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

[GreyhoundFan]

No kidding: "Trump likely to break many of his health-care promises — no matter what happens"

Spoiler

Donald Trump set himself apart from other Republican presidential candidates when it came to health care. Before taking office, he vowed “insurance for everybody” that would be “much less expensive and much better” and explicitly promised not to touch Medicaid, which millions of his working-class supporters rely upon to cover doctor’s visits and medication.

But as Republicans in the Senate press ahead with legislation that would dramatically cut Medicaid and scale back the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, it is increasingly clear that President Trump is almost certain to fall well short of fulfilling those promises.

Trump and congressional Republicans will likely hail any bill that reaches the president’s desk as the fulfillment of a long-standing pledge to “repeal and replace” the ACA, former president Barack Obama’s signature health-care law. But if the House and Senate agree on legislation along the lines of what is now being debated, millions — including some of Trump’s most ardent supporters — are projected to lose coverage, receive fewer benefits or see their premiums rise.

And if the health-care push stalls or falls apart, the president who campaigned for the White House as the ultimate dealmaker will be dealt a serious political blow — another example of Trump’s inability to move major legislation through Congress.

“He’s going to own it either way, whether he signs a bill or doesn’t get a bill,” said Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele said passage of the legislation could hurt Trump politically as much as its failure. “You’re going to have a whole generation of people who had health care losing health care, and in many instances, they’re Trump voters. I think that’s a very risky play.”

In a television interview broadcast Sunday, Trump acknowledged that he had called the House bill “mean” weeks after celebrating its passage in the Rose Garden. He suggested other changes could be coming to the Senate bill unveiled last week to ease its impact on lower-income Americans, but Trump said “we have a very good plan” that he characterized as close to passing.

“Healthcare’s a very complicated subject from the standpoint that you move it this way, and this group doesn’t like it,” Trump said on FOX News’s “Fox & Friends.” “You move it a little bit over here, you have a very narrow path.”

One bright spot for Trump is that many of his most die-hard backers echo the president in largely blaming others for continued gridlock in Washington. At least for now, many believe he would fulfill his promises on health care and other priorities if only given the chance.

Charlene Beatty, 71, who lives on a farm in eastern Iowa and attended Trump’s rally last week in Cedar Rapids, said Congress needs to stop obsessing over the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and accomplish some of the things Trump has asked the lawmakers to do — including reforming health care.

“Just leave him alone, and he’ll do a lot of good,” she said.

GOP senators say their bill took steps to rectify some issues in a House version of the bill, which would cause 23 million people to lose health-care coverage by 2026, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Still, lawmakers expect that a new projection from the CBO as early as Monday will show millions losing insurance under the Senate version. too.

That means that managing expectations could be one of Trump’s biggest challenges in coming weeks.

Many Republicans, even those supportive of the effort to “repeal and replace” the ACA, view it as only a starting point for fixing the problems facing the health-care industry.

“He’s got to help make the American people understand that this is not the end of the road,” Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a conservative health-care think tank, said of Trump. “It’s something they have to do to break the logjam, but they’re going to be passing other bills as well.”

Earlier in the debate, the Trump administration stressed that it plans to push other reforms besides the pending legislation to provide consumers more choices of healthcare plans, among other objectives.

In the shorter term, Trump has cast congressional action as a necessary step to stave off collapse of the ACA.

“#Obamacare is dead,” Trump said in a tweet on Sunday. “Insurance markets are collapsing & millions don’t have choices. Americans deserve better.”

Analysts say that the bill could leave middle-income people and the poor with too little support to pay health-care costs, and that cuts to Medicaid funding in later years could leave the elderly particularly vulnerable. The legislation also phases out federal support for a Medicaid expansion that was a key provision of Obama’s initiative.

That phaseout and several other key provisions do not take effect immediately, which could limit the short-term political impact on Trump and congressional Republicans.

Some boosters say the legislation is the start of an effort to make good on Trump’s promise of market-based universal coverage. They point to the flexibility the bill offers to states, tax credits to assist with health-care costs and regulatory relief for insurers, which they argue could help bring greater competition to the health insurance marketplace.

“Conservatives should embrace the goal of universal coverage, and this bill makes enormous progress towards that goal,” said Avik Roy, a health-care expert who was critical of the House bill but supports the Senate’s version.

