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

[GreyhoundFan]

6 hours ago, JMarie said:

Why was Hannity's tweet noteworthy?  Gingrich is on his show every night, and every night they talk about the "Deep State" (at least in the first few minutes, or until I start to feel ill).

You are better than me. If I see Hannity or Gingivitis' smug faces, I automatically change the channel. I wish I was an inventor, I'd invent a remote control that lets you specify a list of people you despise and have it switch channels immediately.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is where Agent Orange has taken America: "Allies Start Planning a Life Without America"

Spoiler

Many governments must be thinking along the same lines, but few have spelled it out so clearly. Germany did, when Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “The times in which we could rely fully on others — they are somewhat over.” Now Canada, a country tightly bound to its neighbor by history, alliance and the longest border in the world, has declared the need to recognize that the United States is relinquishing its role as the “indispensable nation.”

“The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, told her Parliament this month.

Ms. Freeland never mentioned Donald Trump. That wouldn’t be diplomatic. But every line of her speech before a silent House of Commons was clearly about a world order thrown into crisis as President Trump scoffs at trade agreements, hectors allies, rips up the landmark Paris climate accord and otherwise demonstrates disdain for anything that isn’t “America First.” Canada’s course, Ms. Freeland said, would be the opposite of Canada First; it would be “the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order.”

On the face of it, for Canada and other NATO members to increase their military spending, and in general for Western nations to assume more of the responsibilities borne for the past seven decades by the United States, has long been the goal of United States administrations — including those, like the Obama administration, with a far more global outlook. NATO has asked members to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. The United States spends over 3 percent, and Canada spends a tad over 1 percent. If getting allies to take on more responsibility were President Trump’s real goal, Canada’s stance would be a commendable result.

The problem is that it’s not so much Mr. Trump’s policies as his chaotic absence of clear policies that is pushing Canada, Germany and other allies to draw back from Washington. Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, sought early in the Trump administration to find ways of working together. But according to Canadian news reports, Mr. Trump’s rejection of the climate agreement was what finally persuaded Mr. Trudeau that he had to find his own way. Ms. Freeland’s powerful speech was, in effect, the proclamation of a new Trudeau Doctrine of actively pursuing multilateral trade, strengthening multilateral institutions and building a stronger military.

Neither Canada nor any other ally, of course, can begin to match the United States in might or wealth, and it remains to be seen whether Mr. Trudeau comes up with the money to achieve the goals Ms. Freeland enunciated. But it is surely to the advantage of Canada and other allies to step out from under America’s long shadow and take more responsibility for their shared security and values. How much better that would be, however, if they were not doing it largely to escape a shadow that has turned dark, turbulent and dangerous.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Help wanted: Why Republicans won’t work for the Trump administration"

Spoiler

The array of legal and political threats hanging over the Trump presidency have compounded the White House’s struggles to fill out the top ranks of the government.

Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey last month and the escalating probe into Russian interference in the presidential election have made hiring even more difficult, say former federal officials, party activists, lobbyists and candidates who Trump officials have tried to recruit.

Republicans say they are turning down job offers to work for a chief executive whose volatile temperament makes them nervous. They are asking head-hunters if their reputations could suffer permanent damage, according to 27 people The Washington Post interviewed to assess what is becoming a debilitating factor in recruiting political appointees.

The hiring challenge complicates the already slow pace at which Trump is filling senior leadership jobs across government.

The White House disputed the notion that the administration has a hiring problem and noted that its candidates must be vetted by the FBI and the Office of Government Ethics before being announced publicly, which might contribute to the perception that there is a delay in filing key posts.

“I have people knocking down my door to talk to the presidential personnel office,” said White House press secretary Sean Spicer. “There is a huge demand to join this administration.”

The White House picked up the hiring pace in May and the first half of June, particularly for positions needing confirmation. It has advanced 92 candidates for Senate confirmation, compared with 59 between Trump’s inauguration and the end of April.

But the Senate has just 25 working days until it breaks for the August recess. At this point, Trump has 43 confirmed appointees to senior posts, compared to the 151 top political appointees confirmed by mid-June in President Barack Obama’s first term and the 130 under President George W. Bush, according to data tracked by The Washington Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition.

For Cabinet posts, the median wait between nomination and Senate vote for Trump was 25 days, according to data collected by The Post. By contrast, Obama’s nominees faced a median wait of two days, George W. Bush had a median wait of zero days and Bill Clinton had a median wait of one day.

A White House official said about 200 people are being vetted for senior-level posts.

Potential candidates are watching Trump’s behavior and monitoring his treatment of senior officials. “Trump is becoming radioactive, and it’s accelerating,” said Bill Valdez, a former senior Energy Department official who is now president of the Senior Executives Association, which represents 6,000 top federal leaders.

“He just threw Jeff Sessions under the bus,” Valdez said, referring to recent reports that the president is furious at the attorney general for recusing himself from the Russia probe. “If you’re working with a boss who doesn’t have your back, you have no confidence in working with that individual.”

While Trump has blamed Senate Democrats for blocking his nominees, the personnel situation has many causes. With Trump’s unexpected November victory, hiring got off to a slow start during the transition, and some important positions have run into screening delays as names pass through several White House aides who must give approval. Some prominent private-sector recruits backed off because they would face a five-year post-employment ban on lobbying.

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, who was being considered for an assistant secretary position at the Department of Homeland Security, was the latest to withdraw his name from consideration on Saturday. A person close to the administration who is familiar with the matter said long delays contributed to Clarke’s decision.

The Trump team has not faced the same issues with mid- and entry-level jobs. It has hired hundreds of young Republican staffers into positions that are résumé-builders — and has filled some senior posts that do not require Senate approval.

Other candidates told The Post they would eagerly serve but are simply waiting for offers.

But as the president continues to sow doubts about his loyalty to those who work for him, most recently with his tweets on Friday that appeared to attack Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a number of qualified candidates say they see little upside to joining government at this time. They include eight Republicans who said they turned down job offers out of concern that working for this administration could damage their reputation.

Republicans have become so alarmed by the personnel shortfall that in the past week a coalition of conservatives complained to White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

“We remain very concerned over the lack of secondary and tertiary executive-level appointments,” they said in a letter signed by 25 prominent conservatives called the Coalitions for America, describing their concern that the leadership vacuum will create “mischief and malfeasance” by civil servants loyal to Obama.

The letter culminated weeks of private urging by top conservatives, said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, who helped lead the effort. “They’re sensitive about it, and they’re trying to do better.”

Fitton said that some candidates have faced inexplicable delays on job offers. “People are waiting to hear back. Promises are made but not kept. People are left stranded. Positions are implied, and people are left hanging.”

In a town where the long hours and financial sacrifice of working in government are outweighed by the prestige of a White House or agency job, the sacrifice is beginning to look less appealing.

Potential candidates question whether they could make a lasting contribution in an administration whose policies often change directions. They worry that anyone in the White House, even in a mid-level post, faces the possibility of sizable legal bills serving on a team that is under investigation. And then there are the tweets.

“You can count me out,” said an attorney who served in the George W. Bush administration and has turned down senior-level legal posts at several agencies, including the Justice Department. This attorney, like others who talked candidly about job offers from the administration, spoke on the condition of anonymity, either because their employers do business with the government or they fear retribution from GOP leaders.

The attorney described an “equally incoherent and unclear leadership” at many agencies, in particular at the Justice Department, where the attorney characterized Sessions’s push for stricter sentences for drug crimes as “1982 thinking” that the GOP has largely abandoned.

Another person in line for a senior legal post who pulled out after Comey’s firing said, “I decided, ‘What am I doing this for?’ ”

He described a disorganized paperwork process that threatened to leave him unprepared for Senate confirmation, and said he was disgusted that Rosenstein was “hung out to dry” as the president claimed at first that the deputy attorney general orchestrated Comey’s firing.

“You sit on the tarmac for quite some time, you see smoke coming out of the engine and you say, ‘I’m going back to the gate,’ ” he said.

In recent weeks, several high-profile D.C. attorneys and law firms have turned down offers to represent Trump in the ongoing Russia probe, some of them citing a reluctance to work with a client who notoriously flouts his lawyers’ legal advice.

And the White House’s top communications job has been vacant since Mike Dubke resigned in May.

Lawyers and candidates for White House jobs are particularly wary now, several people said.

“What they’re running into now is, for any job near the White House, people are going to wonder, ‘Am I going to have to lawyer up right away?’ ”said Eliot Cohen, a top official in Bush’s State Department and a leading voice of opposition to Trump among former GOP national security officials during the campaign.

“They’re saying, ‘Tell me about professional liability insurance.’ ”

A longtime GOP activist and former George W. Bush appointee said he rejected offers for several Senate-confirmed jobs because of his policy differences with Trump.

“There are a number of people who are loyal Republicans but who don’t feel comfortable with either [the administration’s] trade positions, or the Muslim [travel] ban or the overall volatility of this administration. We just don’t feel it’s very professional.”

One prominent Bush-era Republican had a more measured view.

“Everybody’s trying to draw cosmic conclusions about the Trump administration, and my view is it’s still too soon to know what we’re working with,” said a former high-ranking Bush national security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly. He said a chief executive such as Trump “who comes in as head of a political insurgency” needs time to hire at least some people to his team who have not served in government before.

Others, though, say they have already seen signs of change that make them uneasy.

“How do you draw people to the State Department when they’re cutting the budget by 30 percent?” asked Elliot Abrams, a national security veteran of the Reagan and second Bush administrations who was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s first pick for deputy secretary before the White House rejected him for criticizing Trump during the campaign. Abrams also cited the president’s last-minute decision to remove language from a speech in Brussels in May that affirms the United States’ commitment to NATO allies’ mutual defense.

“It’s much harder to recruit people now,” Abrams said.

