cement-legacy-at-cfpb-by-shepherding-successor-through
-
By The Editorial Board
June 24, 2018 6:09 p.m. ET
321 COMMENTS
Key positions throughout the federal government remain vacant more than 500 days into Donald Trump’s Presidency. The President hasn’t put forward enough nominees, a mistake the media have focused on. Yet Senate Democrats—and the occasional Republican—have held up qualified nominees at a scale unprecedented in recent history.
No one understands this better than Brian Benczkowski, who was nominated more than a year ago to lead the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. Mr. Benczkowski is a highly qualified choice for Assistant Attorney General: He has held five leadership positions at Justice, including chief of staff to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Obama and Clinton appointees have praised his selection, yet Senate Democrats have treated Mr. Benczkowski as if he were Vladimir Putin’s personal attorney.
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter to President Trump in May—11 months after receiving the nomination—regarding the nominee’s “Russian connections.” They urged the president to drop Mr. Benczkowski over his “representation of the Putin-allied Alfa Bank and his refusal to recuse himself from Russia-related matters.”
What did Mr. Benczkowski’s representation entail? In 2016 news reports surfaced of connections between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank. At the behest of one of his law partners, in 2017 he hired cybersecurity firm Stroz Friedberg to examine some of Alfa Bank’s electronic records. Mr. Benczkowski testified that the limited investigation he oversaw turned up no connections between the bank and Mr. Trump’s business.
Democrats nonetheless demanded that he recuse himself from anything related to Russia. Given the absence of a conflict, Mr. Benczkowski declined to commit to a broad Russia-related recusal, though he said he would recuse from anything involving Alfa Bank.
Democrats now claim Mr. Benczkowski would undermine the Robert Mueller investigation. Never mind that the nominee made clear that he supports the probe and explicitly rejected Mr. Trump’s “witch hunt” characterization. Mr. Mueller reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supports Mr. Benczkowski.
Democrats also cite his “dearth of courtroom experience” as a reason to oppose someone for a position whose work involves setting policy priorities, not trying cases. Three Criminal Division chiefs under Barack Obama signed a letter backing his nomination, noting “he respects the role of the Justice Department and will work hard to protect the integrity and independence” of the institution.
The worst of this Democratic harassment began after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Mr. Benczkowski’s nomination along party lines last September. A Senator can’t stop a nominee but he can drag out confirmation. And Senate Democrats have done so at a record pace during the Trump Administration.
After a nominee is confirmed by committee, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asks for unanimous consent to take up the nomination. If a Senator objects, this triggers a cloture vote, which requires 30 hours of debate on the Senate floor. With limited floor time Senate leaders might have to choose between passing a farm bill or approving a State Department official.
Some Republicans have also abused the rule. In January Senator Cory Gardner vowed to hold every Justice Department appointment until Attorney General Jeff Sessions took a softer stance on marijuana. Three months later, after the President promised the feds wouldn’t interfere with Colorado’s legal marijuana industry, the Senator lifted his hold. Senate leaders still want to get Mr. Benczkowski and other Justice officials a floor vote, but they’ll have to keep waiting as the Senate is forced to triage nominees.
Through June 21, Trump nominees have taken an average of 87 days to confirm, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Obama appointees had to wait an average of 67 days. Among 670 “key executive branch” positions—agency heads, ambassadors and other leadership roles—147 Trump nominees are still awaiting Senate action.
This is largely because as of June 5 Mr. Trump’s nominees had faced 101 cloture votes. In the first two years of every administration going back to Jimmy Carter, there were only 24 such votes for judicial and executive nominees. Mr. Obama’s nominees faced only a dozen cloture votes in his first two years.
Top jobs at Treasury, Justice, Defense and State remain unfilled as an understaffed Trump Administration grapples with a host of international challenges. These jobs are being filled on a temporary basis, but that’s no way to run a government—even if you don’t like the guy at the top.
Appeared in the June 25, 2018, print edition.
-
I never would have dreamed it was legal to covertly tape the President of the United States
How can this be?
Must be due to advent of cell phones. I would bet people near Obama were searched .
Well when you bring in people who are more from the entertainment industry a back stabbing self serving group of narcissists I guess this is what we get.
Left wind media sees no problem with taping high government officials without their knowledge or consent but sees a problem with nondisclosure agreements.
as usual they turned every thin ass backwards to fit their agenda.......... :x
-
Trump needed some black faces around him and she was conveniently at hand. He knew she was a snake when he gave her a ride.
-
" Trump needed some black faces around him and she was conveniently at hand. He knew she was a snake when he gave her a ride."
CD I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head . Sadly she knew this too and fully took advantage of being black and female for her own ends.
Just goes to show how far MSM will glamorize even snakes if they think it will hurt Trump . This along with the likes of Clifford & Avanetti .
-
Here we go again, a fight with someone we never heard of until they were gone, of no known accomplishment or significance.
Does he have to call her a dog and a low life - heading into the midterms, while Melania works on cyber bullying? Couldn't he just ignore her and and stay on message, it's the economy, people.
I watched her on Meet the Press Sunday and Chuck Todd pretended to be tough on her while giving her generous airtime to push her message and her book. She didn't land a punch. Why respond? It just feeds his enemies to call a black woman a low life and a dog, obviously, but does it help him with his supporters and with the Independents and undecideds? Taken literally, isn't explaining the dog tag insulting to dogs and dog lovers? To me it shows weakness, lack of focus and attracts from his strengths and accomplishments, again, especially in the eyes of the would-be persuadable.
https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/14/trump-calls-omarosa-dog-as-war-over-salacious-memoir-explodes.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F08%2F14%2Ftrump-calls-omarosa-dog-as-war-over-salacious-memoir-explodes.html
-
"Does he have to call her a dog and a low life - heading into the midterms, while Melania works on cyber bullying? Couldn't he just ignore her and and stay on message, it's the economy, people."
right Doug
if we lose the House in the midterms I am convinced it will be his fault because he cannot keep control of his anger.
he is truly a mixed bag as President . I hope he does not destroy the *integrity* office of the presidency permanently .
he puts the rest of us who support him, in the same party all at risk because of his emotional immaturity.
the worse part is he does not learn from it but looks to rally's for fuel for his ego which then enables him to be the same.
not being able to have insight and to learn from one's problems is to me a sign of a personality disorder .
That said he keeps getting away with this . half the country including me support him anyway because overall I like his policies
-
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/23/jeff-sessions-senate-support-republican-leaders-trump-794870
My opinion he needs to go
we need to fight this totally political attempt to take Trump down and if Sessions won't put a stop to it or at least some deadline he needs to be replaced.
nothing Trump can do otherwise will stop the left frenzy to get rid of him.
So the right needs to stand up and say enough
Anyone who argues against just think how the LEFt with its corrupt media collusion had NO problem when the then Deep State let Hillary walk and continue to use double standards every step of the way
I like Jeff Session s and admirable man but he allowing the Leftist DOD walk all over him. You can't talk about the law having any meaning when it is OBVIOUSLY applied differently to different people.
my armchair opinion
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405070-conservatives-rattled-by-floated-names-for-wh-counsel-position?userid=188403
-
No particular link to share, I'm sure you can get plenty of the preview highlights at the Washington Post today. No named sources as usual, The credibility or lack thereof all falls on Bob Woodward.
It's quite devastating material in the soap opera sense. My guess is that this changes nothing.
Mattis allegedly thinks Trump has the foreign policy understanding of a fifth or sixth grader. Someone else took letters off Trump's desk to keep him from signing orders that would bring down the country or the world, and so on.
Unless they have more, this kind of thing energizes his detractors and hardens his support. How will that affect the midterms? Presumably it hurts him and hurts him badly, but energizing his detractors makes them go even more batshit crazy when it should make them want to lbecome the sane alternative. Does the sight of energized activists and 93% negative news coverage going further negative really win more votes?
Does the rest of the book cover the accomplishments of his presidency? Or does the consummate historian that Woodward purports to be skip all that and stay with the reality show perspective. See our thread on accomplishments. He doubled the growth rate of the largest economy in the history of the world, brought China, Mexico, North Korea, European Union and Canada to the bargaining table, filled the court with great judges and justices, secured our defenses and brought a level of transparency to the White House that hurts our eyes and ears.
Whatever the truth is about what he said about Assad after the chemical weapons attack, kill the bastards, all of them, just strengthens his position in negotiations with Kim Jeong Un and the Ayatollahs. It also strengthens his hand with Xi that he will take any step and is not afraid of the backlash.
Which do the people want to hear about this election season, the accomplishments or the behind-the-scenes in-fighting? Don't know, we'll see.
-
No particular link to share, I'm sure you can get plenty of the preview highlights at the Washington Post today. No named sources as usual, The credibility or lack thereof all falls on Bob Woodward.