“Does this bill have heart?” Roy asked, citing a standard Trump recently articulated. “It absolutely does.”

Polls suggest Trump has a long way to go to make that case to voters.

Only 16 percent of adults believe that House bill is a good idea, while 48 percent say it’s a bad idea, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week. Even Republican respondents are lukewarm, with 34 percent viewing the bill positively and 17 percent viewing it negatively.

Doug Heye, a Republican consultant, argued that the president badly needs a legislative victory and that achieving a high-profile win should override concerns about the legislation’s impact.

“Those who are strong Trump supporters have remained so despite the controversies,” Heye said. “They still see Trump as someone willing to take on their fights.”

Interviews with Trump supporters who attended his campaign rally in Cedar Rapids suggest that many of them are dissatisfied with their health care — and many suspect Trump won’t fully deliver on his promises. But so far, they don’t seem inclined to blame him.

Crystal Beckler, 54, of Crawfordsville, Iowa, said she has a private health insurance plan through a broker for herself and her husband, a self-employed truck driver. But she said few services are covered and she ends up paying for many things out of pocket, making her wonder why she even has insurance.

“He’s on it,” Beckler said of Trump, “if they would just work with him.”

Jim Slage, who drove with his wife more than five hours from their home in Lincoln, Neb., to Cedar Rapids for Trump’s rally, said that he has insurance through his job as a truck driver but that costs have gone up while quality has fallen. Copays used to be $20 and are now $60, he said, and it seems like fewer things are covered by the insurance company.

The couple said they have friends who have insurance plans through the government marketplace and are paying monthly premiums that are higher than their monthly rent or mortgage. The Slages said that while the congressional plans to scale back Obamacare still don’t accomplish all of the things that Trump promised, they still hope he can improve upon that.

“I hope so,” Slage said.

“God, I hope so,” Bernice Slage added.

Angie Hanzelka, 47, voted for Trump and, so far, has been impressed with everything that he has accomplished “in a very short period of time.” But she said she’s worried about health care.

Hanzelka, a bartender who lives in Cedar Rapids, has health insurance she bought through the government marketplace that costs $300 per month and has a $7,000 deductible.

“It’s terrible,” she said. “Basically, I have a glorified prescription plan.”

She wants her monthly premium and deductible to go down and more plans from which to choose, all of which Trump has promised to do. But she worries that her coverage could become even more expensive under the Republican plan.

Democratic strategists argue that some Trump voters will eventually sour on him if the health-care bill becomes law, and that it’s likely to make it harder for Trump to expand his appeal.

“It’s hurting the people who voted for him, and they will come to see that,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Boston-based Democratic consultant.

Trump has been vocal about his hope that he might have started his tenure by tackling tax reform instead of health care. But now his entire agenda is bogged down by the effort.

Given the potential consequences of the bill, some Republicans suggest failure would be the best outcome for Trump at this point.

“I don’t think he realizes that,” said John Weaver, who was chief strategist for the 2016 presidential campaign of Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio). “There’s a bigger downside if it passes and millions of people lose coverage.”

The BTs quoted in this article are so freaking delusional. First of all, the TT is not working on healthcare. He's playing on twitter. Secondly, he couldn't care less about anyone other than himself, including his voters.

[JenniferJuniper]

People are so unbelievably stupid.

Meaningless post, I know, but sometimes it needs to be said.

[GreyhoundFan]

Another Pinocchio test: "President Trump’s claim that MS-13 gang members are being deported ‘by the thousands’"

Spoiler

“You have a gang called MS-13. They don’t like to shoot people. They like to cut people. They do things that nobody can believe. These are true animals. We are moving them out of the country by the thousands, by the thousands. We’re getting them out, MS-13.”
— President Trump, remarks at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, June 21

“Great success, including MS-13. They’re being thrown out in record numbers and rapidly. And they’re being depleted. They’ll all be gone pretty soon.”
— Trump, remarks at Cabinet meeting, June 12

“MS-13 is being taken care of at a very, very rapid clip by General — now Secretary — Kelly. He’s done an incredible job, really incredible job.”
— Trump, meeting with House and Senate leaders, June 6

The Trump administration has, indeed, taken action to curb illegal immigration, including providing more resources to the Department of Homeland Security and expanding deportation priorities. In recent weeks, Trump has been touting his administration’s deportations of members and associates of MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, a Central American gang that has been operating in the United States for decades.

