Trump 20: Sauron Doesn't Seem So Bad After All

[Destiny]

Continued from here:

I'm still fucking pissed about the god tweet, if anyone is keeping score at home. 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is so very true: "Boy Scout James Comey is no match for Donald Trump"

Spoiler

As it turns out, Donald Trump is the hope-and-change president.

According to James B. Comey, Trump hoped that the then-FBI director would find a way to drop his investigation of ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn and help blow away “the cloud” concerning the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia. When Comey didn’t, Trump changed Comey — right out of a job.

“You’re fired,” the apprentice-president bravely conveyed to Comey via the very news media he so abhors, except when he doesn’t. Was Trump’s “hope” a “direction,” as Comey testified Thursday that he took it to mean? As in, The Don hopes ol’ Jimmy does the “right” thing? Or was it simply hope? As in, good golly, I hope it doesn’t rain this weekend?

If one were a young child, one might go for the weather-forecast interpretation — because what child wants it to rain on his or her parade? If one were an adult with full knowledge of the president’s pre-political history and the common sense of an investigator, one might reasonably conclude that the hoper in chief was making a strong suggestion, the ignoring of which could have dead-horse-in-your-bed consequences.

Comey, obviously, smelled a dead horse.

In his exchanges with the president, he carefully selected his words and took mental notes, after which he wrote down his recollections.

But Comey’s concentration on the president’s hope may have doomed him. Not only did he lose his job, but also his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed weak tea in the broader context of the president’s potential criminality. Expressing “hope” — a word that’s open to interpretation and nowhere near evidence of obstruction of justice — is clearly not a crime.

In his testimony, Comey further revealed that he personally had leaked his memos, again to the benighted media via a Columbia University law professor and friend. Comey said he was concerned that Trump might lie about their discussions and other details leading up to his firing.

Regarding the two men and whose word to trust, there’s no contest. But often what is obviously wrong isn’t necessarily illegal. I don’t doubt that Trump essentially threatened Comey, because that’s what Trump does. (Count his lawsuits if you have a few free months.) Even as Comey testified, the president was regaling the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference with scripture and tough talk: “We know how to fight better than anybody and we never, ever give up — we are winners and we are going to fight.” (Please, please, please read “Elmer Gantry.”)

During the hearing, several senators pressed Comey about why he didn’t ask obvious follow-up questions, as when Trump allegedly said to the director, “We had that thing.” What thing? Comey also might have queried, “Mr. President, what do you mean when you say you ‘hope’?” Or, as various commentators have suggested, why didn’t Comey say, “I’m sorry, Mr. President, but this is highly inappropriate and I’m going to have to excuse myself”?

Ask any reporter, whose skills are essentially investigative, and the answer is: You don’t ever interrupt when the subject is spilling beans. Remember that Flynn was under investigation at the time, as was Trump’s campaign, though apparently not Trump himself. All of this was surely in Comey’s mind when Trump allegedly expressed his hope.

In real life, we rely upon our instincts, experience, interpretation of facial expressions and body language, and historical knowledge to make judgments and instruct our words and actions. We do this usually without conscious effort — unless we’re driven by a purpose.

For Comey, what was the higher moral position? To stop the president of the United States from talking — or keep the conversation going while you gather your wits and see what else might be forthcoming but could aid in an ongoing investigation? Most likely, Comey’s mind was frantically trying to assess the situation and wondering, Lordy, why didn’t I wear a wire?

He hinted as much Thursday, albeit with weirdly undermining self-deprecations. Comey said he felt he needed to pay attention and was too stunned to react to the “hope” comment. “Maybe if I were stronger,” he said, explaining why he didn’t end his conversation with Trump. Please. What’s with the 6-foot-8-inch weakling act from a man routinely praised for his brilliance and integrity? Why telegraph feebleness to Trump, his lawyers and a skeptical public if he’s secure in his rectitude?

Presumably, Comey was trying to convey his humility juxtaposed with the steamrolling Trump. What Comey may be constitutionally unable to fully grasp, however, is that integrity is no weapon in a knife fight.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Cue Barbra Streisand singing, "The Way We Were":  "At This Point In His Presidency, Obama’s Biggest Scandal Was Using Dijon Mustard"

Spoiler

As President Donald Trump continues to erode American democracy, you can at least take comfort in knowing he isn’t using Dijon mustard on his burgers.

