Author Topic: The Trump Transition/Administration  (Read 146423 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 02:39:51 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #252 on: April 17, 2017, 04:05:41 AM »

   
"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.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #253 on: April 17, 2017, 04:11:05 AM »
Isn't that the one Christie put in jail?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Administration, works, Jared, liberal money in WH
« Reply #254 on: April 17, 2017, 06:29:16 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Trump Administration's first 100 days, Where's the beef?
« Reply #256 on: April 20, 2017, 01:56:32 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 04:42:48 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Infighting cools
« Reply #260 on: April 25, 2017, 08:35:43 AM »
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.  


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
The Trump Administration, Coulter, Build the wall
« Reply #262 on: April 27, 2017, 06:38:06 AM »
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/
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 06:39:55 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Administration, Coulter, Build the wall
« Reply #263 on: April 27, 2017, 06:40:51 AM »
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/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Administration, Coulter, Build the wall
« Reply #264 on: April 27, 2017, 07:34:10 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #265 on: April 27, 2017, 07:36:06 AM »
"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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #266 on: April 27, 2017, 10:20:12 PM »
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.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Bannon back in support role?
« Reply #268 on: April 29, 2017, 04:34:31 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #269 on: May 04, 2017, 04:27:38 AM »
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/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
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

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Why Comey fired now
« Reply #271 on: May 10, 2017, 04:40:50 AM »
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

« Last Edit: May 10, 2017, 04:45:39 AM by ccp »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Why Comey fired now
« Reply #273 on: May 10, 2017, 07:49:48 AM »
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



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration, James Comey
« Reply #274 on: May 10, 2017, 09:46:53 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Crats have hard asses . Cans have cotton tails
« Reply #275 on: May 10, 2017, 01:50:35 PM »
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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Jonah's take on reasons for leaks
« Reply #277 on: May 12, 2017, 01:36:11 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 02:06:46 PM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Jonah's take on reasons for leaks
« Reply #278 on: May 12, 2017, 04:49:52 PM »
Leaking classified information is a crime.

But when the 'leak' is false information, it is not a crime.  

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
Comey-Hillary Duet
« Reply #279 on: May 14, 2017, 10:49:34 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
Former CIA Director Hayden on Kushner
« Reply #280 on: May 29, 2017, 06:03:22 AM »


“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?”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
NRO on Kushner
« Reply #281 on: May 30, 2017, 09:29:58 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 10:49:27 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
Trump discontent with Sessions
« Reply #282 on: June 05, 2017, 08:23:00 PM »
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.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
NRO: Trump Administration Turnover
« Reply #283 on: June 07, 2017, 09:53:39 AM »
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.”
 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #284 on: June 07, 2017, 12:48:23 PM »
"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. 




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #290 on: July 01, 2017, 09:26:19 AM »
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.   




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #291 on: July 02, 2017, 12:22:37 PM »
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/
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 12:28:46 PM by ccp »


rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #293 on: July 03, 2017, 04:32:38 AM »
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.   

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #294 on: July 03, 2017, 06:34:59 AM »
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.    



The people with no decency try for their "Have you no decency" gambit once again.   :roll:
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 09:14:54 AM by G M »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #295 on: July 03, 2017, 08:45:39 AM »
"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.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2017, 08:50:32 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #296 on: July 03, 2017, 09:03:11 AM »
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.
 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Here's How To Deal With Trump's Tweets: Stop Caring About Them
« Reply #297 on: July 03, 2017, 09:20:13 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19755
    • View Profile
More Fed employees disgruntled
« Reply #298 on: July 07, 2017, 05:29:01 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 05:50:43 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72249
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Transition/Administration
« Reply #299 on: July 07, 2017, 02:40:07 PM »
I saw that-- the mind boggles at the clueless sense of entitlement and lack of responsibility.