Are MS-13 members really being deported “by the thousands”?

The Facts

MS-13 is a transnational gang that formed in Los Angeles in the 1980s, among members of the Salvadoran community who had fled violence and civil conflict in El Salvador. U.S. agencies have been dealing with enforcement and prevention of MS-13 activities since as early as 2004. MS-13 is operating in at least 40 states.

Gang violence in Central America’s Northern Triangle region (El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala) has contributed to the surge in recent years of border crossings by unaccompanied children and families over the Southwestern border into the United States.

The White House pointed us to a news release by Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, of a six-week nationwide gang operation from March 26 to May 6. It was the largest gang surge to date by Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, and it netted 1,378 arrests across the country, according to ICE.

Of the total arrests, the majority (1,095) were confirmed gang members and affiliates, including 104 associated with MS-13. A spokeswoman for the Embassy of El Salvador said none of the suspected gang members detained during the recent operations described in the news release has been deported yet.

The White House noted that Operation Community Shield, ICE’s anti-gang initiative, resulted in “more than 4,300 criminal arrests and nearly 3,000 civil immigration arrests of MS-13 leaders, members and associates.” But that initiative dates to 2005, so it predates the Trump presidency.

We asked how the Operation Community Shield figures support Trump’s claim that the administration is “getting rid of them by the thousands,” and asked the White House to clarify whether Trump was generally referring to enforcement efforts that have been taking place since 2005.

White House spokesman Steven Cheung said: “He said something that is factually accurate and true. He’s the president of the United States. We are getting rid of them by the thousands.”

The actual numbers of deported MS-13 members and affiliates are in the hundreds. ICE pointed us to the June 21 congressional testimony by top DHS officials on MS-13 enforcement.

From fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2017 (as of June 4), ICE made 602 criminal arrests of MS-13 gang members and associates, which resulted in 153 convictions, according to DHS. Of course, fiscal 2016 predates Trump’s presidency as well.

Still, there has been an increase in the rate of gang deportations to El Salvador, and Salvadoran officials are preparing for more. The U.S. government deported 398 gang members to El Salvador so far this year, compared with 534 in all of 2016, The Washington Post reported.

Gang members make up a small portion of total deportations from the United States to El Salvador. Deportations to El Salvador during the first five months of 2017 (8,122) are comparable to the same period last year (8,054), according to data from the Embassy of El Salvador.

Carla Provost, the Border Patrol’s acting chief, said in her congressional testimony that Trump’s executive actions on illegal immigration enforcement gave more authority and resources to the agency to target gang activity and illegal immigration, leading to “a historic shift in illegal crossings along the Southwest border.” (We covered this previously.)

Critics of former president Barack Obama’s immigration policies call the Trump administration’s efforts a welcome change that is clearly working in curbing MS-13 activity and illegal immigration.

Some immigration experts are wary of Trump’s deportation-focused approach, and said there needs to be a comprehensive effort that includes prevention, intervention and other efforts in addition to deportation. MS-13’s expansion in the United States accelerated after increased deportations back to the Northern Triangle, in the wake of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Jorja Leap, an anthropologist and professor at the University of California at Los Angeles whose research focuses on gang activity, said conviction and deportation of MS-13 members can take up to two years to build, and warned of rhetoric that makes it seem like deportations can happen overnight.

“I was at a community gathering [last week]. No one is being swept up and deported. In the traditional hot spots with gang activity, there’s nothing going on,” Leap said. “They’re acting like there are these overnight deportations of thousands of people. The law does not operate that way.”

The Pinocchio Test

The Trump administration is, indeed, increasing enforcement against gang activity and MS-13 members and affiliates. Earlier this year, ICE conducted the largest gang surge to date. But the deportations of MS-13 members and affiliates is in the hundreds, not the thousands, under Trump. The enforcement data Trump’s White House provided comes from an initiative that dates to 2005.

This is a situation in which there is an element of truth but Trump exaggerates the facts in a way that lacks context. It is worthy of Two Pinocchios.

Two Pinocchios

Wow, he's slipping, only two Pinocchios. And, of course, taking credit for actions that occurred during Obama's administration.