In May 2009, Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted airtime on his show to a frank, honest conversation about whether then-President Barack Obama was capable of leading the country. His biggest issue was that America could not trust a president that uses Dijon mustard on his food.

...

“Take a look at [Obama] ordering his burger with a very special condiment,” Hannity said on his program at the time, before showing a clip of POTUS at a Virginia restaurant.

“I’m gonna have your very basic cheddar cheeseburger, medium-well,” Obama told the cashier. “I just want mustard, no ketchup. You got a spicy mustard or something like that? Dijon mustard or something?”

“I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger,” Hannity shot back.

Eight years later, the U.S. now has a president who has bragged about sexually assaulting women, is accused of colluding with Russia to help him win an election, golfs more than he leads, ignores climate change evidence, and petulantly shoves world leaders when he doesn’t get to be the center of attention.

Oh, he also eats his steaks well-done with ketchup.  

It’s unclear why Hannity’s investigation never led to the removal of President Obama, but at least the American people can finally rest assured that these types of scandals are finally over.

Hannity's whining about mustard is really too much. I don't like Dijon (or any) mustard, but I don't think badly of anyone who does like it, and liking it certainly doesn't exclude someone from public office.

[GrumpyGran]

Ah, you people are really getting in the way of me having a life! Thanks to all for keeping me updated, too much to quote. But I do have a tin-foil notion on the tapes. I wonder if in fact someone hasn't been taping conversations in the White House. And I don't think it's Trump. If I worked there you can be sure I'd have a little tape recorder going in my pocket all the time. 

And after Comey was fired, it became an "Uh-oh" issue. I think Trump has heard rumor of it but doesn't know himself. It explains his vague reply at the Hey-who-is-that-man-next-to-you? ceremony in the Rose Garden yesterday. I think Trump is less in control than we may think, by now certain people know how to manipulate him. And others don't. I'd be willing to bet his attorney's first thought after Trump offered to testify under oath was "What's the best way to kill myself?"

And the best way to get Trump supporters to turn on him? All it would take would be Donald J Trump himself standing in front of them, pointing a finger at them and telling them that they themselves are responsible for all their misery, that they are not very good at their jobs and they should try to work harder!

[Snowless]

35 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Cue Barbra Streisand singing, "The Way We Were":  "At This Point In His Presidency, Obama’s Biggest Scandal Was Using Dijon Mustard"

  Reveal hidden contents

As President Donald Trump continues to erode American democracy, you can at least take comfort in knowing he isn’t using Dijon mustard on his burgers.

In May 2009, Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted airtime on his show to a frank, honest conversation about whether then-President Barack Obama was capable of leading the country. His biggest issue was that America could not trust a president that uses Dijon mustard on his food.

...

“Take a look at [Obama] ordering his burger with a very special condiment,” Hannity said on his program at the time, before showing a clip of POTUS at a Virginia restaurant.

“I’m gonna have your very basic cheddar cheeseburger, medium-well,” Obama told the cashier. “I just want mustard, no ketchup. You got a spicy mustard or something like that? Dijon mustard or something?”

“I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger,” Hannity shot back.

Eight years later, the U.S. now has a president who has bragged about sexually assaulting women, is accused of colluding with Russia to help him win an election, golfs more than he leads, ignores climate change evidence, and petulantly shoves world leaders when he doesn’t get to be the center of attention.

Oh, he also eats his steaks well-done with ketchup.  

It’s unclear why Hannity’s investigation never led to the removal of President Obama, but at least the American people can finally rest assured that these types of scandals are finally over.

Hannity's whining about mustard is really too much. I don't like Dijon (or any) mustard, but I don't think badly of anyone who does like it, and liking it certainly doesn't exclude someone from public office.

I'm not a Hannity viewer, but if my dad's ramblings are any indication, he may have been whining about the Dijon mustard because it's French mustard, and not good ol' Murican French's yellow mustard.  And we all know how much that side of the aisle hates the French.  (Personally, I have never cared much for yellow mustard, but I will eat Dijon, coarse grain, or honey mustard.)

At least Obama kept in Chicago tradition by still putting mustard on a hot dog.  Eating a steak well-done, let alone with ketchup, is sacrilege!  That cow died for you, Trumpbo, and you pay it your respects by cooking it completely devoid of juices, the best part of the meat?  And then hide that delicious flavor by serving it with ketchup?!  My dad actually voted for the guy (I, thankfully, did not), and even he would take issue with Trump's choice of steak temperature.  I'm assuming he's never cooked a steak in his life; to ask for it the way he does, I think, would be an insult to the chef who cooked it.