I know that, even if I agreed with the TT, I wouldn't want to work for such a psycho administration.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a surprise -- the TT decided to go to an actual federally-owned facility instead of one of his trashy properties. I bet he's bored out of his mind. "On Father’s Day weekend, Trump makes his inaugural visit to Camp David"

Spoiler

This weekend, the Trump family is trading ritzy for rustic.

Instead of heading to one of his plush properties, President Trump boarded Marine One late Saturday morning en route to Camp David, the secluded government-owned retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains.

Nearly five months into his presidency, it’s Trump’s inaugural visit to what was a frequent destination for many of his predecessors.

Trump, wearing a dark suit but no tie, emerged on the South Lawn of the House shortly after 11 a.m. He was joined by his wife, Melania, who sported a relatively casual dress, and their 11-year-old son, Barron, in soccer attire: a white shirt, white shorts with an Arsenal club logo, knee-high red socks and Nike footwear..

Trump waved at the assembled press, ignored shouted questions about the special prosecutor investigating him for possible obstruction of justice, and, with that, was soon headed off for what aides said they hope will be a relatively relaxing Father’s Day weekend. The first lady’s parents were also traveling with the first family to Camp David.

Trump’s departure was pushed back about an hour Saturday, prompting some speculation that he was having second thoughts about the trip. Aides said the delay was weather-related.

Trump has spent more weekends away from Washington than not. Early in his presidency, he favored his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., which aides dubbed the “Winter White House.” The club closed for the season last month, so more recently, he’s been inclined to head to his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., which some have dubbed “Camp David North.”

It’s not terribly surprising that Trump has eschewed the real Camp David, located near Thurmont, Md., about 60 miles northwest of Washington.

“Camp David is very rustic, it’s nice, you’d like it,” Trump said in an interview with a European journalist just before taking office. “You know how long you’d like it? For about 30 minutes.”

With the first lady and Barron’s recent move to Washington from New York, the family appears willing to try new things.

White House staffers said little Saturday about what Trump plans to do at the Navy-run facility. The White House advertised no public events over the weekend, and aides said senior staff was not joining the president.

A Camp David blog, accessible through the White House website, offered that “the president, first lady, and son Barron are staying overnight in the Aspen Lodge and will return to the White House on Sunday afternoon.” The blog promised additional information as it becomes available.

The 125-acre retreat includes another dozen cabins, tennis courts, a swimming pool, a bowling alley, a skeet range and a movie theater. There is a single golf hole with multiple tees — a far cry from what is available at Trump’s clubs around the country.

On the weekends he has stayed in Washington, the president has made a habit of heading to Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., which has two 18-hole courses.

Among the White House press corps, there was speculation that if Trump didn’t find enough to do at the rustic retreat, he might take to Twitter to fill the time — assuming his phone had service. As of late afternoon, Trump had not fired off any tweets.

Trump on Saturday became the 14th president to visit Camp David, which originally was a getaway for federal workers and their families. President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned it into a presidential retreat in 1942, choosing the spot for its seclusion and security.

For some presidents, it became a regular destination and a place to welcome world leaders.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower hosted Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev for talks there in 1959. The two watched movies. President Ronald Reagan went there more than 150 times, riding his horse and playing host to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

President Jimmy Carter struck a peace deal there in 1978 between Egypt and Israel. President George H.W. Bush hosted Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev for a round of summit talks, played tennis and zipped around in golf carts.

President Bill Clinton hosted a failed summit between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in 2000. President George W. Bush decamped there 149 times, according to statistics kept by CBS News reporter Mark Knoller.

President Obama was less of a fan. Although he hosted a Group of Eight summit at Camp David in 2012, he visited the retreat just 39 times.

For Trump, Mar-a-Lago has been the preferred venue to entertain global leaders. In February, he hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe there. The pair also played rounds of golf at two other Trump-branded properties in Southern Florida, disappearing from public view for what was billed as some fairways diplomacy.

In April, Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Mar-a-Lago for a two-day summit that included talk about North Korea and trade.

In more recent weeks, Trump has decamped twice to his secluded golf club in New Jersey’s fox-hunt and horse country, about 45 miles west of New York City, where he maintains a residence.

Trump’s getaways to Florida and New Jersey have drawn a cascade of new reports about the additional security costs for taxpayers and surrounding communities. Camp David, by contrast, has been secured for decades.

I didn't realize Mar-a-Loco was closed for the season. I just figured the TT would melt in the heat, so that was why he had been going to his tacky places in NJ and VA.

[JMarie]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Help wanted: Why Republicans won’t work for the Trump administration"

  Hide contents

The array of legal and political threats hanging over the Trump presidency have compounded the White House’s struggles to fill out the top ranks of the government.

Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey last month and the escalating probe into Russian interference in the presidential election have made hiring even more difficult, say former federal officials, party activists, lobbyists and candidates who Trump officials have tried to recruit.

Republicans say they are turning down job offers to work for a chief executive whose volatile temperament makes them nervous. They are asking head-hunters if their reputations could suffer permanent damage, according to 27 people The Washington Post interviewed to assess what is becoming a debilitating factor in recruiting political appointees.

The hiring challenge complicates the already slow pace at which Trump is filling senior leadership jobs across government.

The White House disputed the notion that the administration has a hiring problem and noted that its candidates must be vetted by the FBI and the Office of Government Ethics before being announced publicly, which might contribute to the perception that there is a delay in filing key posts.

“I have people knocking down my door to talk to the presidential personnel office,” said White House press secretary Sean Spicer. “There is a huge demand to join this administration.”

The White House picked up the hiring pace in May and the first half of June, particularly for positions needing confirmation. It has advanced 92 candidates for Senate confirmation, compared with 59 between Trump’s inauguration and the end of April.

But the Senate has just 25 working days until it breaks for the August recess. At this point, Trump has 43 confirmed appointees to senior posts, compared to the 151 top political appointees confirmed by mid-June in President Barack Obama’s first term and the 130 under President George W. Bush, according to data tracked by The Washington Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition.

For Cabinet posts, the median wait between nomination and Senate vote for Trump was 25 days, according to data collected by The Post. By contrast, Obama’s nominees faced a median wait of two days, George W. Bush had a median wait of zero days and Bill Clinton had a median wait of one day.

A White House official said about 200 people are being vetted for senior-level posts.

Potential candidates are watching Trump’s behavior and monitoring his treatment of senior officials. “Trump is becoming radioactive, and it’s accelerating,” said Bill Valdez, a former senior Energy Department official who is now president of the Senior Executives Association, which represents 6,000 top federal leaders.

“He just threw Jeff Sessions under the bus,” Valdez said, referring to recent reports that the president is furious at the attorney general for recusing himself from the Russia probe. “If you’re working with a boss who doesn’t have your back, you have no confidence in working with that individual.”

While Trump has blamed Senate Democrats for blocking his nominees, the personnel situation has many causes. With Trump’s unexpected November victory, hiring got off to a slow start during the transition, and some important positions have run into screening delays as names pass through several White House aides who must give approval. Some prominent private-sector recruits backed off because they would face a five-year post-employment ban on lobbying.

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, who was being considered for an assistant secretary position at the Department of Homeland Security, was the latest to withdraw his name from consideration on Saturday. A person close to the administration who is familiar with the matter said long delays contributed to Clarke’s decision.

The Trump team has not faced the same issues with mid- and entry-level jobs. It has hired hundreds of young Republican staffers into positions that are résumé-builders — and has filled some senior posts that do not require Senate approval.

Other candidates told The Post they would eagerly serve but are simply waiting for offers.

But as the president continues to sow doubts about his loyalty to those who work for him, most recently with his tweets on Friday that appeared to attack Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a number of qualified candidates say they see little upside to joining government at this time. They include eight Republicans who said they turned down job offers out of concern that working for this administration could damage their reputation.

Republicans have become so alarmed by the personnel shortfall that in the past week a coalition of conservatives complained to White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

“We remain very concerned over the lack of secondary and tertiary executive-level appointments,” they said in a letter signed by 25 prominent conservatives called the Coalitions for America, describing their concern that the leadership vacuum will create “mischief and malfeasance” by civil servants loyal to Obama.

The letter culminated weeks of private urging by top conservatives, said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, who helped lead the effort. “They’re sensitive about it, and they’re trying to do better.”

Fitton said that some candidates have faced inexplicable delays on job offers. “People are waiting to hear back. Promises are made but not kept. People are left stranded. Positions are implied, and people are left hanging.”

In a town where the long hours and financial sacrifice of working in government are outweighed by the prestige of a White House or agency job, the sacrifice is beginning to look less appealing.

Potential candidates question whether they could make a lasting contribution in an administration whose policies often change directions. They worry that anyone in the White House, even in a mid-level post, faces the possibility of sizable legal bills serving on a team that is under investigation. And then there are the tweets.

“You can count me out,” said an attorney who served in the George W. Bush administration and has turned down senior-level legal posts at several agencies, including the Justice Department. This attorney, like others who talked candidly about job offers from the administration, spoke on the condition of anonymity, either because their employers do business with the government or they fear retribution from GOP leaders.

The attorney described an “equally incoherent and unclear leadership” at many agencies, in particular at the Justice Department, where the attorney characterized Sessions’s push for stricter sentences for drug crimes as “1982 thinking” that the GOP has largely abandoned.

Another person in line for a senior legal post who pulled out after Comey’s firing said, “I decided, ‘What am I doing this for?’ ”

He described a disorganized paperwork process that threatened to leave him unprepared for Senate confirmation, and said he was disgusted that Rosenstein was “hung out to dry” as the president claimed at first that the deputy attorney general orchestrated Comey’s firing.

“You sit on the tarmac for quite some time, you see smoke coming out of the engine and you say, ‘I’m going back to the gate,’ ” he said.

In recent weeks, several high-profile D.C. attorneys and law firms have turned down offers to represent Trump in the ongoing Russia probe, some of them citing a reluctance to work with a client who notoriously flouts his lawyers’ legal advice.

And the White House’s top communications job has been vacant since Mike Dubke resigned in May.