[GreyhoundFan]

So, the TT is meeting with another leader. Let's see if he offends again: "Modi’s ‘no frills’ visit to Washington masks a potential minefield"

Spoiler

Audiences between the leaders of the world's two biggest democracies have not typically lacked for fanfare. Past meetings of Indian and American leaders have been colorful, even affectionate affirmations of the two nations' “strategic partnership.” But barely any pomp is expected when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets President Trump face-to-face for the first time Monday.

The White House has yet to articulate a South Asia policy — let alone name an ambassador to India — and matters relating to India-U.S. relations seldom cross the president's desk. Since becoming president, Trump has used speeches on job creation and the Paris climate accords to cast India as an unscrupulous negotiator and a threat to American workers.

So it might seem a strange time for Trump to receive Modi, yet here he is, with closed-door meetings and a private working dinner on the schedule. Instead of playing up the occasion, Washington and New Delhi are billing the talks as “no-frills,” geared toward hard-nosed business discussions. Modi's brief and subdued plans indicate the care both sides are taking to make sure a relationship on the rocks doesn't slip any further.

Expectations for the meeting are so low that many India-watchers in Washington say Modi's best-case scenario might be simply reminding Trump that their countries share numerous interests, especially in combating so-called radical Islamic terror. Or, better still, the two might connect on a personal level, possibly preventing further public outbursts of derision from Trump.

“They could either hit it off amazingly or fall out completely,” said Rajiv Kumar, an economist and author of the book “Modi and His Challenges,” to my colleagues. “They’re both strong personalities, and both of them have a rather exalted opinion of themselves.”

The chances they “fall out completely” are slim despite their high self-regard. Modi, like Trump, is a purveyor of amicable, businesslike conversation — even if it masks festering concerns. The two are likely to focus on bright spots, such as the fact that the U.S. is India's second-largest defense supplier, or that the Trump administration recently approved a $2 billion deal to sell India drones to protect its coastline. A much larger order for fighter jets is in the works.

Beyond defense sales, however, the conversational landscape is bleak. Larger geopolitical issues — Trump's rapprochement with China, which India views warily at best, or his cheerleading of coal production at the expense of the Paris climate deal Modi has championed — will require delicate phrasing, if Modi chooses to broach them at all.

Economic matters are prickly, too. The Trump administration has launched a review of the skilled-worker (or H-1B) visa program that has brought hundreds of thousands of Indian employees to American companies. Cutbacks to the number of H-1B visas issued would harm big Indian outsourcing companies such as Infosys and Wipro, whose executives argue that the visa program helps American companies cut costs and ultimately hire more Americans. The Trump administration is also reviewing trade agreements with countries, including India, with which the United States runs a trade deficit. Bilateral trade has doubled in a decade, but the value of Indian exports to the U.S. is currently $30 billion higher than the flow of goods the other way.

None of this is helped by the lack of India expertise on Trumps's advising team. Recent reports indicate that Ken Juster, a senior official at the White House's National Economic Council who has policy experience on India, will be named as ambassador to New Delhi. But it's unclear whether that announcement would be ready in time for Monday's meeting — or whether the move is happening thanks to Juster's qualifications or because of infighting between him and the "anti-globalist" wing of the White House advisers.

But while much of the conversation around Modi's visit has centered on how Modi can ingratiate himself with Trump, some commentators in India are questioning the assumption that Modi's objective should be winning the American president's approval.

Writing in the Indian Express newspaper, columnist and editor Pratap Bhanu Mehta argued that Modi has already missed the big opportunity Trump's election provided: to make India a “normative exemplar” of liberal democracies now that the United States acts less and less like one.

“Modi's handshake with Trump would be so much more a show of power if it had the imprimatur of liberal values than simply a deal for Lockheed Martin behind it,” Mehta wrote.

While Modi and his Hindu nationalist ideology are popular at home, recent lynchings of minority-group members have raised concerns that Modi is not doing enough to discourage deadly vigilantism. Modi's political party named a Hindu monk known for anti-Muslim rhetoric as the leader of India's biggest state, an act widely seen as an implicit endorsement of discriminatory attitudes. And a flurry of states moving to prohibit cattle slaughter have made many Indians wonder whether Hindu principles are becoming the law of the land under Modi's supposedly secular government.

So perhaps Modi's visit to Washington will provide both leaders with a welcome distraction from troublesome domestic politics. But ultimately, both at home and abroad, Trump has far weightier problems to deal with, and India doesn't figure centrally in any of them. Any small win Modi might get from the trip will probably be enough to declare it worthwhile.