(BTW, my personal favorite way to eat a steak: ribeye or New York strip, medium rare, served with either green beans or steamed vegetables with butter and garlic and a baked sweet potato with butter, no marshmallows.)

[GreyhoundFan]

WTDH? "Justice Department Argues Trump Is Allowed to Take Money from Foreign Governments"

Spoiler

A Friday filing in a Manhattan district court marks the first significant action the Trump administration has taken against a number of lawsuits claiming the President has conflicts of interest due to his real estate business. The Department of Justice is arguing that it is not unconstitutional for Donald Trump to take money from foreign governments without congressional approval.

“Historical evidence confirms that the Emoluments Clauses were not designed to reach commercial transactions that a President (or other federal official) may engage in as an ordinary citizen through his business enterprises,” the D.O.J. argued in a motion to dismiss a case from Washington watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics brought in January, per Time. “At the time of the Nation’s founding, government officials were not given generous compensations, and many federal officials were employed with the understanding that they would continue to have income from private pursuits.”

The Justice Department’s defense cites historical evidence through American history, noting that George Washington even sold crops to Jamaica, England, and Portugal.

When Trump took office, he delegated real estate mogul duties to his two sons Eric and Donald Jr. to avoid talk of conflicts of interest. But CREW insists that Trump continues to blur the line between what is and is not appropriate. He invites foreign leaders to his Mar-a-Lago resort, and his staff has encouraged consumers to support his daughter Ivanka’s fashion line.

“It’s clear from the government’s response that they don’t believe anyone can go to court to stop the President from systematically violating the constitution,” CREW responded in a statement. “We heartily disagree and look forward to our day in court.”

I'm getting stabby again.

[GrumpyGran]

6 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

WTDH? "Justice Department Argues Trump Is Allowed to Take Money from Foreign Governments"

  Hide contents

A Friday filing in a Manhattan district court marks the first significant action the Trump administration has taken against a number of lawsuits claiming the President has conflicts of interest due to his real estate business. The Department of Justice is arguing that it is not unconstitutional for Donald Trump to take money from foreign governments without congressional approval.

“Historical evidence confirms that the Emoluments Clauses were not designed to reach commercial transactions that a President (or other federal official) may engage in as an ordinary citizen through his business enterprises,” the D.O.J. argued in a motion to dismiss a case from Washington watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics brought in January, per Time. “At the time of the Nation’s founding, government officials were not given generous compensations, and many federal officials were employed with the understanding that they would continue to have income from private pursuits.”

The Justice Department’s defense cites historical evidence through American history, noting that George Washington even sold crops to Jamaica, England, and Portugal.

When Trump took office, he delegated real estate mogul duties to his two sons Eric and Donald Jr. to avoid talk of conflicts of interest. But CREW insists that Trump continues to blur the line between what is and is not appropriate. He invites foreign leaders to his Mar-a-Lago resort, and his staff has encouraged consumers to support his daughter Ivanka’s fashion line.

“It’s clear from the government’s response that they don’t believe anyone can go to court to stop the President from systematically violating the constitution,” CREW responded in a statement. “We heartily disagree and look forward to our day in court.”

I'm getting stabby again.

Oh, good, we're going back in time! I love time travel! This is Sessions' attempt to save his job. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Methinks some (or all) of the people dumb enough to work near Agent Orange are going to be racking up some large bills: "Why Everyone in the West Wing Will Need to Lawyer Up"

Spoiler

In 1996, George Stephanopoulos, then a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, embroiled at the time in a metastasizing White House scandal, offered some now-prescient words of wisdom to future White House staffers. “I would advise anyone who comes into my job,” he told Vanity Fair’s Judy Bachrach, “to make sure you have a lawyer on retainer from the day you walk in.”

That’s the new reality of the Trump West Wing, with multiple congressional committees issuing subpoenas and a special counsel focusing in. One leading white-collar D.C. lawyer compared special investigations to the Bermuda Triangle, “where you have the media and the press, and you have Congress, when you have criminal investigations—all these crosswinds and cross currents have to be dealt with and what makes sense for one of the legs might not make sense for another,” he explained. “You need someone with a lot of experience to navigate through all this.”