Lawyers and candidates for White House jobs are particularly wary now, several people said.

“What they’re running into now is, for any job near the White House, people are going to wonder, ‘Am I going to have to lawyer up right away?’ ”said Eliot Cohen, a top official in Bush’s State Department and a leading voice of opposition to Trump among former GOP national security officials during the campaign.

“They’re saying, ‘Tell me about professional liability insurance.’ ”

A longtime GOP activist and former George W. Bush appointee said he rejected offers for several Senate-confirmed jobs because of his policy differences with Trump.

“There are a number of people who are loyal Republicans but who don’t feel comfortable with either [the administration’s] trade positions, or the Muslim [travel] ban or the overall volatility of this administration. We just don’t feel it’s very professional.”

One prominent Bush-era Republican had a more measured view.

“Everybody’s trying to draw cosmic conclusions about the Trump administration, and my view is it’s still too soon to know what we’re working with,” said a former high-ranking Bush national security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly. He said a chief executive such as Trump “who comes in as head of a political insurgency” needs time to hire at least some people to his team who have not served in government before.

Others, though, say they have already seen signs of change that make them uneasy.

“How do you draw people to the State Department when they’re cutting the budget by 30 percent?” asked Elliot Abrams, a national security veteran of the Reagan and second Bush administrations who was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s first pick for deputy secretary before the White House rejected him for criticizing Trump during the campaign. Abrams also cited the president’s last-minute decision to remove language from a speech in Brussels in May that affirms the United States’ commitment to NATO allies’ mutual defense.

“It’s much harder to recruit people now,” Abrams said.

I know that, even if I agreed with the TT, I wouldn't want to work for such a psycho administration.

Or they realize that "working" in the White House doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be able to accomplish anything.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/six-resign-from-presidential-hiv-aids-council-because-trump-doesnt-care/ar-BBCOJll?ocid=spartanntp

Quote

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have angrily resigned, saying that President Trump doesn't care about HIV.

Scott Schoettes, Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses Burley III, Michelle Ogle and Grissel Granados publicly announced their resignations in a joint letter published in Newsweek titled, "Trump doesn't care about HIV. We're outta here."

The group said that the administration "has no strategy" to address HIV/AIDS, doesn't consult experts when working on policy and "pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease."

"As advocates for people living with HIV, we have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care," they wrote.

The group noted that Trump took down the Office of National AIDS Policy website when he took office and hasn't appointed anyone to lead the White House Office of National AIDS Policy.

They also said that the GOP's ObamaCare repeal bill will dramatically hurt those with HIV/AIDS, making it the "final straw for us - more like a two-by-four than a straw" in deciding to leave the council.

"We will be more effective from the outside, advocating for change and protesting policies that will hurt the health of the communities we serve and the country as a whole if this administration continues down the current path," they wrote.

"We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not."

 

[47of74]

On 6/16/2017 at 3:18 PM, fraurosena said:

Oh, SPAM!

Now we're spamming the spam, spam, spam and spam.

What a spam!

 

Spam and Old Mil....a match made somewhere.  Just not heaven.....

[GrumpyGran]

17 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is a surprise -- the TT decided to go to an actual federally-owned facility instead of one of his trashy properties. I bet he's bored out of his mind. "On Father’s Day weekend, Trump makes his inaugural visit to Camp David"

  Reveal hidden contents

This weekend, the Trump family is trading ritzy for rustic.

Instead of heading to one of his plush properties, President Trump boarded Marine One late Saturday morning en route to Camp David, the secluded government-owned retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains.

Nearly five months into his presidency, it’s Trump’s inaugural visit to what was a frequent destination for many of his predecessors.

Trump, wearing a dark suit but no tie, emerged on the South Lawn of the House shortly after 11 a.m. He was joined by his wife, Melania, who sported a relatively casual dress, and their 11-year-old son, Barron, in soccer attire: a white shirt, white shorts with an Arsenal club logo, knee-high red socks and Nike footwear..

Trump waved at the assembled press, ignored shouted questions about the special prosecutor investigating him for possible obstruction of justice, and, with that, was soon headed off for what aides said they hope will be a relatively relaxing Father’s Day weekend. The first lady’s parents were also traveling with the first family to Camp David.

Trump’s departure was pushed back about an hour Saturday, prompting some speculation that he was having second thoughts about the trip. Aides said the delay was weather-related.

Trump has spent more weekends away from Washington than not. Early in his presidency, he favored his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., which aides dubbed the “Winter White House.” The club closed for the season last month, so more recently, he’s been inclined to head to his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., which some have dubbed “Camp David North.”

It’s not terribly surprising that Trump has eschewed the real Camp David, located near Thurmont, Md., about 60 miles northwest of Washington.

“Camp David is very rustic, it’s nice, you’d like it,” Trump said in an interview with a European journalist just before taking office. “You know how long you’d like it? For about 30 minutes.”

With the first lady and Barron’s recent move to Washington from New York, the family appears willing to try new things.

White House staffers said little Saturday about what Trump plans to do at the Navy-run facility. The White House advertised no public events over the weekend, and aides said senior staff was not joining the president.

A Camp David blog, accessible through the White House website, offered that “the president, first lady, and son Barron are staying overnight in the Aspen Lodge and will return to the White House on Sunday afternoon.” The blog promised additional information as it becomes available.

The 125-acre retreat includes another dozen cabins, tennis courts, a swimming pool, a bowling alley, a skeet range and a movie theater. There is a single golf hole with multiple tees — a far cry from what is available at Trump’s clubs around the country.

On the weekends he has stayed in Washington, the president has made a habit of heading to Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., which has two 18-hole courses.

Among the White House press corps, there was speculation that if Trump didn’t find enough to do at the rustic retreat, he might take to Twitter to fill the time — assuming his phone had service. As of late afternoon, Trump had not fired off any tweets.

Trump on Saturday became the 14th president to visit Camp David, which originally was a getaway for federal workers and their families. President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned it into a presidential retreat in 1942, choosing the spot for its seclusion and security.

For some presidents, it became a regular destination and a place to welcome world leaders.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower hosted Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev for talks there in 1959. The two watched movies. President Ronald Reagan went there more than 150 times, riding his horse and playing host to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

President Jimmy Carter struck a peace deal there in 1978 between Egypt and Israel. President George H.W. Bush hosted Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev for a round of summit talks, played tennis and zipped around in golf carts.

President Bill Clinton hosted a failed summit between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in 2000. President George W. Bush decamped there 149 times, according to statistics kept by CBS News reporter Mark Knoller.

President Obama was less of a fan. Although he hosted a Group of Eight summit at Camp David in 2012, he visited the retreat just 39 times.

For Trump, Mar-a-Lago has been the preferred venue to entertain global leaders. In February, he hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe there. The pair also played rounds of golf at two other Trump-branded properties in Southern Florida, disappearing from public view for what was billed as some fairways diplomacy.

In April, Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Mar-a-Lago for a two-day summit that included talk about North Korea and trade.

In more recent weeks, Trump has decamped twice to his secluded golf club in New Jersey’s fox-hunt and horse country, about 45 miles west of New York City, where he maintains a residence.

Trump’s getaways to Florida and New Jersey have drawn a cascade of new reports about the additional security costs for taxpayers and surrounding communities. Camp David, by contrast, has been secured for decades.

I didn't realize Mar-a-Loco was closed for the season. I just figured the TT would melt in the heat, so that was why he had been going to his tacky places in NJ and VA.

I think this was Melania's choice. I think she finds the WH claustrophobic after her freedom in NY. So she dug her long manicured nails into his ball-sack, reminded him who really has the Russian hooker tape and said "You are NOT playing golf on Father's Day. Camp David!" You know if were up to him he would be playing golf in NJ. Without Barron. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump lawyer insists there is no obstruction investigation — but then hedges"

Spoiler

A member of President Trump’s legal team repeatedly insisted that Trump is not under investigation for obstruction of justice but acknowledged he could not know for certain during combative Sunday television interviews.

“Let me be very clear here, as it has been since the beginning, the president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction,” lawyer Jay Sekulow said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” part of a blitz of bookings on the Sunday morning public affairs shows.

That assessment, repeated on three other broadcasts, was at odds with a Washington Post report last week and seemingly with a tweet by Trump himself on Friday.

During a later appearance on “Fox News Sunday, “ Sekulow conceded that he could not say with absolute certainty that Trump is not being investigated because he cannot read the mind of special counsel Robert S. Mueller.

The Post reported last week that Mueller, who was appointed to oversee the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

On Twitter on Friday, Trump wrote as part of a tweet about the probe that “I am being investigated.”

On Sunday, Sekulow sought to explain that Trump was using Twitter, a favorite means of communication with his supporters, to address The Post report and was not actually confirming that he is being investigated, despite writing those words.

“The president is not under investigation by the special counsel,” Sekulow told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources that were purportedly leaking information to The Washington Post about a potential investigation of the president.”

Sekulow cited recent congressional testimony by fired FBI director James B. Comey in which Comey said he had told Trump on a few occasions that Trump was not personally under investigation in relation to the Russia probe. Those conversations, however, occurred before Trump fired Comey, who was helping lead the investigation, and before the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee the probe.

Last week’s Post story cited five people briefed on the interview requests, who said that the current director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, head of the National Security Agency, Mike Rogers, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators.

The five people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Sekulow referred to The Post story as “a fake report” during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

“We stand by our story, which President Trump confirmed Friday in a tweet acknowledging he is under investigation for obstruction of justice,” Post executive editor Martin Baron said in a statement.

Other news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, have had similar reports since The Post broke the news Wednesday night about Trump being under investigation.

In a testy exchange on Fox, Sekulow acknowledged he could not know for sure that Mueller has not opened an investigation but said he had no reason to believe he had.

“Nothing has changed” since Comey informed the president that he was not being personally investigated, he said.