It's quite devastating material in the soap opera sense. My guess is that this changes nothing.
Mattis allegedly thinks Trump has the foreign policy understanding of a fifth or sixth grader. Someone else took letters off Trump's desk to keep him from signing orders that would bring down the country or the world, and so on.
Unless they have more, this kind of thing energizes his detractors and hardens his support. How will that affect the midterms? Presumably it hurts him and hurts him badly, but energizing his detractors makes them go even more batshit crazy when it should make them want to lbecome the sane alternative. Does the sight of energized activists and 93% negative news coverage going further negative really win more votes?
Does the rest of the book cover the accomplishments of his presidency? Or does the consummate historian that Woodward purports to be skip all that and stay with the reality show perspective. See our thread on accomplishments. He doubled the growth rate of the largest economy in the history of the world, brought China, Mexico, North Korea, European Union and Canada to the bargaining table, filled the court with great judges and justices, secured our defenses and brought a level of transparency to the White House that hurts our eyes and ears.
Whatever the truth is about what he said about Assad after the chemical weapons attack, kill the bastards, all of them, just strengthens his position in negotiations with Kim Jeong Un and the Ayatollahs. It also strengthens his hand with Xi that he will take any step and is not afraid of the backlash.
Which do the people want to hear about this election season, the accomplishments or the behind-the-scenes in-fighting? Don't know, we'll see.
Woodward is a liar. This is just Dem fanfic.
-
Woodward just got caught participating in the CNN-Lanny Davis lie.
-
How could she even have been considered?
https://gellerreport.com/2018/10/powell-out.html/
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/business/jared-kushner-taxes.html?partner=msft_msn
-
"PTOH goes after Jarad"
that is because they feel most of his money is the property of the Dem Party and not his.
Saw report of the on MSLSD ; at the end of the hack job someone does throw in there as a quick aside, "it is all perfectly legal"
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/business/jared-kushner-taxes.html?partner=msft_msn
"it is all perfectly legal"
One WSJ column suggests we could learn a little from Trump family tax strategies after the uproar dies down.
I wonder if we'll see Obama's grades on the same day Trump releases his tax returns...
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/huge-sessions-replacement-nightmare-choice-mueller/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-11-08&utm_campaign=manualpost
BTW Judge Napolitano says Whitaker does not meet the legal requirements to be an Acting AG.
-
"BTW Judge Napolitano says Whitaker does not meet the legal requirements to be an Acting AG."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/11/08/judge-napolitano-matthew-whitaker-does-not-qualify-under-law-be-acting-attorney-general
Interesting. If his appointment does not have the authority of a principle officer, then a recess or regular appointment will be needed. Until that time, can't Whitacker bring orders requiring greater authority to the Chief Executive for orders and signing?
-------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause
"[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, ..."
I would agree with the argument he is not eligible in the line of succession to the Presidency as an official officer of the United States without Senate confirmation.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_line_of_succession
-
did you see Chris Christie is in the running for AG
I know he is not popular but he could be the bulldog Trump needs ( ? )
-
Whitaker is also getting hit with some serious sounding accusations of nasty business practices taking advantage of inventors.
I'd be fine with Christie for AG. It is directly in his skill set, and like the President he knows how to duke it out with the Pravdas.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/matthew-whitaker-jews-muslim-judges-attorney-general-1210003
-
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/defense-secretary-mattis-stay-pentagon/
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html?fallback=0&recId=1CoxW2cE33b4iaJAoUaGLO9GcdQ&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=CO&recAlloc=most_popular&geoCountry=US&blockId=most-popular&imp_id=50574183&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage
This analysis may well be correct.
-
but the optics of World Wide Wrestling running the Commerce Department
is simply not what we need if this occurs:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/mcmahon-ross-commerce-secretary/2018/11/16/id/890978/
OTOH she could produce more movies of Trump body slamming CNN reporters :wink:
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html?fallback=0&recId=1CoxW2cE33b4iaJAoUaGLO9GcdQ&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=CO&recAlloc=most_popular&geoCountry=US&blockId=most-popular&imp_id=50574183&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage
This analysis may well be correct.
I love the sudden reverence for the constitution from the left, just like their sudden reverence for due process upon the arrest of Avenetti.
(BELIEVE ALL WIMMENS!!!!!11111!!!!!!! disappears in a puff of smoke)
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-agency-opens-case-file-on-potential-hatch-act-violations-by-matthew-whitaker/ar-BBPY2NL?ocid=sf
-
James Comey Is Proving that He’s a Partisan
By Jim Geraghty
December 10, 2018 11:04 AM
FBI Director James Comey attends a news conference on terrorism after speaking at the NYPD Shield Conference in the Manhattan borough of New York, December 16, 2015. (Darren Ornitz/Reuters)
Making the click-through worthwhile: former FBI director James Comey drops any pretense of being anything but a Democratic-party cheerleader these days, President Trump finds himself hunting for a chief of staff once again, a quick review of last week’s NR cruise, and a computer book to read before artificial intelligence takes over the world.
James Comey, Democratic-Party Cheerleader
Back when I reviewed former FBI director James Comey’s autobiography, I wrote:
The notion that everyone around Comey at the top level of the FBI hesitated to keep his promise to inform Congress because it could help Trump win the election doesn’t exactly dispel Trump’s claim of widespread bias against him. In Comey’s late-November private Oval Office meeting with the president, he blurts out to the outgoing Obama, “I dread the next four years.”
This is not a conspiracy of shadowy cigarette-smoking government men out of The X-Files, but it points to a disconcerting groupthink: Just about everybody at the top levels of the FBI, Department of Justice, U.S. national-security agencies, and the Obama administration thought Trump was a corrupt, deranged loon. No doubt Trump earned a lot of that criticism, but that groupthink meant the FBI’s top brass was ready to believe the worst about Trump, no matter the origin.
Around that time, I separately reported that retired FBI agents were . . . less than thrilled to see a former director becoming a hero of “The Resistance” and joking around with Stephen Colbert about the president. Other than Louis Freeh’s tempestuous relationship with Bill Clinton, most retired FBI directors retained nonpartisan reputations and largely stayed out of the spotlight after leaving law enforcement.
But that was then; today, Comey has become indistinguishable from the usual Democratic National Convention speakers. Here’s what happened at a speech he gave last night:
Former FBI Director James Comey asked American voters Sunday night to end Donald Trump’s presidency with a “landslide” victory for his opponent in 2020.
“All of us should use every breath we have to make sure the lies stop on January 20, 2021,” Comey told an audience at the 92nd Street Y on New York City’s Upper East Side. He all but begged Democrats to set aside their ideological differences and nominate the person best suited to defeating Trump in an election.
“I understand the Democrats have important debates now over who their candidate should be,” Comey told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, “but they have to win. They have to win.”
Wait, there’s more — lest you think that Comey is merely a fierce critic of Trump:
Speaking about the period before the 2016 election, Comey was unsparing of Republican congressional leaders who he said opposed making public intelligence-community concerns over Russian interference.
“To their everlasting shame, the leaders — (Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell, (House Speaker Paul) Ryan — refused,” Comey said. “I think they’re going to have a hard time explaining that to history.”
Trump’s bad, McConnell’s bad, Ryan’s bad . . . What are the odds that Comey ends up speaking at the 2020 Democratic National Convention?
Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation a partisan institution? No doubt there’s a wide range of opinions throughout the rank-and-file agents and staff, and we certainly all hope that the nation’s premiere law-enforcement agency hasn’t succumbed to partisan groupthink. But the more that Comey sounds like an aspiring DNC chairman, the more he chips away at public faith in the institution.
Who Wants to Be the Next White House Chief of Staff?
Stay Updated with NR Daily
NR's afternoon roundup of the day's best commentary & must-read analysis.
The president, who has made clear that he will not be managed by anyone, is having a hard time finding someone to step into the role of manager.
Trump-administration observers figured that Vice President Pence’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, would be the next White House chief of staff. But much to everyone’s surprise, he’s not only not taking the job, but he’s leaving the administration entirely.
Nick Ayers, the main focus of President Trump’s search to replace John F. Kelly as chief of staff in recent weeks, said on Sunday that he was leaving the administration at the end of the year. Mr. Ayers, 36, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, is returning to Georgia with his wife and three young children, according to people familiar with his plans.
Axios reports that one of the new options to replace John Kelly is . . . the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus?
Trump has asked confidants what they think about the idea of installing Congressman Mark Meadows, the chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, as John Kelly’s permanent replacement, according to these three sources. Trump has also mentioned three other candidates besides Meadows, according to a source with direct knowledge. I don’t yet have their names.