Operating in a White House under investigation is fraught with peril. A counterintelligence probe itself, which is what the Russia investigation began as, will rarely result in criminal charges. But, like Whitewater, this scandal is already snowballing in complex ways. The greatest risk aides face is being accused of obstruction of justice or perjury. “That is the real danger for people,” said William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who represented I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity under George W. Bush. “You see it time and again in these political investigations, that they wind up, whatever happened wasn’t a crime. It may have been a political scandal—but it wasn’t a crime—but they charged somebody with perjury or obstruction. So that is the risk for everybody.” Libby, who was not charged with any crimes related to the leak of Plame’s identity but was prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, is a prime example of this danger.

Jeffress emphasized that a crucial job of an attorney in this phase is to collect information. “Aside from advising his client on their rights and course of action with respect to an investigation, it’s just vital for everybody to have a person that can gather facts for them. I mean, for example, it would be extremely unwise for Jared Kushner and anybody else—[Mike] Flynn or whoever else—to sit down and talk to each other . . . [Any] one of them could be compelled to testify about that conversation and any admissions made by that person in that conversation,” Jeffress explained, adding that the various lawyers should talk with each other to “put together the facts. They will know what the evidence is going to show and they will be able to advise their client.”

Another top D.C. defense lawyer agrees. “Prosecutors are omniscient, they have access to all of the information, but the witness only knows what he knows and that is how you get trapped . . . That applies to anybody who gets subpoenaed, even people who are secretaries or aides or Secret Service detail—anybody.”

A massive amount of wealth is about to be transferred to a certain quadrant of the D.C. bar. According to Jeffress, the most experienced and in-demand white-collar lawyers in Washington typically charge corporate clients and people indemnified by corporations over $1,000 per hour—though it’s not uncommon for them to cut their rates to somewhere between $750 and $900 per hour for clients who are paying for their representation out of their own pockets—which is even true for non-public officials. But Jeffress noted that even if an individual faces only an interview by the F.B.I. and there aren’t gigabytes of information to review, a lawyer would still likely devote 40 to 60 hours on their case. Which at the low end would cost a White House staffer $30,000 and at the high end, $54,000. And if there is a grand jury subpoena, or if the person faces possible criminal exposure, he said the total cost of their legal fees could easily be five times that much.

The blow to many White House staffers’ savings will also be amplified by the number of concurrent investigations the Trump administration is embroiled in, which will likely require witnesses to provide numerous testimonies. “Multiple appearances are a prescription for difficulty because every time you are asked to tell the same story, the risk is that you will tell it differently . . . and that’s a trap for perjury and false statements,” the second D.C. defense lawyer explained. “You have to have somebody prepare you, you have to have somebody monitor to make sure that you are testifying truthfully each time you are asked . . . you have to be ready to make sure that you are being consistent.”

For a president, the sticker price for dealing with an independent counsel runs into the eight figures. Between the various scandals that plagued his presidency, Clinton worked with at least half a dozen high-powered lawyers, including Robert Bennett, Mickey Kantor, Charles Ruff, Gregory Craig, Terry Lenzner, and David Kendall. One estimate had the Clintons spending, all told, $11.3 million. A rule of thumb is that legal fees have increased since then by a factor of two—Bennett, one of Clinton’s highest-priced attorneys, reportedly charged $475 an hour. David Kendall’s fee for representing Clinton was in the three to four hundred dollar-per-hour range, as opposed to current rates of $750 to $900—so Trump could easily spend over $20 million depending on how the investigation proceeds.

But as was the case with Whitewater, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Bush passport scandal, and the Valerie Plame investigation, the financial burden is likely to fall on White House staffers and Trump aides, many of whom are likely to incur legal fees that eclipse their meager government salaries and won’t have the opportunity to ink multimillion-dollar book deals like the Clintons. At the time of his interview with Bachrach in 1996, Stephanopoulos had racked up almost $70,000 in unpaid legal bills, more than half of his $125,000 White House salary. “Watch the parade into the grand jury: every time a White House aide walks into that room, a lawyer is wracking up fees,” the former senior adviser to Clinton said during a later interview with The New York Times in 1998. “A single trip to the grand jury can cost you $10,000.”