The interview turned tense, however, when host Chris Wallace then asked Sekulow about the remainder of Trump’s tweet, in which Trump had complained that he was being investigated for firing Comey by the man who told him to fire Comey.

Wallace asked Sekulow if Trump believes that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who wrote a memo criticizing Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, has done anything wrong.

Sekulow responded that Trump had been getting at a “constitutional issue.”

“He’s being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general recommended him to take, by the agency that recommended he take the action. That’s the constitutional threshold issue,” Sekulow said.

When Wallace pointed out that Sekulow had appeared to agree in his answer that the president is under investigation, the lawyer grew flustered. He said he had only been discussing the constitutional problem posed if the president were being investigated.

“I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I’ve been crystal clear that the president is not and has not been under investigation,” he said.

“But you don’t know that he’s not under investigation again, sir?” Wallace responded.

“You’re right, Chris. I cannot read the mind of the special prosecutor,” Sekulow responded.

“We’re in agreement then,” Wallace said.

Asked on the CBS show “Face the Nation” how he could know Trump is not under investigation, Sekulow responded: “Because we’ve received no notification of investigation.”

He added that he could not “imagine a scenario” where Trump would be under investigation and not be aware of it.

A prosecutor may inform the subject or target of an investigation that a probe is underway but is under no obligation to do so.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, prosecutors are encouraged to notify investigation targets at a “reasonable time” before seeking an indictment, to provide a target the opportunity to testify in front of a grand jury. But it outlines no requirement of notification, particularly while prosecutors are still gathering evidence.

Sekulow also told CBS on Sunday that Trump remains willing to speak under oath about the Russia matter, as Trump had promised at a Rose Garden news conference earlier this month.

But Sekulow said he has not yet determined whether such a session would take place with Mueller or as part of ongoing congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the election.

Sekulow also said that he thinks Trump will address the question of whether there are recordings of his private conversations with Comey “in the week ahead.”

Sekulow had made a similar promise during interviews last week, but he said the release of information about possible tapes had been delayed by events last week, including Trump’s speech redefining the U.S. relationship with Cuba and the shootings at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Virginia.

On Fox, Wallace asked Sekulow if Trump believes the law allows for a president to be indicted.

Constitutional scholars have debated the question for years, though the Justice Department has said in formal opinions written under former presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon that the Constitution bars a sitting president from facing legal indictment.

Sekulow responded that Trump couldn’t be indicted “because there’s not an investigation.”

“Oh boy, this is weird,” Wallace responded. “You don’t know whether there’s an investigation. You just told us that.”

Sekulow also insisted that Trump’s tweets have posed no problems for his legal team. He said Trump had learned the effectiveness of social media as a communications tool during the campaign.

“Nothing he’s tweeted has caused me any issues whatsoever,” he said. “Nothing.”

Gee, Sekulow is just as deluded as his boss. And, when Clinton was president, the Repugs kept screaming that the president isn't above the law. I guess that only applies to Democratic presidents.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Two years ago, they couldn’t look away. Now some Trump supporters are tuning out."

Spoiler

New York

June 16, 2015

Donald Trump stepped onto the golden escalator that descends into the pink-marbled food court of Trump Tower. He flashed a thumbs-up as he passed a line of supposed supporters — random tourists lured off the street with the promise of an “only in New York” experience — and inched toward the reporters seated below. In a rambling speech, he marveled at the crowd size, called Mexican immigrants “rapists,” declared that “China is killing us” and vowed to make America great once again.

It was the garish start to a politics-as-reality-show that no one — whether for or against him — could stop watching. As the summer progressed, he hit No. 1 in the polls and attracted thousands to mega-rallies in cities from Mobile, Ala., to Phoenix on his unlikely journey to the White House.

But two years later, President Trump is struggling to keep his viewers engaged. Governing turns out to be less entertaining than the spectacle of a political horse race — especially when complicated by conflict-of-interest scandals, a widening criminal inquiry and a policy agenda bogged down by infighting and partisanship. A new poll last week by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Trump is doing; only 35 percent approve.

The president’s die-hard supporters — the sort who make a pilgrimage to Trump Tower to ride the golden escalator — say they tune out much of the controversy, including the stream of news about the congressional and FBI investigations into alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia. And while many of them say Trump has met their expectations during his first five months in office, they also have a sinking feeling that those obstructing him will keep him from reaching his full potential as president.

“It’s very frustrating that he gets pushback on everything that he tries to do. It’s just everything. Everything,” said Debbie Maddox, 61, a retiree and Trump supporter from the Houston area who visited Trump Tower this month with her daughter and two grandchildren. “They just don’t give him a chance to do it, no matter what it is. He’s always wrong.”

Her daughter, Stacey Cotton, gently tells her mother that the president’s brash style makes it hard for many to trust him.

“He has an arrogance to him that I think sometimes makes it difficult for people to receive his message the way he wished they would receive it,” said Cotton, 43, who teaches third grade. “He’s not this polished politician.”

Cotton usually votes for Republicans, but she couldn’t bring herself to vote for Trump — or for Democrat Hillary Clinton. Now that Trump is president, Cotton said, she is willing to give him a chance to “spread his wings and see what he can do” — and she wishes others were willing to do the same.

In deep-red Texas, Cotton said, her friends, neighbors and co-workers have largely stopped talking about politics and the president; it’s just too divisive. She recently purchased an Ivanka Trump-branded blouse and then worried that wearing it might offend someone.

Cotton watches the local news in the morning, but she’s not following what’s happening in the White House as closely as she followed the campaign. Her parents watch Fox News nearly all day long, but her mother admits that she doesn’t know much about the Russia investigations.

“All of this stuff just makes you hate politics,” Maddox said. “All of it is just so negative. I don’t think I’ve heard so much junk during any other presidency.”

That was a common refrain among President Trump’s supporters in the ’80s-reminiscent lobby.

“I think he’s doing a great job. I don’t have any complaints. I wish the media would back off, because they’re very negative and anything he does they want to pick apart,” said Lori Vanauken of Florida, as she and her family ate burgers and fries in the same spot where Trump announced his candidacy.

Vanauken and her husband said they wish Congress would implement some of Trump’s ideas instead of wasting time with hearings. They believe the president’s word over that of former FBI director James B. Comey and others — but added that even if Trump did tell Comey to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, it’s no big deal.

“Okay, so something happened — get over it and move on,” said David Vanauken, an engineer. “That’s what middle-class people do every day: You have a struggle, you resolve it, and you move on. Don’t keep hanging on it.”

...

Phoenix

July 11, 2015

Three weeks after Trump’s hometown announcement speech, he traveled to Phoenix for a rally that suggested that something unexpected was starting to happen. Thousands requested tickets — prompting the campaign to upgrade from a hotel ballroom to the city’s convention center.

That’s when immigration rights activists in Arizona, a testing ground for controversial crackdowns on migrants, decided to take him seriously.

“For some folks, it seems like a crazy joke, but we’ve seen people like that here,” said Maria Castro, 23, a community organizer with the Puente Human Rights Movement. “We’re in Arizona. We know what this is like. If we don’t want this to spread to the rest of the country, we have to do something now and pay attention to it.”

Castro and dozens of other activists showed up to Trump’s rally — only to find themselves far outnumbered by Trump’s supporters. Amid chanting from fellow activists, Castro pulled out a cloth banner that read: “Stop the hate.”

“As soon as we put the banner up, people swarmed us,” Castro said. “We were struggling to just keep it up. And that’s when people started punching.”

Castro and the others had never experienced anything like that in Arizona — but physical violence at Trump events would quickly become the new normal.

In the angry crowd that day, the activists saw Trump’s potential. Castro thought Bernie Sanders could stop him, but when he lost the Democratic nomination in June 2016, she posted on Facebook: “Are y’all ready for a Trump President? All 50 states will look like AZ, start organizing your bases now. Hillary can’t take the Donald. #NotWithHer.” Eventually, Castro voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

“We couldn’t be happy fully because we knew that everything that we had been fighting for ten years was going to go national,” Castro said, a tear rolling down her cheek as she remembered election night. “I was feeling devastated.”

She doesn’t regret her vote for Stein, saying “you can’t blame it on this one night and on 1 percent of the people” who voted for the Green Party. While Castro often votes for Democrats, she doesn’t consider herself one and said the party needs to move beyond a message of “At least I’m not Trump” or “At least I’m not a Republican.”

A few months ago, Castro learned she was pregnant — and she decided it was no longer healthy to consume so much news. She still gets breaking news alerts on her phone and will still scroll through headlines and videos on Facebook, but she’s careful not to get too caught up.

“It was just weighing super heavy on me to the point where I was angry all of the time,” she said. “It was overpowering. I didn’t feel like it was healthy for me to be upset all the time. So I’ve made that conscious decision that I can’t have this in my life all day every day.”

Across town at the Phoenix Convention Center, Southern Baptist pastors gathered last week for their annual convention and passed a resolution denouncing the alt-right movement for a whites-only state, following a heated discussion over the wording. The push for the declaration came from younger and minority clergy.

Several pastors and their family members said they voted for Trump based on his positions, not him as a candidate. They were pleased to see Trump nominate Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and hope the president will follow through on his promises related to abortion and religious liberty. But many said they are more focused on their congregations, families and issues in their own communities than on what’s happening in the White House.

John Connell, a 63-year-old pastor from Florida who has strongly supported Trump for more than two years, said he was not surprised that Trump won or that Democrats are fighting him — but he was surprised to see members of Trump’s own party stalling on his legislation and continuing the probe into the Russia allegations, which he calls “kindergarten trash.” Much of the criticism of Trump is overblown or exaggerated, he said.

“Hopefully with the midterm elections, we will continue to see that the nation as a whole is behind him,” said Connell, who said he only believes election results, not polls or approval ratings. “The East Coast and West Coast — the edges, the fringes — aren’t behind him, but Middle America is very pro-Trump.”