If you’re Meadows, do you want that job? You’re the leader of one of the most powerful factions of House Republicans, although you’ll be in the minority starting in January. You represent a district where you won 59 percent in a bad year for Republicans, so you’ll have that job in Congress for as long as you like, as long as you avoid scandal. Trump could serve another six years, or maybe just another two years. And both Reince Priebus and John Kelly seemed perpetually frustrated, aggravated, and exhausted in the job.
And that was during the good times! The next White House chief of staff will be stepping into the eye of a hurricane. The Democrats will run the House and stymie just about any major legislation. (Democrats have spent the past two years telling the country that Trump is an unholy amalgamation of Mussolini, Gordon Gecko, Nero, Caligula, and Beelzebub; they can’t turn around and tell their grassroots supporters, “But we worked out a really great deal on infrastructure with him.”)
At some point presumably soon, special counsel Robert Mueller will submit his final report to the Department of Justice, and it’s likely to paint an ugly portrait contending that A) the Russian government reached out to figures around Trump, if not Trump himself, and those figures were eager to work with Moscow against Hillary Clinton’s campaign; B) Trump-campaign officials met with Russian intelligence agents throughout 2016; C) Trump conspired with Michael Cohen to send money to Stormy Daniels, which they’ll argue was a campaign-related expense; D) the firing of James Comey amounted to obstruction of justice; E) who knows what about Trump’s past financial ties to Russian entities; F) any financial crimes; and G) God knows what else. One way or another, House Democrats are extremely likely to push for impeachment.
Another figure who appears uninterested in the job . . .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is one of the advisors to President Donald Trump under consideration to be the next White House chief of staff, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Yet Mnuchin has indicated to his inner circle that he feels best served as the head of Treasury, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the privacy of the ongoing discussions.
Traditionally, the position of White House chief of staff is one of the most desired in Washington, with enormous access to the president and a great deal of behind-the-scenes sway over the president’s schedule, priorities, and communications. Under Trump, there’s little to no ability to sway the president or steer the agenda, and you’re just a scapegoat-in-waiting.
-
What I'm seeing so far is decidedly underwhelming , , ,
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/422779-meet-trumps-pick-to-take-over-for-mattis-at-pentagon?userid=188403
-
A derogatory article but it explains why he wasn't able to get confirmed to the Fed. Too bad that he wrote some things offensive and not very funny a couple decades ago. He would have added pro growth viewpoint to the dual mission Fed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/how-did-stephen-moore-get-picked-federal-reserve/588502/
-
https://libertyconservativenews.com/neocon-john-bolton-is-revealed-as-president-trumps-punch-line-in-the-oval-office/
-
https://gellerreport.com/2019/07/ortho-nsa-cyber-chief.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
-
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/mike-pompeo-the-secretary-of-trump
Long article, tells lots of details about Mike Pompeo's life and rise. Written by Susan Glasser, New Yorker who tries to mix fact reporting with full membership in Trump and Republican Derangement Syndromes. If you separate out the disparagement, a good story is told here.
Pompeo and Pence, who brought Pompeo into the mix, were both Rubio supporters in the 2016 campaign.
-------------------------
Amid speculation about whether he will run for a Senate seat next year, Pompeo was asked how long he planned to serve at State. “I’m going to be there until he tweets me out of office,”
-------------------------
Glasser tries to paint Pompeo as a Trump yes man who vocally and strenuously disagrees with the President on major issues from time to time. Pompeo was made rich by the Koch brothers but has the lowest net worth of any member of the cabinet. It's so hard to keep false narratives alive.
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ag-barr-removes-acting-bureau-prisons-chief-wake-epstein-suicide-n1043961
------------------------------------------
Exactly the opposite of Trump's predecessor where you could always ask, who got fired over _____? The mortgage crisis, fast and furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi, email scandal, and on and on, who got fired? No one?
As we saw the lapses in security in the facility during this high profile hold and wait for investigation of which middle manager should have done more (investigations are where facts get buried), the top guy got canned. Incompetence is unacceptable even in government!
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/461604-house-committee-launches-investigation-into-chao
-
sorry he is doing this.
just not good or helpful
something very wrong that we have parades of people doing this
I don't recall this happening in past.
-
Trump can be remarkably graceless towards people he fires.
-
Very interesting .
I thought Trump fired him.
Maybe he just quit. I recall my sister saying thank God Kelly is there to keep Trump in line early on:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/10/26/john-kelly-i-warned-trump-he-would-be-impeached-if-he-hired-a-yes-man-n2555400
-
of course this is a leftist bunch of news people
who in past would have trashed Bolton who now hold him up on a pedestal:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-some-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651
The thought that Trump used his hotel interests in Turkey as some part of his determination to throw the Kurds out is not helpful.
So Bolton thinks Iyanka and JayROD would try to convince him to nominate Larry Scribe to the Supreme Court if he should win a second term is way over the top...........That would kill his base........
-
VF is seriously TDS:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mike-pompeo-could-be-getting-ready-to-bail-on-trump-impeachment-inquiry
-
VF is seriously TDS:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mike-pompeo-could-be-getting-ready-to-bail-on-trump-impeachment-inquiry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS65p4HZx2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEchPZm318
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/politics/giuliani-trump-impeachment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
-
2019’s Adult of the Year
Attorney General William Barr has kept his promises and his independence.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 2, 2020 6:50 pm ET
Opinion: Bill Barr's Stand Up Year
Potomac Watch: Columnist Kimberley Strassel names Attorney General Bill Barr her Adult of the Year, for his rare ability to subject his institution to scrutiny, for its own good—and that of the country. Image: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Person-of-the-year awards are almost always bestowed on men and women who already meet with fawning praise. Let’s instead craft an award based on a person’s willingness to speak truth to power—whether to the press, the boss, or to partisan operators. Call it Adult of the Year. The winner: Attorney General William Barr.
President Trump nominated Mr. Barr in December 2018, and for a moment he received the respect he deserves. The press had grown accustomed to demeaning all Trump nominees, but was stymied by Mr. Barr’s impressive career and bipartisan legal support. A Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency veteran, he served as attorney general from 1990-91 with distinction. Media outlets had to acknowledge his “pedigree,” and CNN even quoted an unnamed Justice Department lawyer who had been “nervous” about a Trump pick but pronounced Mr. Barr “a great choice” because “he’s tough he’s principled and he’s independent.”
Mr. Barr remains all those things. He has been vilified precisely because he has maintained an impartial view of the Justice Department and has kept his promises. The great hope—and demand—of the Russia-collusion crowd was that Mr. Barr—as a longtime man of the institution—would circle the department’s wagons. His refusal to do so has made him a threat.
And so commenced one of the more obvious, not to mention nasty, delegitimization campaigns in modern Beltway history. Journalists and Democrats accused him of manipulating the rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in March. They pounced on his decision in May to name U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into the 2016 Trump campaign, accusing both of engaging in “conspiracy theories.”
They were particularly hysterical when Mr. Barr stated that his own view was that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December report confirmed that the initial FBI suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion were, as he put it, “insufficient to justify the steps taken.” This is a perfectly valid position for the head of a department to take.
Yet we now find former FBI Director William Webster slamming Mr. Barr for casting unfounded “aspersions” on the FBI, and former Attorney General Eric Holder—who once described himself as President Obama’s “wingman”—declaring Mr. Barr “unfit to lead the Justice Department.”
The attacks are all pointedly designed to cast Mr. Barr as a Trump toady. Yet Mr. Barr wasn’t originally a Trump partisan. He’s 69, isn’t seeking higher office, and left a comfortable private-sector position to take a job he needs like a hole in the head. He testified that he came back because he was in a “position in life” to help “protect the independence and reputation of the department.” He meant its long-term reputation, which won’t recover absent a thorough accounting of its 2016 actions.
Importantly, he also vowed not to “be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong”—including by the White House. Despite all the criticism, not one detractor has yet provided any evidence that Mr. Barr’s decisions or comments have been anything but independent. He vowed to protect Mr. Mueller’s ability to finish his probe, just as he vowed up front to investigate the investigators. Check and check. He likewise pledged to resign if the White House directed him to engage in any illegal action, and there is no reason to believe he’d suffer the abuse Mr. Trump heaped on predecessor Jeff Sessions. Note Mr. Barr’s silence throughout Congress’s impeachment circus; if he’s acting as a personal lawyer to the president, he’s doing a crummy job.
The criticism is even more outrageous given the overwhelming evidence validating Mr. Barr’s concerns. The Horowitz report was the third excoriating former FBI Director James Comey’s tenure—on everything from “insubordinate” to “dangerous” behavior. The inspector general has referred both Mr. Comey and former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe for criminal prosecution, the former for leaking and the latter for lying. The latest report also finds the FBI manipulated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, providing it false information and withholding exculpatory details to spy—yes, spy—on a former Trump campaign adviser.