Stephanopoulos was far from alone in his financial misery after the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky probes. The financial casualties of the Whitewater and subsequent Lewinsky investigations were extensive, and made more painful because Bill said on numerous occasions that he would seek to help his staffers pay their legal bills, though he was later talked out of doing so by his lawyer. Margaret Williams, who was questioned about Vincent Foster’s death in the Whitewater probes, accumulated $350,000 in fees, almost three times her salary as Hillary’s chief of staff. Roger Altman, who was making $133,600 as deputy treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, faced at least $500,000 in legal fees throughout the proceedings. Lisa Caputo’s $75,000 press secretary salary was quickly eclipsed by legal bills of at least $100,000. Bruce Lindsey, a senior adviser to Clinton, faced between $250,000 and $500,000 in legal bills—a hefty sum when you are making $125,000.

The high cost of serving in a scandal-plagued White House was not unique to the Clinton administration, either. During the Iran-Contra scandal under President Reagan, Elliott Abrams faced $200,000 in legal fees on his $80,000 assistant secretary of state salary. Similarly, Janet Mullins and Margaret Tutwiler—who served as political director and the White House communications director under the elder Bush, respectively—were both saddled with bills greater than their annual compensation during the 1992 passport scandal. Mullins faced $400,000 in fees, while Tutwiler suffered $180,000 in legal costs. And Libby was reportedly buried in millions of dollars.

When it comes to paying these fees, presidents have resources that their staff members don’t. Much of the Clintons’ legal fees were paid by two separate legal defense funds. Between its launch in June 1994 and its dissolution in December 1997, Bill’s Presidential Legal Expense Trust reportedly accepted $1.3 million in donations, $766,134 of which was paid out to various law firms to cover the Clintons’ mounting legal fees. Then in February 1998, the Clintons started a new legal defense fund, which received $8.7 million in donations by March 2001. Of this sum, $7.4 million went toward paying off the former First Family’s outstanding legal bills—$3.9 million short of the total the couple had amassed.

Trump has more options than the Clintons did. He has claimed to be a multi-billionaire, to start with, although a famously penurious one. He could also set up a legal defense fund, for which he couldn’t solicit donations directly but would likely rake in millions from wealthy third-party donors. And while other politicians have come under fire by the Federal Election Commission for using campaign funds to pay off legal bills—former Idaho senator Larry Craig, who used campaign funds to pay for his legal defense stemming from his infamous 2007 arrest in a sex sting at the Minneapolis Airport, arguably the most notable and notorious among them—Trump will likely be able to use campaign funds to pay his legal bills due to the fact that the F.B.I. probe is focused on his presidential campaign’s Russian ties.

Trump and his staff won’t be able to get their legal fees reimbursed by the government, an option that previous administration staffers were able to exercise under a Nixon-era provision that expired in 1999. According to research compiled by Kathleen Clark, an ethics and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, between 1984 and 1997 a total of $4 million in legal-fee reimbursements was awarded. A staggering $1.54 million stemmed from the Oliver North investigation into the Iran-Contra Affair alone, roughly $562,000 of which was awarded to President Reagan. Mullins and Tutwiler were similarly reimbursed for approximately $223,000 and $136,000, respectively, in the Bush passport scandal under the statute.

Kushner has already hired former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick to represent him, but given his wealth, her retainer won’t cut too deeply. Other Trump aides—who aren’t fortunate enough to be born into a billionaire real-estate family—could launch their own legal defense funds to soften the financial blow—a route Libby and multiple Clinton staffers, including Stephanopoulos, took. But lower-rung staffers are likely to face challenges in raising enough money through such funds, which are also subject to ethical guidelines. “I mean, who are you going to solicit?” the second white-collar lawyer posed. “You can’t solicit people who have an interest in front of the government or government contractors, there is a whole list of people who are sort of ineligible to contribute . . . for higher-ups they can do that, but they have to walk the line.”

Some staffers could also seek out discounted or pro-bono legal advice, but that path, too, is littered with potential ethical pitfalls and conflict-of-interest concerns. “Ethically, they really can’t accept pro-bono legal services because that is probably a gift under the current rules,” he said.

There is, of course, the possibility that the Trump administration could waive such ethical guidelines for its staffers, much like it did for its lobbying ban last week. “The Trump administration seems to impose restrictions with one hand and then remove those restrictions with another hand through exemptions or waivers as they call them,” Clark told me in an interview. “It’s possible that Trump would grant a waiver permitting the ‘donation’ of legal services from law firms that also lobby, which would otherwise be prohibited for his political appointees to accept.”