Jessica James, a photographer whose husband is a pastor in North Carolina, said the two of them voted for a third-party candidate, as they didn’t want to be associated with the negative connotations of being a Trump voter. James said that she rarely has time to follow the latest things Trump has said or done — and that it’s not vital to her busy life right now.

“There’s so much in this world that I could sit and worry about,” she said. “My hope is not in America, it is not in anything else but the Lord. . . . Whatever happens, I can’t control it, so I’m not going to worry about it. It’s all in the Lord’s hands.”

Mobile, Alabama

Aug. 21, 2015

Despite being the “joke candidate,” Trump surged through that first summer at the top of the polls. With each rally, more people tuned in to watch the Trump Show.

In late August, thousands descended on Ladd-Peebles Stadium in a working-class black neighborhood in Mobile, Ala. At the front of the line was Bill Hart and his co-worker Keith Quackenbush, who drove in from Pensacola, Fla. Behind them was a young mother from Southern California who flew to Alabama just to see Trump. Local officials estimated the crowd at 30,000, although many have argued that the number is inflated.

Hart said he didn’t understand why people were so dismissive of Trump at that point. As he watched the football stadium fill, he knew Trump would win.

“A lot of people just didn’t understand that he connected with real people,” said Hart, who is now 48. “Not D.C. people. Not the media that’s so against him still. He connected with them.”

He also watched his number of Facebook friends dwindle. Hart is gay and many of his friends couldn’t understand how he could support a Republican, let alone Trump. Soon, Hart took the Trump stickers off his car and decided against getting personalized plates reading “TRUMP45.”

“A lot of times, you have to hide your support of Trump — that’s the saddest thing. If you have Trump on your car, you have to worry: Is somebody going to key my car?” said Hart, who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. “It’s even harder now because people are just so vile about it.”

He describes Democrats, protesters and journalists as “drama queens” who “just want to create drama and make themselves look good.” But Hart said he does wish Trump would “put the damn phone down,” and he was disappointed the president did not put out a statement supporting Pride month, which celebrates the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

“If he would have come out and made a proclamation, it would have been used against him. If he doesn’t, it’s against him. It’s a no-win,” Hart said.

Tim Wadsworth, a state representative from Winston County in rural northwestern Alabama, endorsed Trump that day, along with three other state lawmakers. Trump won 90 percent of the general-election vote in Winston, and Wadsworth said his constituents remain “100 percent behind him.”

“You just have to ignore a lot of the things they’re saying and get down to what he’s actually doing,” Wadsworth said. “People can stir things up as much as they want to . . . but in the long run, justice prevails.”

That rally in Mobile turned out to be one of the largest of Trump’s entire campaign, and the neighborhood was overwhelmed with traffic. A neo-Confederate activist passed out copies of a newspaper that included a headline about “black-on-white crime.” There was a helicopter in the sky, along with a small plane carrying a banner promoting one of Trump’s rivals. Trump’s private plane swooped past.

Stephen Wheeler Sr., 46, remembers coming home that day and finding his street shut down.

“I couldn’t go to my damn house,” Wheeler said last week, as he and his son hauled a lawn mower past the stadium. “You’re not going to stop me from going to my own house.”

Wheeler didn’t take Trump seriously then, and he doesn’t take him seriously now.

“He needs to be impeached,” said Wheeler, who voted for Clinton.

That is a common sentiment in the predominantly African American neighborhood, where residents said they’re tired of hearing the news that Trump angered another foreign ally or that there’s been another development in the Russia investigation.

They just want him gone.

“If they can impeach Bill Clinton for infidelity, then they can impeach him for unreasoning and ill manners,” said LaKela Maye, 27, who moved away from Mobile for college but recently returned when her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Maye, who voted for Clinton, said the president doesn’t seem to care about the issues that are so vital to this community — health care, education, women’s rights and unemployment.

“We take it day by day over here,” Maye said of her neighborhood. “Whether he comes or goes, we’re still going to have to live our day-to-day lives. . . . We have to move forward — whether it was Hillary in the office or Donald Trump or a man that was purple, we will still be the same way.”

"...get over it and move on..." Seriously?

[JMarie]

5 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

I think this was Melania's choice. I think she finds the WH claustrophobic after her freedom in NY. So she dug her long manicured nails into his ball-sack, reminded him who really has the Russian hooker tape and said "You are NOT playing golf on Father's Day. Camp David!" You know if were up to him he would be playing golf in NJ. Without Barron. 

My prediction is that Trump will find Camp David to be "too rustic" (i.e., not up to his gold-plated standards), and this weekend will be his only time there.  I'm not saying he'll be in office so much longer that another visit would be in order, but I don't think he'll be going back ever.

[GreyhoundFan]

Melania must not have hidden his phone very well: "Trump starts Father's Day with tweets"

Spoiler

President Donald Trump began Sunday morning as he often does, with a series of tweets.

The Father's Day tweets were clearly addressed at redress, an attempt to counter perceptions of his presidency by reaching out directly to the American people.

Tweet 1: "The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,.."

Tweet 2: "...massive regulation cuts, 36 new legislative bills signed, great new S.C.Justice, and Infrastructure, Healthcare and Tax Cuts in works!"

Tweet 3: "The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election, just out with a Trump 50% Approval Rating.That's higher than O's #'s!"

Presumably, the reference in the third tweet was to former President Barack Obama, though it's not clear what the direct comparison was.

The president was referring to the daily tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports, which surveys 500 likely voters every night and then produces a rolling average to come up with the president's daily approval rating.

The Rasmussen number is higher — and, in some cases, much higher — than other recent presidential poll results. Gallup's numbers, also the result of a three-day rolling average, most recently had Trump's support at 39 percent approval, and a Quinnipiac poll placed him at 34 percent. Of course, there are variations in methodology.

The president and his family were at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.

 

[candygirl200413]

He still has yet to say anything about the sailors we just lost off the coast of Japan right?

[Bethella]

2 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

He still has yet to say anything about the sailors we just lost off the coast of Japan right?

He posted something a couple of days ago, but I don't think he's posted anything since they confirmed the deaths.

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's some info on the newest member of Agent Orange's legal team: "Jay Sekulow, Trump’s unlikely lawyer"

Spoiler

Jay Sekulow had a hectic day Sunday, bouncing from one news show to another to beat back reports that President Trump was under investigation for obstruction of justice.

In a media blitz through four networks, Sekulow, a new member of Trump’s legal team, repeatedly insisted that there was no such probe — an assertion at odds with stories published last week in The Washington Post and elsewhere — only to concede later that he doesn’t know for sure. At one point he flatly contradicted himself on “Fox News Sunday,” in a stumble that host Chris Wallace, a seasoned TV interrogator, seized upon for maximum effect.

All told, Sekulow came off a bit like a Washington novice, which he’s definitely not. His face and his name are well known in the nation’s capital and among conservatives generally — but not for this kind of work. He’s an experienced litigator on behalf of conservative causes, especially causes dear to the religious right. White-collar defense lawyers, particularly those who defend political figures, form a small community in Washington, and Sekulow is not part of it.

Sekulow made his first big Washington debut in 1987 in the Supreme Court when he helped the evangelical group Jews for Jesus defeat a measure that banned the distribution of religious literature at Los Angeles International Airport.

His performance was unimpressive, American Lawyer magazine wrote at the time. Sekulow was “rude and aggressive,” the publication wrote, “so nervous that at times he appeared nearly out of control.”

Fortunately for Sekulow, it was an easy case to win. The ordinance barred “First Amendment activity” at the airport, presenting clear constitutional problems. And win Sekulow did — in a unanimous decision striking down the measure.

“I left the courtroom feeling like the Beatles must have felt leaving Shea Stadium,” he wrote in 2005.

The victory turned Sekulow, a self-described Messianic Jew, into a crusader for religious expression and a celebrity on the Christian right, a status that has only grown since then. Over three decades, he built a legal and media empire by representing religious groups, antiabortion advocates and other conservative organizations in high-profile court battles.

With televangelist Pat Robertson, Sekulow launched the American Center for Law and Justice — a conservative response to the American Civil Liberties Union — which litigates evangelical causes, often with great success. He has appeared before the Supreme Court on 11 other occasions and has filed numerous amicus briefs in cases related to civil liberties.

Like so many other people in Trump’s orbit, he hosts a widely syndicated daily radio talk show with millions of listeners, and is a regular guest on Fox News Channel, “The 700 Club” and Sean Hannity’s radio show, where he weighs in on legal issues.

Recently, about 30 years after his humble beginning in the Supreme Court, he agreed to take on the client of a lifetime: the president of the United States.

It was an unusual move for Sekulow, 61.

He has virtually no experience in law enforcement investigations or white-collar matters, unlike his main counterparts on the legal team representing Trump in the probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and, now, possible obstruction of justice by the president. Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s personal attorney, has long represented clients facing investigations, and John Dowd, another new addition to the team, is renowned for defending politicians and other public figures in white-collar cases.

Nevertheless, it was Sekulow who entered the fray this weekend to defend Trump.

The exchanges with hosts on CNN, NBC and Fox News Channel were tense and combative, with Sekulow’s inner litigator and conservative media bravado on full display.

In the heated interview on “Fox News Sunday,” he first asserted that Trump was not being investigated.

Then Wallace pressed him about what Trump meant when he tweeted Friday, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!”

“He’s being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general recommended him to take, by the agency that recommended he take the action. That’s the constitutional threshold issue,” Sekulow said.

Wallace went in for the kill. He pointed out that Sekulow, now saying the president was “being investigated,” appeared to have changed his answer.

That’s when Sekulow grew frustrated.

“I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I’ve been crystal clear that the president is not and has not been under investigation,” he said.

“But you don’t know that he’s not under investigation again, sir?” Wallace responded.

“You’re right, Chris. I cannot read the mind of the special prosecutor,” Sekulow shot back.

The makeup of the Trump team, specifically its inexperience with the unique challenges of high-level Washington probes, became a target of ridicule last week from Trump critics, which only increased with the appearance of Sekulow.