Beware the claim that it is Mr. Barr’s job to “insulate” the Justice Department and the FBI from “political pressure.” That’s code. What the critics want is for Mr. Barr to insulate those bodies from accountability—and in the process protect all those who allowed their fanatical opposition to a certain candidate to help drag federal law enforcement into dangerous new territory.
The attorney general is, if anything, the rare official able to stand up to both Mr. Trump and the Democratic-media establishment that loathes him. He’s also the rare person willing to subject his institution to scrutiny for its own good—and that of the country. We could use more such adults in the room.
-
All BS unless we see our deep state actors being dragged out of their homes in cuffs by tactical teams.
2019’s Adult of the Year
Attorney General William Barr has kept his promises and his independence.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 2, 2020 6:50 pm ET
Opinion: Bill Barr's Stand Up Year
Potomac Watch: Columnist Kimberley Strassel names Attorney General Bill Barr her Adult of the Year, for his rare ability to subject his institution to scrutiny, for its own good—and that of the country. Image: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Person-of-the-year awards are almost always bestowed on men and women who already meet with fawning praise. Let’s instead craft an award based on a person’s willingness to speak truth to power—whether to the press, the boss, or to partisan operators. Call it Adult of the Year. The winner: Attorney General William Barr.
President Trump nominated Mr. Barr in December 2018, and for a moment he received the respect he deserves. The press had grown accustomed to demeaning all Trump nominees, but was stymied by Mr. Barr’s impressive career and bipartisan legal support. A Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency veteran, he served as attorney general from 1990-91 with distinction. Media outlets had to acknowledge his “pedigree,” and CNN even quoted an unnamed Justice Department lawyer who had been “nervous” about a Trump pick but pronounced Mr. Barr “a great choice” because “he’s tough he’s principled and he’s independent.”
Mr. Barr remains all those things. He has been vilified precisely because he has maintained an impartial view of the Justice Department and has kept his promises. The great hope—and demand—of the Russia-collusion crowd was that Mr. Barr—as a longtime man of the institution—would circle the department’s wagons. His refusal to do so has made him a threat.
And so commenced one of the more obvious, not to mention nasty, delegitimization campaigns in modern Beltway history. Journalists and Democrats accused him of manipulating the rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in March. They pounced on his decision in May to name U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into the 2016 Trump campaign, accusing both of engaging in “conspiracy theories.”
They were particularly hysterical when Mr. Barr stated that his own view was that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s December report confirmed that the initial FBI suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion were, as he put it, “insufficient to justify the steps taken.” This is a perfectly valid position for the head of a department to take.
Yet we now find former FBI Director William Webster slamming Mr. Barr for casting unfounded “aspersions” on the FBI, and former Attorney General Eric Holder—who once described himself as President Obama’s “wingman”—declaring Mr. Barr “unfit to lead the Justice Department.”
The attacks are all pointedly designed to cast Mr. Barr as a Trump toady. Yet Mr. Barr wasn’t originally a Trump partisan. He’s 69, isn’t seeking higher office, and left a comfortable private-sector position to take a job he needs like a hole in the head. He testified that he came back because he was in a “position in life” to help “protect the independence and reputation of the department.” He meant its long-term reputation, which won’t recover absent a thorough accounting of its 2016 actions.
Importantly, he also vowed not to “be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong”—including by the White House. Despite all the criticism, not one detractor has yet provided any evidence that Mr. Barr’s decisions or comments have been anything but independent. He vowed to protect Mr. Mueller’s ability to finish his probe, just as he vowed up front to investigate the investigators. Check and check. He likewise pledged to resign if the White House directed him to engage in any illegal action, and there is no reason to believe he’d suffer the abuse Mr. Trump heaped on predecessor Jeff Sessions. Note Mr. Barr’s silence throughout Congress’s impeachment circus; if he’s acting as a personal lawyer to the president, he’s doing a crummy job.
The criticism is even more outrageous given the overwhelming evidence validating Mr. Barr’s concerns. The Horowitz report was the third excoriating former FBI Director James Comey’s tenure—on everything from “insubordinate” to “dangerous” behavior. The inspector general has referred both Mr. Comey and former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe for criminal prosecution, the former for leaking and the latter for lying. The latest report also finds the FBI manipulated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, providing it false information and withholding exculpatory details to spy—yes, spy—on a former Trump campaign adviser.
Beware the claim that it is Mr. Barr’s job to “insulate” the Justice Department and the FBI from “political pressure.” That’s code. What the critics want is for Mr. Barr to insulate those bodies from accountability—and in the process protect all those who allowed their fanatical opposition to a certain candidate to help drag federal law enforcement into dangerous new territory.
The attorney general is, if anything, the rare official able to stand up to both Mr. Trump and the Democratic-media establishment that loathes him. He’s also the rare person willing to subject his institution to scrutiny for its own good—and that of the country. We could use more such adults in the room.
-
I was going to ask rhetorically how Bolton feels about this...
"Long in the making": I take that to mean he had a hand in advocating this during his tenure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Bolton
Verified account
@AmbJohnBolton
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.
2:27 AM - 3 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1213044218689720321
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-poised-to-name-richard-grenell-as-acting-spy-chief
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-poised-to-name-richard-grenell-as-acting-spy-chief
He is a friend of Kurt Schlichter's, so that all the endorsement I need.
-
Not formally part of the Trump administration, but this thread seems like the right place nonetheless:
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/20/erik-prince-fbi-investigation-trump-barr/?utm_source=The+Intercept+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f425a2d764-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e00a5122d3-f425a2d764-133356797
-
https://deadline.com/2020/06/john-bolton-abc-news-donald-trump-martha-raddatz-1202959216/
and I liked this guy once.
I suspect Bolton will tell the truth. It will include some things Trump didn't know e.g. nuclear triad. It will include other things of embarrassment. Democrats will run wild with it. Trump team will spin it as sausage being made. The worst part will be the personal insults thrown back at Bolton. This might be a good place to start some restraint with that, but I doubt it will happen.
If this serves to weaken Trump's position with allies and enemies while in still in office, then Bolton became an anti-american sellout. I suspect it falls short of that, doesn't tell much more what we already know or assume, just more detail.
-
"The worst part will be the personal insults thrown back at Bolton. This might be a good place to start some restraint with that, but I doubt it will happen."
to my knowledge this kind of restraint has never happened once in the 3 .5 yrs
and has got to be one reason women are fleeing in droves, if one believes the polls
-
I gather that polls are dramatically underusing Reps.
-
media reporting trump not enthusiastic about second term
well I have thought it might be good if he did drop out
if not too. late for someone else (Pence?)
rather than watch him drag the whole party down
I have not been a never trumper
but there comes a time
where when I keep selling my soul because dem victories are far worse - i don't know.
we are heading for disaster electorally and financially
and the rest
-
...and he was "in the room".
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/06/23/bolton_memoir_undercuts_his_impeachment_hype_124146.html
Bolton: "I think the House Democrats built a cliff, they threw themselves off of it," he told Raddatz of ABC News. "And halfway down, they looked up and saw me, and said, 'Hey, why don't you come along?' "
-
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/03/8-democrat-myths-william-barr-debunked-between-deliberate-interruptions/
8 Democrat Myths William Barr Debunked Between Deliberate Interruptions
------------
Barr's calm demeanor of argument is something I could learn from in my own personal encounters with Leftward thinking:
"“I think your characterization of Portland (peaceful protests, etc.) is completely false,” Barr responded, and then laid out the facts..."
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/08/07/what-caused-ag-barr-to-ask-his-fbi-detail-to-make-a-quick-uturn-while-driving-through-virginia-n2573905
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/08/07/what-caused-ag-barr-to-ask-his-fbi-detail-to-make-a-quick-uturn-while-driving-through-virginia-n2573905
:roll:
-
Why the eye roll?
-
Why the eye roll?
Empty gestures as he runs out the clock. See any deep state operatives in cuffs?
-
Out at the end of the month. Seb Gorka hints on radio, 'we will find out more at the end of the month, she is not a good person.'
Previous suspicion was leaking. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/01/politics/ronald-kessler-jake-tapper-interview/index.html
-
"Tell all" books keep breaking with author's opinions instead of behind the scenes facts we didn't know.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/03/trump-appoints-larry-elder-tom-fitton-to-trump-administration/
not exactly clear what in tarnation these positions entail
though
-
I'm guessing Larry to fight the racialist horsesh*t and Tom to use his mastery of the legal facts and timeline to push the Soft Coup story.
-
https://www.villagevoice.com/2019/04/18/attorney-general-william-barr-is-the-best-reason-to-vote-for-clinton/
https://portocallpublishing.com/2020/02/17/cia-covert-operative-william-barr-nominated-by-trump-for-attorney-general-his-role-in-the-iran-contra-affair/
-
Thank You, Bill Barr
The Attorney General was the right man for the job in hyper-partisan times.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 14, 2020 8:09 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
335
Attorney General William Barr speaks in St. Louis, Oct. 15.