So, not only their reputations will be ruined, they'll lose their savings. Sorry, but I don't feel bad -- they decided to work for the TT.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good opinion piece: "I was an FBI agent. Trump’s lack of concern about Russian hacking shocks me."

Spoiler

Reactions to former FBI director James B. Comey’s testimony Thursday mostly seemed to follow predictable, partisan lines. To many Democrats, Comey appeared to be describing a clear case of obstruction of justice by President Trump. To Republicans who support the White House, Comey’s recounting of “leaking” his memos about conversations with Trump showed that he deserved to be fired.

But as a former FBI counterintelligence agent, what I saw as the most explosive aspect of the testimony didn’t involve any legal violation of the U.S. code or questions about whether Comey had broken established Department of Justice protocols. Instead, it was the prima facie evidence that Comey presented that Trump appears unwilling to uphold his oath “to preserve, protect, and defend” the country — which puts the security of our nation and its democracy at stake. In the nine times Trump met with or called Comey, it was always to discuss how the investigation into Russia’s election interference was affecting him personally, rather than the security of the country. He apparently cared little about understanding either the magnitude of the Russian intelligence threat, or how the FBI might be able to prevent another attack in future elections.

When Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) asked Comey whether Trump had ever appeared concerned about Russian interference or how to stop it in the future, Comey’s answer was blunt: “No.” After a moment of reflection, he added, without prompting, that he had “attended a fair number of meetings on that with President Obama.” This contrast alone underscores Trump’s disregard for his fundamental duty, which is to ensure the security of the nation, its government and its citizens from foreign enemies.

It’s worth noting that there is unanimity among senior intelligence officials that the Russian interference in our election not only happened, but that it was extraordinary and unprecedented. In previous testimony, Comey described Russia as the “greatest threat of any country on earth,” and he warned Thursday that Russia is “coming after America,” regardless of party, “to undermine our credibility in the rest of the world.”

Former CIA director John Brennan testified to Congress in May that he was shocked that Russia had “brazenly interfered” in the election, so much so that he took the extraordinary step of directly confronting his Russian counterpart. He added that he believes that even in the election’s aftermath, “Russian intelligence services are trying to exploit what is going on in Washington now to their benefit and to our detriment.”

It does not require an FBI investigation to see that a president of the United States who finds no reason for concern in any of these assertions — and indeed considers them a “hoax” — cannot have the best interest of the country at heart.

The FBI takes its counterintelligence mission extremely seriously, although it’s usually less visible to the public than its law enforcement duties, which lead to arrests and criminal trials. Most of these activities, like the foreign agents they target, are by design covert, and they rarely see the inside of a courtroom. Many of the cases I worked as a counterintelligence agent involved foreign intelligence officers who used First Amendment and political freedoms in the United States to their advantage. This might involve disseminating propaganda by recruiting journalists (who did not realize they were spies) to write articles favorable to their government, or getting agents working on their behalf to lobby politicians for favorable policies toward their countries. (A rare glimpse into such a case that became public is the 2011 arrest of Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, a lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges after the government accused him of being an agent for Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence Directorate.)

The FBI can usually disrupt this threat under the radar — for instance, by delicately alerting unwitting individuals that they may be being targeted by a foreign power, or by identifying and recruiting an intelligence service’s sources to become double agents for the United States. The Russia case is different, because its operation last year did not simply try to use the American system as a vehicle for Russia’s benefit. Instead, Russia essentially attempted to break the system itself, by hacking political parties computer and email systems, flooding the media with disinformation and purposely sowing political chaos in the voting process, which is the bedrock of our democracy. Although its activities didn’t involve bombs or dead bodies, Russia’s efforts were no less dangerous than any terrorist attack. In fact, the insidiousness of Russia’s interference lies in its invisibility: The American public did not even know that their freedom of choice was potentially being manipulated and distorted for foreign interests.

For any president to ignore the situation is shocking. My former colleagues at the FBI who are working on this case and have uncovered the full scale of Russia’s efforts must be incredulous at Trump’s cavalier attitude.