“The point here is not that he’s some kind of fringe crackpot,” MSNBC’s Steve Benen wrote of Sekulow.

“Rather, the point is there’s a sizable gap between Sekulow’s decades of work on religious and social issues,” Benen said. “When thinking of the kind of lawyers Trump should seek for this crisis, Sekulow’s name wouldn’t come to mind — not because he’s ridiculous, because he’s not that kind of attorney.”

...

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo seemed to agree, writing, “this just isn’t his line of work.”

“I’m not saying Sekulow is a joke. He’s not,” Marshall wrote. “There is literally nothing in Sekulow’s professional background (other than perhaps simply having a law degree) which would suit him to the very specific legal task of defending a sitting president from legal jeopardy.”

Sekulow did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Sunday night.

Few attorneys have ever handled the investigation of a president. What Sekulow — or anyone, for that matter — may lack in proven skills tailored to the task at hand, he may make up for in loyalty to Trump. Perhaps that’s among the reasons Trump hired him.

As Trump’s scandals have ballooned over the past few months, Sekulow has stood up for the president and inveighed against the perceived enemies of the White House on his radio show, in television appearances and on his website.

Using language popular on the political far-right, he has warned repeatedly of a “deep state bureaucracy” out to sabotage the presidency and a “shadow government” led by none other than former FBI director James B. Comey, who was fired by Trump last month.

In May, Sekulow dismissed the Russia scandal as “a fraud on the American people.” He said on his radio show: “The Washington Post and the New York Times love it. There’s only one thing missing: facts.”

...

After Comey’s closely watched testimony before the Senate earlier this month, Sekulow called the former FBI director the “leaker in chief” and said he should face charges. In an appearance on Hannity, he said: “This is the complete collapse of James B. Comey and the Comey narrative about this case. It’s over. There is no case there.”

The same day, on his radio show, Sekulow addressed what were then rumors about his role on the legal team, saying he was happy to help defend against an “attack on the presidency.”

“If the president of the United States asks you for legal advice and you’re a lawyer and you’re serving your country and the Constitution, you do it,” Sekulow said. “This was an opportunity that opened up and we wanted to take advantage of it in order to make sure the Constitution is fulfilled. This is an attack on the presidency. That’s what this is.”

He added that he was fulfilling a sort of commitment to his audience as well.

“A lot of you have been asking to have a voice on this,” he said. “Well, you do.”

"...rude and aggressive..." No wonder the TT hired him.

[Destiny]

I wondered about that@greyhoundfan. I knew of Mister Sekulow from growing up fundie - he was practically a hero in my circles. I thought he had perhaps gotten some new and different experience in the 15+ years since I left. Alas, it appears no.

Cheeto has money. Why not hire competent AND properly qualified for the type of law lawyers?

[47of74]

15 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Melania must not have hidden his phone very well: "Trump starts Father's Day with tweets"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Donald Trump began Sunday morning as he often does, with a series of tweets.

The Father's Day tweets were clearly addressed at redress, an attempt to counter perceptions of his presidency by reaching out directly to the American people.

Tweet 1: "The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,.."

Tweet 2: "...massive regulation cuts, 36 new legislative bills signed, great new S.C.Justice, and Infrastructure, Healthcare and Tax Cuts in works!"

Tweet 3: "The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election, just out with a Trump 50% Approval Rating.That's higher than O's #'s!"

Presumably, the reference in the third tweet was to former President Barack Obama, though it's not clear what the direct comparison was.

The president was referring to the daily tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports, which surveys 500 likely voters every night and then produces a rolling average to come up with the president's daily approval rating.

The Rasmussen number is higher — and, in some cases, much higher — than other recent presidential poll results. Gallup's numbers, also the result of a three-day rolling average, most recently had Trump's support at 39 percent approval, and a Quinnipiac poll placed him at 34 percent. Of course, there are variations in methodology.

The president and his family were at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.

 

Fuck  What a piece of shit. 

I do not recall any past Presidents ever putting out statements, tweets, etc that their approval ratings were higher than their predecessors.   Not  even Shrub said anything like that.

1 minute ago, Destiny said:

I wondered about that@greyhoundfan. I knew of Mister Sekulow from growing up fundie - he was practically a hero in my circles. I thought he had perhaps gotten some new and different experience in the 15+ years since I left. Alas, it appears no.

Cheeto has money. Why not hire competent AND properly qualified for the type of law lawyers?

I think the lawyers with even an ounce of personal integrity don't want anything to do with cheeto.  (I seem to recall several law firms in the DC area saying nope when the orange one asked them to represent him).  They know that once the liquid manure hits the fan cheeto and anyone else associated with him are going to get covered in manure. 

[GreyhoundFan]

17 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I wondered about that@greyhoundfan. I knew of Mister Sekulow from growing up fundie - he was practically a hero in my circles. I thought he had perhaps gotten some new and different experience in the 15+ years since I left. Alas, it appears no.

Cheeto has money. Why not hire competent AND properly qualified for the type of law lawyers?

 

He doesn't care about competent. He only cares about loyalty, so if the lawyer pledges undying love for Agent Orange, he will be hired.

[JMarie]

43 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I wondered about that@greyhoundfan. I knew of Mister Sekulow from growing up fundie - he was practically a hero in my circles. I thought he had perhaps gotten some new and different experience in the 15+ years since I left. Alas, it appears no.

Cheeto has money. Why not hire competent AND properly qualified for the type of law lawyers?

Jay Sekulow sings!  And plays drums!  Who said Trump isn't for diversity within his cabinet?

(Sekulow is one of two drummers, yet somehow the band is named after him)

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Trump team’s spin about the Russia probe sinks deeper into absurdity"

Spoiler

Everybody is making a big deal about the extraordinary exchange between Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and questioner Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” and for good reason. Sekulow repeatedly insisted that Trump is not under investigation, but then admitted he does not know this to be the case and struggled to explain why President Trump had confirmed on Twitter that he is indeed a target. Sekulow made this assertion — that Trump is not under investigation — on multiple other shows, with little success.

But for purposes of gaming out where this story is headed in coming days, there are two other major pieces of spin from Sekulow that need to be addressed. Both will be extensively employed by Team Trump in the future, and both highlight areas of critical unknowns that will be subjected to intense scrutiny soon enough.

To be sure, the claim that Trump is not under investigation is itself worth some attention. Sekulow repeatedly said Trump has not been notified that he is a target. This was in response to a Post report that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has widened the Russia probe to include an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct the inquiry. But as lawyers told the New York Times, it would not be unusual for Trump to be notified much later in the process that his conduct is being examined. Indeed, Sekulow acknowledged as much when he allowed he could not know for certain whether Trump is a focus. But this aside, here are two other important pieces of spin Sekulow offered:

Sekulow renewed the suggestion that Trump fired the FBI director at the recommendation of the deputy attorney general. NBC’s Chuck Todd pressed Sekulow on whether Trump had made the decision to fire former FBI director James B. Comey himself or at the recommendation of deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein. Sekulow mostly sidestepped the question, but he did suggest that Trump reached his decision through a “collaborative process” in which Trump considered Rosenstein’s recommendation (made in a memo criticizing Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails).

This is absurd, because as we already know, Trump has confirmed on national television that he was going to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s recommendation and that his motive was rooted in unhappiness with Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. But, more to the point, the fact that Sekulow is going here — again — means scrutiny will intensify on the meeting that Trump held with Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions just before firing Comey. The Post has reported that in that meeting, Trump — having already decided to fire Comey — demanded that Rosenstein memo as a rationale.

And so, investigators will likely try to determine whether Trump indicated in that meeting that he’d already made his decision, and indicated to them his reason for it, in effect enlisting them in an effort to create a cover story for the firing. Thus, Sekulow’s spin itself serves as a reminder that Trump’s conduct leading up to the firing of Comey will likely be examined. It’s hard to imagine this meeting not coming under scrutiny.

Sekulow deliberately narrowed the scope of the Trump conduct that’s at issue. On “Fox News Sunday,” Sekulow put additional spin on the idea that Trump fired Comey at Rosenstein’s recommendation, by complaining that Trump is “being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination.” This notion, which reprises a complaint Trump himself voiced on Twitter, buffoonishly contradicts the suggestion that Trump isn’t under investigation, but put that aside for now. Sekulow is basically narrowing the question to one over whether Trump is being (or whether he should be) investigated for obstruction over the isolated act of firing Comey.

But this clever rhetorical trick deliberately excludes all of the other Trump conduct that is at issue. As noted above, questions remain about the process leading up to the firing. But beyond this, there are Comey’s claims to Congress that Trump demanded his loyalty as a condition for continuing to serve as FBI director at his pleasure, and that Trump pressed Comey to drop his probe into the Russia ties of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Trump also reportedly tried to get other top intelligence officials to intervene in the Flynn probe. Indeed, The Post’s report claiming that Trump is being examined for possible obstruction also noted that Mueller is reportedly set to interview those very officials.

As Lawfare Blog founder Benjamin Wittes has noted, in obstruction cases, prosecutors examine a pattern of conduct. Trump is accused of demanding that Comey shed his institutional independence as a condition for continued employment; of directly leaning on Comey to drop aspects of the probe into Trump’s campaign; and of trying to enlist other intel officials in that project. Trump did subsequently fire Comey when he refused Trump’s directives; and Trump’s own admitted reason for doing so strongly suggests he may have tried to enlist Sessions and Rosenstein in the creation of a fake cover story for that disturbing abuse of power. The known fact pattern is already deeply troubling, whether or not it ends up amounting to obstruction, and Sekulow’s rhetorical chicanery cannot make it disappear. Does anyone really believe that Mueller will not look at this pattern of conduct?

* THOSE COMEY TAPES ARE COMING … ANY DAY NOW: On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sekulow was asked when Trump would release those tapes of his conversations with James Comey. His answer:

“I think the president is going to address that in the week ahead. There was a lot of issues this past week … So the issue of the tapes, I think right now was not priority issue … I think it shows that the president is concentrating on governing. This issue will be addressed in due course and I suspect next week.”