PHOTO: JEFF ROBERSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
William Barr resigned as Attorney General on Monday, effective Dec. 23, and he’s certainly earned the right to leave early. He has been the right man at the right time for that difficult job, with the principles and toughness to make difficult decisions despite bitter Democrats in Congress and a willful President Trump.
Mr. Barr had already been AG once so he didn’t need the title. He took the job in a Washington marked by no-limits partisanship knowing that he would be criticized no matter what he did. But he wanted to clean up a Justice Department that he rightly knew had been tainted by a corrupt FBI under James Comey and political appointees in both parties who lacked the courage or tenacity to take responsibility for hard prosecutorial judgments.
His achievements included navigating the end of the Robert Mueller probe while protecting the office of the Presidency from unconstitutional conclusions about obstruction of justice. Future Presidents of both parties will thank him.
He was willing to endure media and Democratic smears by taking fresh looks at old investigations. This included hiring U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine how the FBI could decide to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign as a Russian front. His release of documents has helped to show the FBI probe began in partisan scheming and unlawful practices, and Mr. Durham is staying on the job and may have more to report and indictments.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Mr. Barr also had the guts to ask another U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Jensen, to re-examine Mr. Mueller’s prosecution of Michael Flynn. That probe turned up more malpractice and a decision to dismiss charges that never should have been brought. Mr. Barr used the lessons of these misguided probes to impose new rules and limits on political investigations.
We disagreed with Mr. Barr on the weak antitrust case against Google. But he has been a champion of free speech and religious liberty when both are under attack by progressives. His interventions on Covid-19 restrictions against houses of worship supported lawsuits that have been vindicated at the Supreme Court and forced governors to consider the First Amendment’s limit on their power.
Perhaps Mr. Barr’s greatest contribution was speaking truth to Mr. Trump, who wanted his tormentors prosecuted whether or not the evidence warranted. This resistance chafed on Mr. Trump as Mr. Barr’s tenure went on, and especially when Mr. Durham declined to bring indictments or leak evidence before the presidential election. This was the right decision and shows Mr. Barr’s adherence to principle.
Mr. Barr recently said publicly that his investigators had not found enough evidence of voter fraud to overturn the presidential election, which was true but infuriated Mr. Trump. These run-ins influenced Mr. Barr’s decision to leave early. As has so often been the case with this President and his advisers, Mr. Trump never appreciated all that Mr. Barr did for his Presidency and the country.
-
I should wait until the end of the day to say this, but Trump lost the House, lost the Senate and lost the White House. That is his legacy.
It's part of a valid criticism I have made of Obama, so fair is fair, that's what happened with Trump.
ccp was right. His personality, shall we say, lost it for us in the end. His bold ability to get his own message out won it for a time, much was accomplished. See our Trump accomplishments thread. Some of that will be reversed.
I blame the hatred and polarity on the other side, but he fed on it, made it worse, never broke through it.
He used what we call big tech, the Twitter platform, to get his message out. Now twitter takes sides, not ours.
I can't watch a youtube on election fraud without a caption from youtube telling me what the 'real truth' is. Ditto for facebook which I don't use, but they strongly take political sides, not ours. Presidential bullying didn't fix any of that; it made it worse.
I don't think any other Republican would have won in 2016, but right now I don't know if we're better off for having gone through this.
Even on election fraud, he and his team make a strong case, worked as hard as they could - at the expense of other things that could have, should have happened, but persuaded half the Republicans and none of the Democrats. The elections were state run, but the election happened on his watch. If all this was true, they should have been all over it in real time.
Of course, because of deep state sabotaging him, he never fully formed a team that could carry out all that needed to be done.
Still, he had a huge number of important and amazing accomplishments. More on his legacy later in that thread.
-
".ccp was right"
I wish Katherine would say that more.....
that said I am totally disheartened
it could be for the rest of my remaining years I will have a government that works for others , and against me
They don't represent tax payers they don't represent our interests over seas , etc
we have a media that gives us propaganda daily that calls me a nazi
big tech's power over us just keeps increasing etc
I would be shocked if we don't see DC and PR as states
and electoral college abolished
maybe the SC to 13 judges - 4 new liberals to make a majority of 7 to 6
and illegals and others from countries coming over by the 10s of millions
I would not call this a nightmare
I call it a night terror.
pray for bitcoin :wink:
-
what about adding dc pr as states for more welfare food stamps
transfer of wealth and secure more Democrat votes
what about abolishing the EC
can we really count on Joe Manchin ?
-
Adding DC as state I understand is unconstitutional, like that would stop them. With Georgia, maybe they don't need PR. Abolish EC is anti constitutional.
No we can't count on Joe Manchin. That's why we needed 2 in GA, 1 in MN, MI and AZ all within reach would make 55, plus the White House which gives the tie breaker. Or the House, needed about 4 more. But no.
-
I guess we must VOTE HARDER!
Adding DC as state I understand is unconstitutional, like that would stop them. With Georgia, maybe they don't need PR. Abolish is is anti constitutional.
No we can't count on Joe Manchin. That's why we needed 2 in GA, 1 in MN, MI and AZ all within reach would make 55, plus the White House which gives the tie breaker. Or the House, needed about 4 more. But no.
-
".No we can't count on Joe Manchin. That's why we needed 2 in GA, 1 in MN, MI and AZ all within reach would make 55, plus the White House which gives the tie breaker. Or the House, needed about 4 more. But no."
just a coincidence all these wins we needed - we were ahead and always same pattern
urban voting districts
**always last to finish counting
** always delays
**and suddenly just enough votes brought in and counted to pull the Dems *just * ahead
wow the Stacy Abrams is a genius
and we are just stupid
-
Doug wrote his legacy will be he lost the WH , the Senate and we already were losing the Congress
sadly now , like it or not, his legacy will forever be the Capital riot
and death of 4 people
the left will let future generations know anything else about his
They will be far harder on him then they ever were to Nixon
which of course they went bonkers about
it is not LBJ and JFK who is linked to Vietnam - it is tied to Nixon
through watergate though two separate stories
the Leftist tie them together to make the Republican who gets the blame
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/betsy-devos-becomes-second-cabinet-secretary-to-resign-over-riots/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=22593695
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/betsy-devos-becomes-second-cabinet-secretary-to-resign-over-riots/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=22593695
Profiles in virtue signalling
-
I wonder if Pres. Trump has a few surprises coming, in the positive sense of governing, before giving up the office.
-
such as family
and
self pardons?
the Left will hunt them down for the rest of their lives
sadly
-
I wonder if Pres. Trump has a few surprises coming, in the positive sense of governing, before giving up the office.
He can declassify a few things, if the deep state lets him.
Let's not forget who really runs things.
-
Family and self pardons?
Sounds fair enough. Two and a half years of Mueller should count for time served against whatever they might find.
-
Famous people reading the forum.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/01/15/it-begins-trump-to-declassify-foot-high-stack-of-obamagate-documents-n1387318
-
https://populist.press/pence-just-backstabbed-trump-big-time/
Let me set the record straight
Trump back stabbed Pence
Like I said , once DJT leaves town he will not have friends
and as soon as we can someone who will fight like him without the baggage
his ardent followers will leave him for the history books too
-
come on man , sing along:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpqqSrLYIM
-
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1384650051474141188
Thank You, Bill Barr
The Attorney General was the right man for the job in hyper-partisan times.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 14, 2020 8:09 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
335
Attorney General William Barr speaks in St. Louis, Oct. 15.
PHOTO: JEFF ROBERSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
William Barr resigned as Attorney General on Monday, effective Dec. 23, and he’s certainly earned the right to leave early. He has been the right man at the right time for that difficult job, with the principles and toughness to make difficult decisions despite bitter Democrats in Congress and a willful President Trump.
Mr. Barr had already been AG once so he didn’t need the title. He took the job in a Washington marked by no-limits partisanship knowing that he would be criticized no matter what he did. But he wanted to clean up a Justice Department that he rightly knew had been tainted by a corrupt FBI under James Comey and political appointees in both parties who lacked the courage or tenacity to take responsibility for hard prosecutorial judgments.
His achievements included navigating the end of the Robert Mueller probe while protecting the office of the Presidency from unconstitutional conclusions about obstruction of justice. Future Presidents of both parties will thank him.
He was willing to endure media and Democratic smears by taking fresh looks at old investigations. This included hiring U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine how the FBI could decide to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign as a Russian front. His release of documents has helped to show the FBI probe began in partisan scheming and unlawful practices, and Mr. Durham is staying on the job and may have more to report and indictments.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Mr. Barr also had the guts to ask another U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Jensen, to re-examine Mr. Mueller’s prosecution of Michael Flynn. That probe turned up more malpractice and a decision to dismiss charges that never should have been brought. Mr. Barr used the lessons of these misguided probes to impose new rules and limits on political investigations.