 

[warriorblade8857]

From Slate:

First rule of the White House press briefing: don't talk about the White House press briefing.

Spoiler

The Trump administration, acting on the fairly sound logic that its supporters don't care in any way whatsoever about the civic principle that the government should be scrutinized by a free press, has started to cut down on the number of press conferences it gives that occur on camera. Wednesday, the administration announced that Thursday's* press briefing by Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be one such no-video affair, then introduced a Kafka-esque twist by declaring that the announcement itself was "NOT REPORTABLE."

[Photo of announcement.]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief: "Supreme Court allows limited version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect, will consider case in fall"

Spoiler

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to allow a limited version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, and will consider in the fall the president’s broad powers in immigration matters in a case that raised fundamental issues of national security and religious discrimination.

The court made an important exception: it said the ban “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The court also said in the ruling that it would consider whether the case will be moot by the time it hears it; the ban is supposed to be a temporary one while the government reviews its vetting procedures.

The action means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with the exceptions noted by the court.

Trump said last week the ban would go into effect 72 hours after receiving an approval from the courts.

The proposed travel ban has been a major point of contention between Trump and civil rights groups, which say it was motivated by unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims.

Trump contends the ban is necessary to protect the nation while the administration decides whether tougher vetting procedures and other measures are needed. He has railed against federal judges who have blocked the move.

Because the executive order was stopped by lower courts, travelers from those countries have been entering the U.S. following normal visa procedures. Trump first moved to implement the restrictions in January in his first week in office.

His first executive order went into effect immediately, and resulted in chaos at airports in the U.S. and abroad, as travelers from the targeted countries were either stranded or sent back to their countries.

Lawyers for challengers to the order rushed to federal courts, and the order was stayed within days. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit eventually said the order could not be implemented, infuriating the president, who said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.

But instead, his administration regrouped and issued a second order in March. It added a section detailing national security concerns, removed Iraq from the list of countries affected, deleted a section that had targeted Syrian refugees and removed a provision that favored Christian immigrants.

His lawyers told courts that the new order was written to respond to the 9th Circuit’s concerns. But a new round of lawsuits were immediately filed, and federal judges once again stopped the implementation.

A federal district judge in Maryland stopped the portion of the order affecting travelers from the six countries; a judge in Hawaii froze that portion and the part affecting the refu­gee programs.

Appeals courts on both coasts upheld those decisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond agreed with U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland, who sided with opponents in finding that the ban violates the Constitution by intentionally discriminating against Muslims.

In a 10-to-3 decision, the court noted Trump’s remarks before and after his election about implementing a ban on Muslims, and said the executive order “in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”

The president’s authority, the court said, “cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote.

Meanwhile, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said Trump had not adhered to federal law in which Congress gives the president broad power in immigration matters.

The 9th Circuit opinion did not dwell on Trump’s public comments, nor did it declare that the president had run afoul of the Constitution because his intent was to discriminate. Instead, they ruled that the travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal, and that violated immigration law.

“There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate, and no finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be harm to our national interests,” the judges wrote. “These identified reasons do not support the conclusion that the entry of nationals from the six designated countries would be harmful to our national interests.”

They added that national security is not a ‘talismanic incantation’ that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power.”

In both appeals courts, a minority of conservative judges had said their colleagues were making a mistake. Judges should look only to whether the executive orders were proper on their face, they said, without trying to decide if the president had ulterior motives, and defer to national security decisions made by the executive branch.

“The Supreme Court surely will shudder at the majority’s adoption of this new rule that has no limits or bounds,”wrote dissenting 4th Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer .

Trump thundered on Twitter after the judicial setbacks that the second executive order was a “watered down version” of the first. And while his lawyers in court described the action as a temporary pause in immigration and administration officials corrected reporters who called it a travel ban, Trump did not agree.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” he wrote.

Gorsuch's first big ruling and it upholds Agent Orange. Sigh. He, Thomas, and Alito said that the whole ban should have been upheld.

[CTRLZero]

I read the book "The Free State of Jones:  Mississippi's Longest Civil War" by Victoria E. Bynum, and last night watched the movie.  It's a difficult movie to watch because of the human cruelty involved, but it brought up numerous issues which are unfortunately resurfacing today. 