To understand their perspective, consider this happening in the context we normally think of as a national security threat: Imagine that during the 2016 presidential election, a candidate publicly invited the Islamic State to bomb the Democratic Party headquarters. And then imagine that such a bombing in fact took place, resulting in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Now further imagine that the new president not only had no interest in learning more about who caused the attack or bringing them to justice, but in fact went out of his way to make nice with the Islamic State and offer them political and diplomatic concessions. Finally, imagine that there may be evidence that members of the president’s campaign or other American citizens were actively or passively involved in facilitating such an attack.

The fact pattern of the Russia investigation so far is similar — and that’s an investigation Comey says Trump had no interest in following closely.

Regardless of which story line you believe about Comey’s testimony, it is, in the end, a sideshow. The real issue is Russia’s assault on our democracy and how we respond to it. If the president intends to stay true to his oath, both he and all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will support the FBI in getting to the bottom of the Russian threat and making sure that it never happens again.

 

[ALM7]

The Moody Blues song title/line comes to mind...

Isn't Life Strange.  Lol

http://www.snopes.com/trackdown-trump-character-wall/

Trackdown Shakedown

An episode of the 1950s western TV series 'Trackdown' featured a character named Walter Trump who claimed he would build a wall in order to protect a town from the end of the world....

A relevant portion of dialog from this episode has been transcribed below:

Narrator: The people were ready to believe. Like sheep they ran to the slaughterhouse. And waiting for them was the high priest of fraud.

Trump: I am the only one. Trust me. I can build a wall around your homes that nothing will penetrate.

Townperson: What do we do? How can we save ourselves?

Trump: You ask how do you build that wall. You ask, and I’m here to tell you.

[Bethella]

@ALM7 That's rather creepy.

[47of74]

I saw this article about how Fornicate Head's lack of communication with other Presidents, especially President Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/10/politics/donald-trump-obama-presidents-club/index.html

Quote

Nearly five months ago, President Donald Trump bid farewell to a grinning Barack Obama, waving as the military helicopter shuttling his predecessor into post-White House life got smaller and smaller.

They haven't spoken or seen each other since.

For a President who seeks extensive counsel from outside the White House -- in calls to old friends, business executives, and even despotic foreign leaders -- Trump has largely forgone advice or guidance from any of the men who have held his job previously.

In the months after Trump and Obama carried out a peaceful hand off of power, the two have failed to develop any sort of working relationship, according to White House advisers and former administration officials.

Well CNN, when the Orange Fornicate Face accuses the last legitimate President of the United States of a crime and then destroys everything good that President did maybe it shouldn't surprise you that President Obama does not want all that much to do with Fornicate Head.

5 hours ago, Snowless said:

I'm not a Hannity viewer, but if my dad's ramblings are any indication, he may have been whining about the Dijon mustard because it's French mustard, and not good ol' Murican French's yellow mustard.  And we all know how much that side of the aisle hates the French.  (Personally, I have never cared much for yellow mustard, but I will eat Dijon, coarse grain, or honey mustard.)

At least Obama kept in Chicago tradition by still putting mustard on a hot dog.  Eating a steak well-done, let alone with ketchup, is sacrilege!  That cow died for you, Trumpbo, and you pay it your respects by cooking it completely devoid of juices, the best part of the meat?  And then hide that delicious flavor by serving it with ketchup?!  My dad actually voted for the guy (I, thankfully, did not), and even he would take issue with Trump's choice of steak temperature.  I'm assuming he's never cooked a steak in his life; to ask for it the way he does, I think, would be an insult to the chef who cooked it.

(BTW, my personal favorite way to eat a steak: ribeye or New York strip, medium rare, served with either green beans or steamed vegetables with butter and garlic and a baked sweet potato with butter, no marshmallows.)

I wish Hannity would be honest and wear his fucking Klan robes to work.  The only reason he was whining about that is that or anything else President Obama did was because of his racism.

[fraurosena]

Just sayin'

 

[sawasdee]

^^^Isn't this how he  treated Tiffany too - virtually ignoring her?

[formergothardite]

It is probably in little Baron's best interest that his father ignore him. The three children Trump spent the most time with seemed to come out as pretty terrible adults. 

 

[Curious]

I don't usually snark on people's looks/things they can't do anything about, but can someone explain to me what is going on with Diane Feinstein's eyebrows.   I can't look away from them.  They look like 2 sperm above her eyes.  It is distracting.

[sawasdee]

To me, a brilliant comment on an Atlantic article -

The political fight today is between 'e pluribus unum' and 'In God We Trust'.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Good news for the Brits!

 

Spoiler

Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.