We disagreed with Mr. Barr on the weak antitrust case against Google. But he has been a champion of free speech and religious liberty when both are under attack by progressives. His interventions on Covid-19 restrictions against houses of worship supported lawsuits that have been vindicated at the Supreme Court and forced governors to consider the First Amendment’s limit on their power.
Perhaps Mr. Barr’s greatest contribution was speaking truth to Mr. Trump, who wanted his tormentors prosecuted whether or not the evidence warranted. This resistance chafed on Mr. Trump as Mr. Barr’s tenure went on, and especially when Mr. Durham declined to bring indictments or leak evidence before the presidential election. This was the right decision and shows Mr. Barr’s adherence to principle.
Mr. Barr recently said publicly that his investigators had not found enough evidence of voter fraud to overturn the presidential election, which was true but infuriated Mr. Trump. These run-ins influenced Mr. Barr’s decision to leave early. As has so often been the case with this President and his advisers, Mr. Trump never appreciated all that Mr. Barr did for his Presidency and the country.
-
Zang! Nice follow up!
-
"future presidents will thank him"
so says the above WSJ article from 12/20.
all the while @ present
the Harris/biden DOJ
is fast becoming a Democrat Party weapon used under the false pretense of being for "social justice":
https://kstp.com/news/us-department-of-justice-to-announce-minneapolis-police-department-probe-after-chauvin-guilty-verdict/6081991/
We can nowthank [sic]
Baraq and 3rd term team for their DOJ service to this country.
I doubt though you will find any law reviews that will tell this in any other way
-
https://hughhewitt.com/jared-kushner-on-his-new-book-breaking-history/
(transcript)
https://salempodcastnetwork.com/podcasts/hugh-hewitt-podcast
(podcast interview not posted yet?)
Worthwhile listen. A look inside the T administration.
Kushner comes across the exact opposite of how he is portrayed. Smart and pragmatic, humble.
-
I came to this thread just now to say essentially to say the same thing. He had an extensive interview last night on Martha McCallum (whose show I watch pretty regularly and who I think is a quality interviewer) in which he really impressed me.
I have tossed much snark his way here on this forum, and by extension on President Trump, and now I reconsider.
That said, taking the $2B from the Saudis for his investment fund bothers me mightily. How is that different from what Billary did while she was out of office, but looking to get back in?
-
Crafty:
...
"That said, taking the $2B from the Saudis for his investment fund bothers me mightily. How is that different from what Billary did while she was out of office, but looking to get back in?"
-------
You are right about a bad appearance of conflicted interests and I am proud of how we try to hold our own side accountable, not just attack Democrats.
In the Hewitt interview, he talks about taking extra steps to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing so as to not further empower his critics, while working in government.
One question in this case, is Jared headed back into government? He must think no.
On the other side of the coin, this is not Hunter and Burisma. Jared has real contacts and real business skills. I imagine he impressed a few people he worked with. Also, as pro athletes say when holding out for more millions, he has a right to feed his family.
If he runs himself, it looks like he won't, or helps again in a future Trump administration, this, if true, will come back to haunt him.
Two standards. It didn't seem to hurt HRC or Biden.
-
https://hughhewitt.com/jared-kushner-on-his-new-book-breaking-history/
(transcript)
https://salempodcastnetwork.com/podcasts/hugh-hewitt-podcast
(podcast interview not posted yet?)
Worthwhile listen. A look inside the T administration.
Kushner comes across the exact opposite of how he is portrayed. Smart and pragmatic, humble.
Hewitt is 100% boomer cringe who should have retired a decade ago. I unfortunately woke up to hear some of the doddering Hewitt tongue-bathe the little slimeball.
-
https://hughhewitt.com/jared-kushner-on-his-new-book-breaking-history/
(transcript)
https://salempodcastnetwork.com/podcasts/hugh-hewitt-podcast
(podcast interview not posted yet?)
Worthwhile listen. A look inside the T administration.
Kushner comes across the exact opposite of how he is portrayed. Smart and pragmatic, humble.
Hewitt is 100% boomer cringe who should have retired a decade ago. I unfortunately woke up to hear some of the doddering Hewitt tongue-bathe the little slimeball.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/25/how-jared-kushner-and-john-kelly-subverted-trumps-agenda/
-
Doug wrote :
"Two standards. It didn't seem to hurt HRC or Biden."
of course we know those standards do not apply to anything Republican
indeed they mock us whenever this is pointed out:
"oh, but her emails !"
-
Thank you for that GM-- from Peter Navarro yet!
-
Thank you for that GM-- from Peter Navarro yet!
.
Settling the score. I think Kushner called Navarro a non-precision guided missile.
I liked at least one thing Navarro did. Also I would point out he is / was a Democrat. It's more likely that Kushner subverted Navarro's agenda.
Kushner does not claim a political party other than pragmatist.
-
Navarro was the tip of the spear for Trump on trade issues-- definitely pist off the libertarian free traders at the WSJ!
Wrote what I thought was perhaps the very best articulation of vote fraud in 2020. Can anyone here lay hands on it?
-
Navarro was the tip of the spear for Trump on trade issues-- definitely pist off the libertarian free traders at the WSJ!
Wrote what I thought was perhaps the very best articulation of vote fraud in 2020. Can anyone here lay hands on it?
Right. He was anti-trade before we had the China trade issue.
Here's the report:
https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=1709.msg131082#msg131082
https://www.larslarson.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20.pdf
Navarro Report, Immaculate Deception, 6 dimensions of irregularities across 6 key battleground states
« Reply #1503 on: December 26, 2020,
(Hundreds of footnotes at the link.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities
The Navarro Report
Executive Summary
This report assesses the fairness and integrity of the 2020 Presidential Election by examining six
dimensions of alleged election irregularities across six key battleground states. Evidence used to
conduct this assessment includes more than 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings, thousands of affidavits
and declarations,
testimony in a variety of state venues, published analyses by think tanks and
legal centers, videos and photos, public comments, and extensive press coverage.
The matrix below indicates that significant irregularities occurred across all six battleground states
and across all six dimensions of election irregularities. This finding lends credence to the claim
that the election may well have been stolen from President Donald J. Trump.
From the findings of this report, it is possible to infer what may well have been a coordinated
strategy to effectively stack the election deck against the Trump-Pence ticket.
... The rest at both links.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also see 2000 mules.
-
THANK YOU.
-
Thank you for that GM-- from Peter Navarro yet!
.
Settling the score. I think Kushner called Navarro a non-precision guided missile.
I liked at least one thing Navarro did. Also I would point out he is / was a Democrat. It's more likely that Kushner subverted Navarro's agenda.
Kushner does not claim a political party other than pragmatist.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushner-are-finally-registered-republicans-2020-3
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=jared+kushner
-
[quote author=G M li
https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushner-are-finally-registered-republicans-2020-3
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=jared+kushner
----------------
We need to be publicly welcoming (and privately suspicious) of former Democrats.
Ronald Reagan turned out to be a good one, but I cringed every time he praised FDR.
-
[quote author=G M li
https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushner-are-finally-registered-republicans-2020-3
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=jared+kushner
----------------
We need to be publicly welcoming (and privately suspicious) of former Democrats.
Ronald Reagan turned out to be a good one, but I cringed every time he praised FDR.
Reagan had a long journey.
Kushner's conversion was quite rapid, and of interesting timing, no?
-
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/dershowitz-doj-warrant/2022/08/26/id/1084799/
what I don't understand is why didn't trump just send back the top secret documents
why fight this for no real reason ( or was there ? )
this is what I am so tired of.
we can argue all day long with back and forth legal arguments
etc
but there is no apparent reason why Trump needed to give the LEFT the opportunity
to campaign on this and shyster him all night and day.
Why could he just not return secret documents and we would not have to even deal with this distraction
as always it is about Trump NOT the policies
Is any one else sick of this totally unnecessary endless Trumpian distraction s here or just me ?
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/114/438/634/original/53f291cee11fe50a.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/114/438/634/original/53f291cee11fe50a.jpg)
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/dershowitz-doj-warrant/2022/08/26/id/1084799/
what I don't understand is why didn't trump just send back the top secret documents
why fight this for no real reason ( or was there ? )
this is what I am so tired of.
we can argue all day long with back and forth legal arguments
etc
but there is no apparent reason why Trump needed to give the LEFT the opportunity
to campaign on this and shyster him all night and day.
Why could he just not return secret documents and we would not have to even deal with this distraction
as always it is about Trump NOT the policies
Is any one else sick of this totally unnecessary endless Trumpian distraction s here or just me ?