One issue I was taken with was when the Fifteenth Amendment (right to vote) was ratified, the movie demonstrated how difficult it was just to get to a polling place (with armed escort), followed by unbelievable voter fraud, and the Klan members doing followup.  This brought to mind some articles I read on Attorney General Jefferson Sessions' background.  The Washington Post remained somewhat neutral (Pinocchio-wise), but you can branch out from there and explore some of the current issues that cause disenfranchisement.

Sessions background in civil rights - Washington Post

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s latest bizarre tweets about Russia just left him badly exposed"

Spoiler

In recent days, President Trump has adopted a fiendishly clever new line on the ongoing Russia probes: He will fully acknowledge that Russia did try to sabotage our election, but only in the context of blaming former president Barack Obama for it. This morning, Trump took this argument to a new level, testing an argument about Russian meddling that I had not heard before:

...

This is, in a sense, new. In a few tweets last week, Trump blasted the Obama administration for failing to act on what it had learned about Russia’s meddling efforts. But now Trump is explicitly offering a rationale for this, i.e., that Obama didn’t think Trump was going to win, and so didn’t bother doing anything about it, because it might have “rocked the boat,” whatever that is supposed to mean.

This line of argument leaves Trump deeply exposed, however. It represents an acknowledgment that the intelligence community had, in fact, concluded that Russia interfered with the purpose of helping Trump win. And it also exposes Trump to questions about what his administration (and Republicans) are prepared to do about expected Russian efforts to meddle in the next election.

The news of the Obama administration’s failure to act in response to Russian meddling was documented in an extensive Post investigation last week. The White House had been informed as early as last August that intelligence confirmed that an extensive cyber-campaign was underway to disrupt the presidential race and undermine public faith in our democracy, with the goal of helping Trump win. The Obama administration debated various responses but went through with punitive action only after the election was over, and senior officials and Democrats, rightly, are now sharply critical of the paralysis and inaction. As one former official put it: “I feel like we sort of choked.”

Due either to his megalomania or his dishonesty, or some combination of the two, Trump has regularly conflated two questions: First, the question of what Russia did to undermine our election; and second, whether the Trump campaign colluded with those efforts. Trump has regularly dismissed the latter question, of course, but this has had the effect of leading him to be unwilling to seriously grapple with the former one, as if fully acknowledging the extent of Russian meddling would be tantamount to acknowledging an attack on him (hence the megalomania-or-dishonesty question). Indeed, Trump said the claims of Russian meddling are a “big Dem HOAX” as early as last week.

But now Trump is fully acknowledging that this meddling did happen (provided he can blame Obama for it). More to the point, though, his tweets this morning admit that our intelligence community not only did conclude this but also that Russia did this to help him win the election. Why would Obama’s inaction in the face of Russian sabotage be grounded in the belief (as Trump claims) that Hillary Clinton was going to win anyway, unless our intelligence officials had concluded that this sabotage was designed to benefit him against her? (That is what officials did conclude, per the report they put out in January.)

This criticism of Obama’s inaction, while certainly justifiable on the merits, opens the White House up to questions as to what he, Trump, is prepared to do about Russian sabotage next time. The intel community’s January report flatly concluded that Russia is already developing “future influence efforts” against the United States and noted that the sabotage of our election has become a “new normal.” Former FBI director James B. Comey went even further in his recent testimony to Congress, claiming that Russia currently constitutes “the greatest threat of any nation on Earth” to our democratic process.

And yet, in an important segment, NBC News recently reported that the Trump administration has taken “little meaningful action to prevent Russian hacking, leaking and disruption in the next national election in 2018.” NBC News reported on “an urgent warning from government officials and outside experts” that is being telegraphed to the White House that “the U.S. may not be ready to stop Russia” from “interfering in our next election.” Experts quoted by NBC News said the United States needs to better coordinate with tech companies to blunt three expected Russian attacks, which reprise efforts that were made last time: the spreading of fake news; the hacking of embarrassing information about candidates; and attempted cyberattacks on election databases. Yet NBC News reports: “Dozens of state officials told NBC News they have received little direction from Washington about election security.”