Yes, Trump was too busy governing to get around to releasing evidence that will exonerate him in the probe that he tweets and obsesses about constantly. That’s the ticket!

"Buffoonishly" -- great description!

[GrumpyGran]

39 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The Trump team’s spin about the Russia probe sinks deeper into absurdity"

  Hide contents

Everybody is making a big deal about the extraordinary exchange between Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and questioner Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” and for good reason. Sekulow repeatedly insisted that Trump is not under investigation, but then admitted he does not know this to be the case and struggled to explain why President Trump had confirmed on Twitter that he is indeed a target. Sekulow made this assertion — that Trump is not under investigation — on multiple other shows, with little success.

But for purposes of gaming out where this story is headed in coming days, there are two other major pieces of spin from Sekulow that need to be addressed. Both will be extensively employed by Team Trump in the future, and both highlight areas of critical unknowns that will be subjected to intense scrutiny soon enough.

To be sure, the claim that Trump is not under investigation is itself worth some attention. Sekulow repeatedly said Trump has not been notified that he is a target. This was in response to a Post report that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has widened the Russia probe to include an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct the inquiry. But as lawyers told the New York Times, it would not be unusual for Trump to be notified much later in the process that his conduct is being examined. Indeed, Sekulow acknowledged as much when he allowed he could not know for certain whether Trump is a focus. But this aside, here are two other important pieces of spin Sekulow offered:

Sekulow renewed the suggestion that Trump fired the FBI director at the recommendation of the deputy attorney general. NBC’s Chuck Todd pressed Sekulow on whether Trump had made the decision to fire former FBI director James B. Comey himself or at the recommendation of deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein. Sekulow mostly sidestepped the question, but he did suggest that Trump reached his decision through a “collaborative process” in which Trump considered Rosenstein’s recommendation (made in a memo criticizing Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails).

This is absurd, because as we already know, Trump has confirmed on national television that he was going to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s recommendation and that his motive was rooted in unhappiness with Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. But, more to the point, the fact that Sekulow is going here — again — means scrutiny will intensify on the meeting that Trump held with Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions just before firing Comey. The Post has reported that in that meeting, Trump — having already decided to fire Comey — demanded that Rosenstein memo as a rationale.

And so, investigators will likely try to determine whether Trump indicated in that meeting that he’d already made his decision, and indicated to them his reason for it, in effect enlisting them in an effort to create a cover story for the firing. Thus, Sekulow’s spin itself serves as a reminder that Trump’s conduct leading up to the firing of Comey will likely be examined. It’s hard to imagine this meeting not coming under scrutiny.

Sekulow deliberately narrowed the scope of the Trump conduct that’s at issue. On “Fox News Sunday,” Sekulow put additional spin on the idea that Trump fired Comey at Rosenstein’s recommendation, by complaining that Trump is “being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination.” This notion, which reprises a complaint Trump himself voiced on Twitter, buffoonishly contradicts the suggestion that Trump isn’t under investigation, but put that aside for now. Sekulow is basically narrowing the question to one over whether Trump is being (or whether he should be) investigated for obstruction over the isolated act of firing Comey.

But this clever rhetorical trick deliberately excludes all of the other Trump conduct that is at issue. As noted above, questions remain about the process leading up to the firing. But beyond this, there are Comey’s claims to Congress that Trump demanded his loyalty as a condition for continuing to serve as FBI director at his pleasure, and that Trump pressed Comey to drop his probe into the Russia ties of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Trump also reportedly tried to get other top intelligence officials to intervene in the Flynn probe. Indeed, The Post’s report claiming that Trump is being examined for possible obstruction also noted that Mueller is reportedly set to interview those very officials.

As Lawfare Blog founder Benjamin Wittes has noted, in obstruction cases, prosecutors examine a pattern of conduct. Trump is accused of demanding that Comey shed his institutional independence as a condition for continued employment; of directly leaning on Comey to drop aspects of the probe into Trump’s campaign; and of trying to enlist other intel officials in that project. Trump did subsequently fire Comey when he refused Trump’s directives; and Trump’s own admitted reason for doing so strongly suggests he may have tried to enlist Sessions and Rosenstein in the creation of a fake cover story for that disturbing abuse of power. The known fact pattern is already deeply troubling, whether or not it ends up amounting to obstruction, and Sekulow’s rhetorical chicanery cannot make it disappear. Does anyone really believe that Mueller will not look at this pattern of conduct?

* THOSE COMEY TAPES ARE COMING … ANY DAY NOW: On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sekulow was asked when Trump would release those tapes of his conversations with James Comey. His answer:

“I think the president is going to address that in the week ahead. There was a lot of issues this past week … So the issue of the tapes, I think right now was not priority issue … I think it shows that the president is concentrating on governing. This issue will be addressed in due course and I suspect next week.”

Yes, Trump was too busy governing to get around to releasing evidence that will exonerate him in the probe that he tweets and obsesses about constantly. That’s the ticket!

"Buffoonishly" -- great description!

So, three possibilities here with regard to a tape.

1. There is a tape that proves Comey lied. Then why not release it? This is Donald Trump, the guy who will grab on to anything that proves that he's right about something.

2. There's no tape. Then why not just admit that and move on? It wouldn't be the first time he's been caught stretching the truth. But the longer they go on with this vague maybe/maybe not story line, the more damaging the ultimate reveal will be.

3. There's a tape and it confirms Comey's story. So why not destroy it? These people have no regard for the law, so just burn it. Unless it's in the hands of an unfriendly.

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Jennifer Rubin: "Trump exploited the cultural divide, not economic unfairness"

Spoiler

If you listened to President Trump supporters and a great deal of the media (both mainstream and right-wing) analyzing the 2016 presidential race you would think Trump won the presidency because he understood the economic hardship of those in rural and small-town America. His base was made up of people hurt by globalization and de-industrialization in the heartland, the story goes. The traditional GOP and the Democratic Party, you see, didn’t understand this or care about their plight.

We’ve never really bought that explanation, in part because Trump voters on average were richer than Hillary Clinton voters. Now there is powerful evidence of a disagreeable truth: Trump’s base was far more motivated by cultural provincialism and xenophobia than by economic need.

The Post reports that the “popular explanations of the rural-urban divide appear to overstate the influence of declining economic outcomes in driving rural America’s support for Trump. The survey responses, along with follow-up interviews and focus groups in rural Ohio, bring into view a portrait of a split that is tied more to social identity than to economic experience.” Economic dislocation does not seem to have been the main factor in the election:

Rural Americans express far more concern about jobs in their communities, but the poll finds that those concerns have little connection to support for Trump, a frequent theory to explain his rise in 2016. Economic troubles also show little relation to the feeling that urban residents have different values.

Rural voters who lament their community’s job prospects report supporting Trump by 14 percentage points more than Clinton, but Trump’s support was about twice that margin — 30 points — among voters who say their community’s job opportunities are excellent or good. Trump also earned about the same level of support from those who say they don’t worry about paying their bills as those who couldn’t pay their bills at some point in the past year.

If not economics per se, what was the origin of the sharp electoral divide between rural and urban voters? Attitudes on race, culture and immigration seem to predominate:

The poll reveals that perceptions about abuse of government benefits often go hand in hand with views about race.

When asked which is more common — that government help tends to go to irresponsible people who do not deserve it or that it doesn’t reach people in need — rural Americans are more likely than others to say they think people are abusing the system. And across all areas, those who believe irresponsible people get undeserved government benefits are more likely than others to think that racial minorities receive unfair privileges.

In response to this poll question — “Which of these do you think is the bigger problem in this country: blacks and Hispanics losing out because of preferences for whites, or whites losing out because of preferences for blacks and Hispanics?” — rural whites are 14 points less likely than urban whites to say they are more concerned about blacks and Hispanics losing out.

While rural Americans may reside in close-knit, overwhelmingly Christian communities, they see themselves as victims in a war against religion. “Nearly 6 in 10 people in rural areas say Christian values are under attack, compared with just over half of suburbanites and fewer than half of urbanites. When personal politics is taken into account, the divide among rural residents is even larger: 78 percent of rural Republicans say Christian values are under attack, while 45 percent of rural Democrats do.” Trump magnificently exploited the resentments of white Christians and their anxiety about cities, which he falsely portrayed as experiencing a crime wave.

He also played into negative feelings about immigrants held by people who didn’t have much contact with immigrants. “Rural residents are more likely than people in cities or suburbs to think that immigrants are not adapting to the American way of life. The poll also finds that these views soften in rural areas with significant foreign-born populations.” They harbor strong feelings that are not the result of actual experience:

Rural residents are also more likely to say that recent immigrants have different values than their own — 50 percent, compared with 39 percent of urban residents.

Trump voters in rural areas are the most critical: 74 percent say recent immigrants are not doing enough to assimilate to life in America vs. 49 percent of rural Americans overall who think that, as well.

One reason for rural Americans’ concern about immigrants could be their lack of exposure to them. Foreign-born residents make up 2.3 percent of the population in rural counties, compared with nearly 15 percent of urban counties, according to Census Bureau data for 2011-2015. . . . The Post-Kaiser poll finds that in rural areas where less than 2 percent of the population are immigrants, less than 4 in 10 residents say immigrants strengthen the country. But that rises to nearly 6 in 10 in rural areas where at least 5 percent are born outside the United States.

Resentment and hysteria over cities and immigrants have been building for years, egged on by talk radio and Fox News and by anti-immigrant groups (e.g., FAIR, NumbersUSA). Trump simply took it to a new level of demagoguery divorced from reality.