The call was made in recent weeks, according to a Downing Street adviser who was in the room. The statement surprised May, according to those present.

 

 

[AuntK]

19 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Cue Barbra Streisand singing, "The Way We Were":  "At This Point In His Presidency, Obama’s Biggest Scandal Was Using Dijon Mustard"

  Hide contents

As President Donald Trump continues to erode American democracy, you can at least take comfort in knowing he isn’t using Dijon mustard on his burgers.

In May 2009, Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted airtime on his show to a frank, honest conversation about whether then-President Barack Obama was capable of leading the country. His biggest issue was that America could not trust a president that uses Dijon mustard on his food.

...

“Take a look at [Obama] ordering his burger with a very special condiment,” Hannity said on his program at the time, before showing a clip of POTUS at a Virginia restaurant.

“I’m gonna have your very basic cheddar cheeseburger, medium-well,” Obama told the cashier. “I just want mustard, no ketchup. You got a spicy mustard or something like that? Dijon mustard or something?”

“I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger,” Hannity shot back.

Eight years later, the U.S. now has a president who has bragged about sexually assaulting women, is accused of colluding with Russia to help him win an election, golfs more than he leads, ignores climate change evidence, and petulantly shoves world leaders when he doesn’t get to be the center of attention.

Oh, he also eats his steaks well-done with ketchup.  

It’s unclear why Hannity’s investigation never led to the removal of President Obama, but at least the American people can finally rest assured that these types of scandals are finally over.

Hannity's whining about mustard is really too much. I don't like Dijon (or any) mustard, but I don't think badly of anyone who does like it, and liking it certainly doesn't exclude someone from public office.

This Dijon mustard story reminds me of the brouhaha over Obama wearing a khaki suit in the summer! You would have thought he had spilled secrets to the RUSSIANS or something!

[Curious]

24 minutes ago, AuntK said:

This Dijon mustard story reminds me of the brouhaha over Obama wearing a khaki suit in the summer! You would have thought he had spilled secrets to the RUSSIANS or something!

 

Don't forget the gum chewing kerfluffle!  Obama was just SO unPresidental and quite a menace.  I don't know how we stayed alive during his 8 years !

[Howl]

Quote

Most likely, Comey’s mind was frantically trying to assess the situation and wondering, Lordy, why didn’t I wear a wire?   

Lordy, I wish he had!  

[47of74]

1 hour ago, Curious said:

Don't forget the gum chewing kerfluffle!  Obama was just SO unPresidental and quite a menace.  I don't know how we stayed alive during his 8 years !

Or the fit various reich wing blow holes had about President Obama having his feet up on the desk, or what he wore in the Oval Office, or what he did in that office.

https://medium.com/@anthony_clark/the-ridiculous-double-standard-of-respect-for-the-oval-office-8e1e93a9deb0

 

[47of74]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Good news for the Brits!

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.

The call was made in recent weeks, according to a Downing Street adviser who was in the room. The statement surprised May, according to those present.

 

 

Yeah I was just coming here to post about that myself. 

Of course May's people are claiming that never happened now and the Orange Dipshit is still planning to visit the UK some time soon. 

[GrumpyGran]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Good news for the Brits!

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.

The call was made in recent weeks, according to a Downing Street adviser who was in the room. The statement surprised May, according to those present.

 

 

"some time"= ever. So he's just not going to go anywhere where there aren't adoring fans for him? Wonder if he pays people to line the fairways at his golf course and applaud him.

[sawasdee]

4 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.

Please, please, pretty please this is true!

I filled in a comment form at the website of London's Mayor Khan, saying how proud I was of the police, emergency services and the general public in the last attack. I was also - critical? - of tRump's  tweets, and said I admired him as mayor. I then said I hoped he would continue his opposition to the TT's visit, as the money it would cost would be better spent on anti terrorism - I'm sure TT would agree, with the opinions he's expressed!

I finished by saying that as a loyal, expat Londoner, I will be flying back to join the protests if the visit goes ahead*....no reply yet, just a computer generated notice that it takes them up to two weeks to respond, and I'd say they are overwhelmed at the moment.(On many comment boards which I go on, a lot of people were saying they too had contacted the Mayor, to apologise as American citizens for the TT's crass behaviour at the time of the attack and afterwards.)

ETA *I mean it, too! I will fly back - maybe we can have an FJ section at the protest?