-
Exclusive: Peter Navarro Exposes the China Apologists Inside The Trump Administration
Navarro explains how Jared Kushner & Steven Mnuchin went soft on China
Emerald Robinson
Sep 5
Note: Peter Navarro served as the Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy in the Trump White House. This article is adapted from his new book Taking Back Trump’s America: Why We Lost the White House and How We’ll Win It Back (Bombardier).
It is not like Jared Kushner is hiding what he did. He openly boasts about how he — and a coterie of unregistered foreign lobbyists from Wall Street — effectively scuttled successful trade negotiations with Communist China.
In Kushner’s view, the compromise “Phase One” trade deal signed by President Trump with Communist China in January 2020 in the East Wing of the White House was a “massive victory” for America. In fact, this deal — which very quickly and derisively became known as the “Skinny Deal” — was a pale shadow of the one the United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and I had worked so hard on. And, as I sternly warned at that time, even with this Skinny Deal, the Communist Chinese would never meet their obligations — and they never did.
The problem that Lighthizer and I always faced in the West Wing trying to take a tough trade position — whether on China or NAFTA or whatever — was the back channeling of both Jared Kushner and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Kushner-Mnuchin backchanneling was (in part) with their Wall Street handlers like Steve Schwarzman and John Thornton. And with Communist China, both Kushner and Mnuchin would directly contact the Chinese negotiators themselves, often without disclosing their communications in a timely way to Lighthizer, myself, or the other member of the West Wing’s trade team, Wilbur Ross.
The practical result of this Kushner-Mnuchin backchanneling was to severely weaken our negotiating positions. This was true whether it was with the Chinese on tariffs, or with the Mexicans or Canadians on NAFTA or steel tariffs.
To be clear here, the Trump White House had only one Trade Representative confirmed by the Senate — and only one Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy in the White House. Trade was our turf, and Lighthizer should have been both the unquestioned czar and quarterback leading the Trump show. Yet Mnuchin and Kushner not only constantly intruded on the trade issue — they both thought they had more authority on this issue than either Lighthizer or myself, as well as Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.
Just think about such Kushner-Mnuchin backchanneling for a minute: a rug merchant like BlackRock’s Steve Schwarzman (who they regularly used as an intermediary) stood to gain tens of billions of dollars with his company’s investments in Communist China if he could simply stop Donald Trump from imposing tough tariffs on the Chinese.
Yet, this is one of the main guys that Kushner and Mnuchin relied on.
In fact, such backchanneling is obscene on his face. What these Wall Street “go-betweens” did seems to be the very definition of foreign lobbying. Yet I have never seen people like Steve Schwartzman or Larry Fink or John Thorton register as foreign lobbyists as the law would seemingly dictate.
Just why were Mnuchin and Kushner so adamant about blocking a tough China policy? After battling these two Wall Street Transactionalists for four full years in the White House, and then seeing each of them cash in on their connections after their government service (and I use the term “service” loosely) it is pretty damn clear these New York liberals were simply building their own networks of potential foreign investors for the next stages of their entrepreneurial lives — and doing so by selling out American jobs.
The other thing that was so unsettling about Kushner was his naïve bromance with Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State for Richard Nixon. Kushner openly confesses that he “leaned on [the] wisdom, knowledge, and graciousness” of Kissinger who was, in truth, a senile old man who long ago sold his soul to the Chinese Communist devil — and who sold out American workers and American national security interests in the process.
History needs to be clear about this: after helping Nixon open Communist China during the Nixon years (while abandoning South Vietnam), Kissinger proceeded to make a large fortune helping the Communists gain footholds and inroads into the US economy and political system. Perhaps that is the most important lesson Kushner took away from Kissinger — how to successfully grift after government life.
==================================
ET
Why We Lost the White House’: Former Trump Adviser Peter Navarro ‘Pulls No Punches’ in New Book
By Frank Fang and Steve Lance September 8, 2022 Updated: September 8, 2022biggersmaller Print
Former White House aide Peter Navarro said bad personnel choices doomed the Trump administration.
“I call it the Achilles’ heel of the boss. I love the boss despite these bad personnel. He’s the best president we’ve ever had,” Navarro said, referring to Donald Trump, during a recent interview on the “Capitol Report” program on NTD News, a sister media outlet of The Epoch Times.
He added that Trump’s 2020 presidential election campaign must not be the “prologue” of a potential 2024 run for the presidency.
Navarro was sharing what he wrote in his new book, “Taking Back Trump’s America: Why We Lost the White House and How We’ll Win,” which is set to be published on Sept. 20.
In his book, Navarro wrote about how Trump, soon after becoming elected, began surrounding himself with “globalists, Never-Trump Republicans, wild-eyed [House] Freedom Caucus nut jobs,” and “Wall Street transactionalists,” who would “come to plant so many poisonous Bad Policy Trees” during his administration.
Navarro, who said he was one of three senior advisers that stayed with Trump from the 2016 campaign until the transition of power, added that he “pulls no punches” in his book when commenting on Trump’s mistakes in personnel choices.
During the interview, Navarro named Rex Tillerson and Jim Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of state and secretary of defense, respectively, as examples of Trump’s “stupid choices” in what would become part of what he called a “Cabinet of Clowns.”
According to his book, Tillerson and Mattis had opposed Trump’s effort to renegotiate a trade deal with South Korea, on the grounds that doing so could upset either “the delicate military calculus” or “diplomatic alliance” between the two nations.
Despite their opposition, Trump and then-Korean President Moon Jae-in signed a revised free trade agreement in September 2018, which was welcomed by U.S. automakers and meat exporters.
Trump had said the old agreement, which was approved by Congress in 2011 and went into effect the following year, was a “horrible deal” made by Hillary Clinton, who promoted the final version of the trade pact as secretary of state under the Obama administration.
According to the U.S. Trade Office, the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea increased from $16.7 billion in 2012 to $27.7 billion in 2016.
China
One of the “Never-Trumpers” Navarro mentioned in his book was Steven Mnuchin, former secretary of the treasury under the Trump administration.
Navarro said Mnuchin and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, “single-handedly destroyed” Trump’s China policy “with their back dealings with Wall Street and the Communist Chinese themselves.”
“They did it for simply to feather their own nests,” Navarro said.
In his book, Navarro wrote that Mnuchin “always refused” when Trump asked his treasury secretary to label China as a currency manipulator. Mnuchin eventually agreed to slap such a label on China on Aug. 5, 2019.
However, Navarro said the timing was too late. He explained in his book that if Mnuchin had agreed to make the designation against China in January 2017, it would “have struck right at the heart of one of the worst abuses of Communist China,” and it would have given U.S. officials “an invaluable bargaining chip for the China trade negotiations.”
The U.S. Treasury Department removed the designation on Jan. 13, 2020, two days before Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed a phase-one trade deal.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) didn’t fulfill its promises under the trade deal. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), China bought only 57 percent of the U.S. exports it had promised to buy.
“The reality of that deal was the skinny deal. That’s what it was,” Navarro told NTD. “It was a pale shadow of what it should have done.”
Navarro said Kushner was at fault for the bad trade deal.
“He was double-dealing with Steve Schwarzman on Wall Street and John Thornton, these guys, along with the Chinese Communist Party negotiators, behind the backs of me and [former U.S. Trade Representative Robert] Lighthizer, and even the president to come up with this bad deal,” Navarro said.
Schwarzman is the chief executive officer of U.S.-based investment firm The Blackstone Group, and Thornton is the executive chairman of Canada-based mining company Barrick Gold and a former Goldman Sachs president.
If Trump were to become president again, Navarro suggested the United States should decouple from China.
“I can assure you one of the first things he’s going to do … is lockout tariffs on Communist China,” Navarro said. “We’ll just cut the cord from them because every dollar we pay at Walmart for made-in-China, made-in-Communist-China product, it goes into their military war machine to take out Taiwan.”
“I think it’s really important if we’re going to win back the White House 2024, that we govern over the next four years in a way which gets things done,” Navarro continued. “Time is precious, when you’re in the White House, as we learned, and there were things we left on the table that I wish we hadn’t.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to Mattis, Mnuchin, Kushner, Schwarzman, and Thornton for comment.
-
Judges aren't "Administration" but this thread seems the best fit:
===============
Trump Strikes Out Before His Judges
Guess whose appointees keep putting the law above political loyalty?
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Dec. 2, 2022 6:52 pm ET
Remember how liberals claimed that Donald Trump’s judicial appointees would serve as legal bodyguards, shielding him in his post-Presidency? Sorry to disappoint.
On Thursday an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel dismissed Mr. Trump’s objections to the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search and district Judge Aileen Cannon’s appointment of a special master to review seized documents. The panel included Chief Judge William Pryor, who was appointed by George W. Bush, and Trump-appointees Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher.
“The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant,” the panel wrote. “Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.”
Liberals claimed that the special master appointment in September by Judge Cannon, also a Trump appointee, augured the end of an independent judiciary. You don’t hear them recanting their prophesies now that she has been overruled by two other Trump appointees. Nor their political attacks on Judges Brasher and Grant when they were nominated.