As we reenter a national conversation about anger, polarization and rhetorical excess we should expect more diligent, reasoned behavior from both politicians and voters. It is a gross exaggeration to tell rural voters that Christianity is under assault because they cannot dominate societal rules (e.g., businesses cannot discriminate against LGBT customers, official organized school prayer violates the First Amendment). It’s flat-out false to say we are being swamped by illegal immigrants. This sort of propaganda lacks a grounding in reality and amps up the already dangerous political environment, which in turn paralyzes our democracy.

Inhabitants of cities are no less or more “American” than rural dwellers, and because of real-life experience display on average more tolerant attitudes toward immigrants. Rural communities have every right to demand adequate services. (Unfortunately, Trump policies make life harder for them. Trumpcare would make their health care more expensive; privatizing the air traffic control system would make airports scarcer in these areas.)  Like other Americans, they deserve empathy for the conditions that afflict many communities (drug addiction, soaring rates of those on disability). However, rural voters must, like all Americans, eschew bigotry and reject prevalent conspiracy theories that would alleviate them from personal responsibility for their life choices.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Little Marco shrinks down to Trump’s size"

Spoiler

Little Marco has made up with Big Donald.

The pliable Republican senator from Florida and the deranged president of the United States now get along. It was only a bit more than a year ago that they were hurling verbal spitballs at one another. Donald Trump called Marco Rubio “Little Marco,” and Rubio called Trump a “con artist.” Rubio suggested Trump had small hands and Trump responded by displaying his regulation-sized ones. Trump said Rubio sweated too much and had a severe water addiction, which was a sign of something, and then the two of them traded jabs about who used too much makeup until, finally, Rubio alleged that Trump during one of their debates had wet his pants. Trump declared that he had not — and was elected president.

It is refreshing, in an aerosol sort of way, to have that squabble behind us and the room fumigated. Only Trump remains, spewing resentful tweets from somewhere in the White House. I could say that it is a good and wholesome thing to return to yesteryear, when the day’s rancorous politics ended with bourbon and branch and the camaraderie that comes from acknowledging that the real enemy is not across the aisle, but the American people. They can vote you out.

But with Trump, there is no going back to the old ways. Just as “Macbeth doth murder sleep,” so has Trump broken Washington. He has changed the town just as surely as the Huns did Rome, and in similar fashion — with boorishness, bullying and violence of a verbal nature. His tweets, along with his occasionally non-tweeted remarks, are not only unpresidential, they’d be sufficient grounds for a timeout in almost any American family.

And yet, it has to be said that Trump has not only won, he has conquered. The capitulation of the Florida butterfly, pinned by Trump for display, is just one example. The more consequential one was last week’s Cabinet meeting in which almost all but Defense Secretary Jim Mattis abased themselves before a totally hallucinogenic Trump. One by one around the table, Trump’s ministers praised him, singing hosannas to his obvious greatness. Reince Priebus, a man who speaks lies to power, told the president to his face that it was an “opportunity and blessing that you’ve given us to serve,” and Trump, a man who does not gag, stoically lapped it up. Just moments before, the president observed of the president that no president, “with few exceptions,” has “passed more legislation [and] done more things than we’ve done.” All over the country, fact-checkers hyperventilated.

A white-coated attendant did not appear and lead the president away. On the contrary, the Cabinet nodded in approval. The secretary of state, an oilman from Texas named Rex of all things, went along with the psychodrama and then offered his own fawning praise of a man he knows he would never have hired back when he was running ExxonMobil and still had some pride.

But here’s the thing: It didn’t matter. The bizarre meeting was a one- or two-day story. Washington went on. Not a person in the Cabinet Room even made a face. They all went back to work, and so did the town itself. Weirdness has become normal. A president showing himself being detached from reality became an acceptable reality.

I don’t ask much of Marco Rubio. He is not a major figure, but instead a malleable one who puts his finger to the wind and feels the breeze blowing both ways. When he declared for the presidency, he vowed that he would not seek reelection to the Senate if he lost. He lost and sought reelection. He had to be in the Senate in the event Hillary Clinton won, he explained. Oh, the things he does for his country!

But if Rubio cannot keep his word, I’d at least like him to hold a grudge. Trump cannot be forgiven for the ugliness of his presidential campaign — the lies, the name-calling, the denigration of opponents, the demagoguery and the wink-wink about violence. He cannot be treated as if his was a normal campaign, a good, hard fight and all of that, when it was bursting with head-butting, low blows and eye-gouging — as dirty and low a performance as this country has ever seen. Rubio was on the receiving end of some of those insults, the most damaging — if the most perceptive — is that he was “Little Marco,” too small to be president and now not big enough to stand up for us all.

We can't let weirdness become normal.

[AuntK]

WTH is wrong with these people? The Trumpettes, I mean. They believe Trump over Comey? They don't believe there is any collusion with Russia? Or that Russia hacked our election?  Oh, I guess they are still watching Faux News, so they don't know shit.

And the woman who doesn't regret her vote for Jill Stein? I guess she never saw the photo of the dinner in Moscow with Jill at the table with Putin and Flynn. Stein was in on this up to her neck!

And btw, in regard to all of these empty positions - 2 of them, head of FEMA and head of NOAA, are going to be pretty critical soon. There is serious weather in store for the US and presently a tropical disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico. June 1 was the beginning of hurricane season, so there will be a lot of activity the next few months.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump says he’ll donate his foreign hotel profits. It’ll be hard to check."

Spoiler

Last week, nearly 200 congressional Democrats filed a lawsuit against President Trump, alleging that he is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting payment from foreign visitors to his hotels. Two days earlier, the attorneys general of the District and Maryland had filed their own lawsuit alleging the same.

The emoluments clause has become a rallying cry for those who think that Trump is more interested in making money off his presidency than in actually governing — and that payments from foreign nationals at Trump properties appear to match the concerns about foreign influence that the founders had in mind when they wrote the clause.

But like many things with Trump, holding him accountable on his promise to donate such funds to the Treasury Department will probably be difficult — and a recent denial of a Freedom of Information Act request by the agency shows just how tough it will be to ensure that all payments from foreign visitors are handed over to the government.

Several months back, I filed a request seeking records of any donations to the Treasury Department made by the Trump Organization, the president, his sons and Allen Weisselberg, the organization’s chief financial officer. In April, Treasury denied my request, saying that I would need detailed information like bank account and routing numbers for the agency to search its logs for donations from Trump or his organization.

Obviously, that’s something the president and his organization probably aren’t going to hand over. Which means getting independent verification from the government that the Trump Organization really is donating foreign-origin profits from its hotels could be close to impossible.

“This is emblematic of this hyper-bureaucratic procedural dance that, too often, agencies require requesters to play,” said Adam Marshall of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press. “I think ultimately, FOIA is not supposed to be a game where requesters have to know magic words and incredible amounts of specific information in order to get the records they’re seeking.”

Zephyr Teachout, a law professor and one of the attorneys working on an emoluments lawsuit brought against the president by the legal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the denial was just another sign that it would be difficult to hold Trump accountable on his promise to donate foreign profits.

“When I say Trump’s plan lacks oversight, that’s actually being too kind, because there simply is no oversight,” Teachout said. “It’s basically entirely up to the whims of the president.”

In its letter to me, the Treasury Department noted that the Trump Organization announced in March that it would donate foreign profits from 2017 some time in 2018. But the company has never given specifics as to how foreign payments would be tracked, and an internal document released in May showed that the organization would not ask guests whether they were associated with foreign governments.

“It is not the intention nor design of this policy for our properties to attempt to identify individual travelers who have not specifically identified themselves as being a representative of a foreign government entity,” the document read.

So the Trump Organization says it won’t dutifully track foreign payments, and Treasury says that, without the organization’s bank and routing numbers, it’s unable to produce records of any donations.

“An agency has the responsibility to look for records when it gets a request,” Marshall said. “It can’t just say, ‘here’s a news article that is somewhat related to your request.’ ”

Even if Trump donates every penny earned from a foreign national spending the night in one of the president’s hotels, Teachout thinks he would still be in violation of the emoluments clause.

“It’s like sinning and then paying a penance, except you don’t get to sin against the Constitution,” she said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the Trump Organization’s plans to donate foreign payments, the Trump Organization could not immediately be reached for comment, and Treasury did not return a request for comment on its denial of my records request. But a Justice Department motion filed last week to dismiss CREW’s lawsuit shows just how little Trump thinks he is in violation of the emoluments clause — a sin he says he has not committed but is willing to pay penance for, in Teachout’s parlance.

“[CREW’s] broad-brush claims effectively assert that the Constitution disqualifies the President from serving as President while maintaining ownership interests in his commercial businesses,” the government wrote in a 50-plus page memo attached to its motion to dismiss.

Government lawyers argued that CREW hasn’t actually been harmed by Trump, as its lawsuit alleges. Furthermore, the attorneys argued, claims made by restaurant and hotel owners represented in the lawsuit that they’re losing business as visitors in New York and Washington flock to Trump’s properties are without “sufficient facts to support any nonspeculative loss of business due to competition with restaurants and hotels in which the President has financial interests — let alone the nonspeculative loss of government-affiliated and funded patrons.”

While CREW has yet to file a response to the government’s motion to dismiss, Teachout criticized the filing as “a vision of incredibly broad presidential immunity that simply doesn’t line up with the Constitution itself.”

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, it’s likely that Trump will eventually make a show of donating money from foreign visitors to his properties. But whether there will be any way to fact-check his claim of donating all profits from foreign visitors is another matter entirely.

“Even if we knew how he planned to track foreign payments in order to donate them, there is zero oversight,” Teachout said. “The basic story is that we are simply being asked to trust him.”

Yeah, everyone who believes Agent Orange will donate even a penny without being forced to should stand on his or her head.

[Howl]

9 hours ago, JMarie said:

Jay Sekulow sings!  And plays drums!  Who said Trump isn't for diversity within his cabinet?

(Sekulow is one of two drummers, yet somehow the band is named after him)

Sheesh, that was painful. The singing, my ears, my ears. Some of the guitar work was barely OK, though so there's that.