The White House insisted to NBC News that it is taking steps to prepare for upcoming Russian sabotage efforts. But Trump himself has shown little interest in Russian meddling. As Comey testified to Congress, he could not recall a single instance of Trump asking him how the United States might better prepare for a future Russian attack. If Trump is now going to bash the Obama administration — again, justifiably on the merits — for inaction against Russian meddling, you’d think media scrutiny of the Trump administration’s own response to the next Russian sabotage effort, which our own intelligence community has warned is going to happen, will now intensify in a big way.

Sadly, the BTs don't care, so they'll keep supporting him.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why the National Enquirer loves Trump — and why that matters"

Spoiler

David Pecker, chief executive of the National Enquirer's parent company, delivered a stunningly candid appraisal of his audience in an interview for the latest issue of the New Yorker.

“These are people that live their life failing, so they want to read negative things about people who have gone up and then come down,” Pecker told Jeffrey Toobin.

Pecker basically called his readers a bunch of sadistic losers, which would seem like an imprudent thing to do — if he thought there were any risk of said readers encountering the highbrow New Yorker in the course of their “failing” lives.

The truly gutsy move, it would appear, is for Pecker to ignore the desires of his audience and to continue the National Enquirer's fawning coverage of President Trump. If Enquirer readers love to see rich, powerful celebrities humbled and humiliated, what better target could possibly exist than a billionaire president who was famous before he entered politics?

Yet the reality — which surprises even Pecker — is that National Enquirer readers want to see Trump built up more than they want to see him torn down.

“They voted for Trump,” Pecker told the New Yorker. “And 96 percent want him reelected today. That’s the correlation. These are white working people, who love to see takedowns of celebrities, and they want to see — which is unusual, who would think these people would love a billionaire? — the billionaire’s pulpit. They know him from 14 seasons on ‘The Apprentice’ as the boss, and they loved it when he fired those people and ridiculed them.”

National Enquirer readers love Trump; therefore the National Enquirer loves Trump, which is convenient because Pecker and the president have been friends for a long time.

In his New Yorker piece, Toobin chronicled the ways, big and small, that Pecker has used his position to protect Trump. There is the previously reported instance of killing a story about a former Playboy Playmate who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with Trump. And there is this account of a recent editorial meeting that Toobin sat in on:

Someone suggested a story about a video from Donald and Melania Trump’s first overseas trip. The video, which had just gone viral, showed the couple walking down a red carpet on the airport tarmac in Israel. When Donald reached for Melania’s hand, she slapped it away with a sharp flick of her wrist.

“I didn’t see that,” Pecker said, on the speakerphone.

The half-dozen or so men in the room exchanged looks. One then noted that the footage of Melania’s slap had received a good deal of attention.

“I didn’t see that,” Pecker repeated, and the subject was dropped.

It was a telling moment.

What's the big deal, you might ask, if this publisher of tabloid trash kisses up to Trump? It's not like voters are counting on the National Enquirer for strong accountability journalism, anyway.

The big deal is that the company Pecker leads, American Media Inc., could make a play to acquire Time Inc. — as in the publisher of Time magazine, on which voters do depend for serious reporting.

“I think that there’s a huge opportunity,” Pecker told Toobin, who noted that American Media would need a partner to help finance such a hefty acquisition.

Even with Pecker in charge, Time presumably would not start running the same kinds of zany headlines that appear in the National Enquirer. Changes need not be so obvious to be problematic, however.

In the New Yorker, Pecker recounted the way he quashed a story about one of Tiger Woods's extramarital affairs in exchange for Woods's appearance on the cover of another American Media publication — way back in 2007, before the golfer's serial infidelities became public.

These kinds of arrangements are highly unethical, by traditional journalistic standards, but might never be known if Pecker were to implement them at a magazine such as Time.

The alarming thought is that the National Enquirer's brand of journalism could spread.

Two things: First of all, is anyone surprised that Agent Orange is buddies with the dude in charge of the Enquirer? And, secondly, the thought that that person could also be in charge of content at Time is scary.

[candygirl200413]

The more it just blows my mind how Republicans were just so desperate to have a republican as President that they had to collude with another fucking country. Like I just can't wait till people look into this in the history books.

[GrumpyGran]

It seems he went a little, well, crazy even for him, on Twitter today. I attribute this to an unhappy weekend for him. He went to that Mnuchin wedding this past weekend. Not good. No golf, he couldn't "surprise" the bride and groom, because they knew he was coming. Melania probably told him that if he tried to upstage them in any way she would rip his weave off and shove her stiletto up his ass.