The NAACP called Judge Brasher’s record “one of extremism and bias, rather than impartiality and fairness.” The Alliance for Justice accused Judge Grant of “advocating against civil rights, women’s rights, health care, and workers’ rights.” The chief distinction of Trump appointees, the outfit said, is “absolute adherence to right-wing ideology.”
How about adherence to the law and respect for the separation of powers? Last week the Supreme Court, which includes three Trump appointees, declined to block the release of Mr. Trump’s tax returns to Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Last year federal district Judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, also ruled against the former President. Mr. Trump was “wrong on the law,” Judge McFadden wrote. “A long line of Supreme Court cases requires great deference to facially valid congressional inquiries.” He added that “courts are loath to second guess congressional motives or duly enacted statutes.”
Mr. Trump often complains about judges who rule against him, including at the Supreme Court. But the truth is that the former President consistently appointed judges whose first loyalty is to the law and Constitution. Democrats and the press corps won’t credit the Trump judges for these independent rulings, but we thought readers might like to know.
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/404444.php
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1384650051474141188
Thank You, Bill Barr
The Attorney General was the right man for the job in hyper-partisan times.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 14, 2020 8:09 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
335
Attorney General William Barr speaks in St. Louis, Oct. 15.
PHOTO: JEFF ROBERSON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
William Barr resigned as Attorney General on Monday, effective Dec. 23, and he’s certainly earned the right to leave early. He has been the right man at the right time for that difficult job, with the principles and toughness to make difficult decisions despite bitter Democrats in Congress and a willful President Trump.
Mr. Barr had already been AG once so he didn’t need the title. He took the job in a Washington marked by no-limits partisanship knowing that he would be criticized no matter what he did. But he wanted to clean up a Justice Department that he rightly knew had been tainted by a corrupt FBI under James Comey and political appointees in both parties who lacked the courage or tenacity to take responsibility for hard prosecutorial judgments.
His achievements included navigating the end of the Robert Mueller probe while protecting the office of the Presidency from unconstitutional conclusions about obstruction of justice. Future Presidents of both parties will thank him.
He was willing to endure media and Democratic smears by taking fresh looks at old investigations. This included hiring U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine how the FBI could decide to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign as a Russian front. His release of documents has helped to show the FBI probe began in partisan scheming and unlawful practices, and Mr. Durham is staying on the job and may have more to report and indictments.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Mr. Barr also had the guts to ask another U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Jensen, to re-examine Mr. Mueller’s prosecution of Michael Flynn. That probe turned up more malpractice and a decision to dismiss charges that never should have been brought. Mr. Barr used the lessons of these misguided probes to impose new rules and limits on political investigations.
We disagreed with Mr. Barr on the weak antitrust case against Google. But he has been a champion of free speech and religious liberty when both are under attack by progressives. His interventions on Covid-19 restrictions against houses of worship supported lawsuits that have been vindicated at the Supreme Court and forced governors to consider the First Amendment’s limit on their power.
Perhaps Mr. Barr’s greatest contribution was speaking truth to Mr. Trump, who wanted his tormentors prosecuted whether or not the evidence warranted. This resistance chafed on Mr. Trump as Mr. Barr’s tenure went on, and especially when Mr. Durham declined to bring indictments or leak evidence before the presidential election. This was the right decision and shows Mr. Barr’s adherence to principle.
Mr. Barr recently said publicly that his investigators had not found enough evidence of voter fraud to overturn the presidential election, which was true but infuriated Mr. Trump. These run-ins influenced Mr. Barr’s decision to leave early. As has so often been the case with this President and his advisers, Mr. Trump never appreciated all that Mr. Barr did for his Presidency and the country.
-
War on Rule of Law would be much better thread.
-
War on Rule of Law would be much better thread.
Just linking to what had been posted previously.
Remember when you thought Barr was a good guy and I told you he was a deep state asset meant to protect the deep state?
-
Life often gives us opportunities to change our mind.
This includes you! :-D
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2024/01/15/the-republican-nominee-needs-to-pick-his-administration-right-away-n2633584
of course this is premature but interesting to fantasize about.......
Nikki for VP !? :-o
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2024/01/15/the-republican-nominee-needs-to-pick-his-administration-right-away-n2633584
of course this is premature but interesting to fantasize about.......
Nikki for VP !? :-o
The picks are all good and the strategy is excellent.
He's right, Nikki might help the most getting elected, a pretty good fit, ready to serve, assuming she takes second place in the primaries, she sort of deserves it. And RDS is basically ineligible, that same-state thing.
Nothing matters if not elected, and don't assume Dems are running someone weak like ... Joe Biden again.
Schlichter: "He (Hugh Hewitt) is neutral while I am a DeSantis guy"
Hewitt is neutral because a) he wants to be (and was) a debate moderator, and b) he loses audience by openly taking sides. Otherwise he is likely a DeSantis guy, possibly Haley.
Amazing how many of these top pundits prefer DeSantis while the rank and file don't see it that way. Oh well.
O'Brien, Pompeo, Cotton, Mnuchin, all excellent picks. Vivek in Buttigieg's place. Even Ben Sasse in education, although I think he hated Trump so that won't fly.
Morgan Ortagus for press Secretary, yes.
From Hugh Hewitt list: Lanhee Chen, Doug Burgum, Kevin Hassett, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, all good.
Let's roll.
-
"Vivek in Buttigieg's place. Even Ben Sasse in education,"
Education would be a far better fit for Vivek IMHO.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
-
Lessons Trump has learned
Washington will change radically come 2025
By Chris Stewart and Christian Whiton
It appears increasingly likely that Washington is about to face a reality check it hasn’t seen since 2017. The changes will come quickly and cut deeply. The consequence will be that Washington will be guided by drastically different personnel and policies. Though a Republican capture of the White House is not a foregone conclusion, the reality is that with seven months to go until the election, President Biden finds himself in a lamentable situation. This reality is best synopsized by the fact that former President Donald Trump now leads in averages of polls in all seven swing states that will determine who will be the next president. And Mr. Trump doesn’t need to win them all to win the presidency.
Of course, much can change between now and the election. But will it? At this point, public perceptions of the candidates seem to be as solid as concrete, with voters deeply familiar with the policies and styles of both men. To the extent that voters change their perceptions over the next seven months, the most likely catalyst will be Mr. Biden’s declining cognitive state.
Americans are livid that nearly onethird of their buying power and savings have been wiped out by inflation, which Mr. Biden’s taxborrow- and-spend budget proposals promise to continue. American prestige and power have been diminished around the world. Our southern border is a disaster. Mr. Biden seems to care more about illegal immigrants than the rights and prosperity of Americans. On cultural issues, can anyone doubt that Mr. Biden and his “woke” staff side with the transgender activists who shouted “We’re coming for your children” last summer in New York?
The Democrats’ chances of holding or improving their position in Congress are equally dubious. They hold their majority in the Senate by a single seat. And they must defend 23 Senate seats, with Republicans having to defend only 10, none of which is seriously vulnerable. And the closely divided House is likely to follow the result of the presidential race.
Taking all this into account, it’s within reason to expect Republicans to capture both the White House and Congress.
The next Trump presidency, however, will be radically different from his first administration. Mr. Trump has learned a lot of lessons. And they will be applied.
For starters, Mr. Trump will hit the ground running. He would be the first president since Grover Cleveland, who served two nonconsecutive terms, not to face a steep learning curve to perform the duties of chief executive. Mr. Trump’s Cabinet and senior advisers will consist of some familiar faces among the successes of his first term.
Still, he will be free of those who secretly opposed his agenda or dishonestly dragged their feet through the slog as they embedded in the deep state. The same will also be true among the 4,000 political appointments that a president’s personnel operation manages. No more swamp critters waiting around for the next big sinecure — just those who want to help Mr. Trump fulfill the mission of draining the swamp. There will also be a greater sense of urgency. Mr. Trump will know that time is of the essence, with the midterms and lame-duck status just a few years away. Expect the president to move decisively and determinedly to implement his agenda.
A Republican-led Congress, too, will be different. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced he will not seek reelection to his leadership post. In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson’s quiet and composed effectiveness under the most trying circumstances is promising. Working through legislative vehicles that do not require 60 votes in the Senate, a Republican Congress could decisively help Mr. Trump get his team in place and enact lasting policies that will radically correct our nation’s course at home and abroad.
Mr. Trump will owe little to the establishment powers on either the right or left. The traditional policy ecosystem in Washington, which includes the media, think tanks, lobbying firms and the deep state itself, will have significantly diminished power. A new generation of leaders will fill key roles and make key decisions.
Change is coming, and it’s going to be radical. The challenges that lie before us demand nothing less