So no one worshiping at the Church of Donald J Trump yesterday.

I wonder how that meeting with the Indian leader went today. Would have been funny if they had literally jerked each other's hands off during the handshake. 

[JMarie]

15 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

It seems he went a little, well, crazy even for him, on Twitter today. I attribute this to an unhappy weekend for him. He went to that Mnuchin wedding this past weekend. Not good. No golf, he couldn't "surprise" the bride and groom, because they knew he was coming. Melania probably told him that if he tried to upstage them in any way she would rip his weave off and shove her stiletto up his ass.

So no one worshiping at the Church of Donald J Trump yesterday.

I wonder how that meeting with the Indian leader went today. Would have been funny if they had literally jerked each other's hands off during the handshake. 

And no ride on Air Force One, AKA The Candy Plane

[GreyhoundFan]

Big surprise (NOT): "Poll shows U.S. tumbling in world’s regard under Trump"

Spoiler

BERLIN — President Trump has alarmed citizens of the nation’s closest allies and others worldwide, diminishing the standing of the United States in their eyes, according to a wide-ranging international study released Monday.

But in the survey of 37 countries, Russia is a bright spot for Trump. As beleaguered as the president is at home, a majority of Russians say they have confidence in him. And Russians’ attitudes toward the United States have improved since Trump took office.

Elsewhere, though, and with remarkable speed, Trump’s presidency has taken a toll on the United States’ image abroad.

...

The international survey by the Pew Research Center found that favorable ratings of the United States have decreased from 64 percent of people across all countries surveyed at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency to 49 percent this spring. The new figures are similar to those toward the end of the George W. Bush administration.

The president himself has fared even worse: A median 22 percent are confident that Trump will do the right thing in global affairs, down from 64 percent who had confidence in Obama.

From Chile to Italy, from Sweden to Japan, majorities consider the president arrogant, intolerant, unqualified and dangerous. On the flip side, most view him as a strong leader. And many expect their country’s relationship with the United States to withstand his presidency.

...

It is perhaps unsurprising that a man who campaigned on a pledge to put American interests first would generate backlash in other parts of the world. Nor is it surprising that the negative reaction would carry over to opinions about the United States itself. Particularly in Europe, “that’s almost a reflex,” said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of state for European affairs.

What is surprising, said Frank G. Wisner, a former diplomat who served under Democrats and Republicans, is the degree to which Trump has scorned principles the United States has not only long espoused but also helped to define in the previous century. These include democratic governance, free markets, collective security, human rights and the rule of law — commitments that together, Wisner said, delineate the liberal international order.

“America’s image has taken hits in recent years, from the decision to invade Iraq to the events of 2007 and 2008, when the American financial model took a huge hit,” he said. “But the most consequential is the ascent of Mr. Trump to the Oval Office.”

Global popular opinion matters, Wisner said, in part because it defines how foreign leaders engage with American interests.

The depths of disapproval registered abroad suggest that Trump has undone the progress Obama made in burnishing the American brand. It took Bush eight years, and the quagmire in Iraq, to notch such dismal ratings overseas, according to Pew. It has taken Trump six months.

His unpopularity is the result of a mix of disagreement with his signature policy objectives, such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and distaste for his character, according to Pew’s analysis of poll results.

Among other world leaders studied by Pew, German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives relatively high marks. The share of people who report little or no confidence in her, a median of 31 percent across 37 countries, is less than half that for Trump, at 74 percent. The survey found that 59 percent lack confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin and 53 percent in Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trust in the American president plummeted most in some of the United States’ closest allies in Europe and Asia, as well as in the countries it borders, Canada and Mexico. In only two countries, Russia and Israel, does Trump receive a higher score than Obama.

...

Since 2002, when Pew began examining the United States’ image abroad, perceptions of the United States have run in parallel with judgments about the country’s president. Opinions of the United States have improved in Russia, as confidence in the president rose from 11 percent toward the end of Obama’s two terms to 53 percent under Trump, which is among his best ratings — along with figures for Israel, Nigeria and Vietnam.

There is no directly comparable number for Americans, as approval ratings and confidence questions employ different wording, although public polls have found that majorities of Americans disapprove of Trump’s overall job performance and his handling of foreign policy.

Germans hold some of the most negative opinions of the United States, with 62 percent viewing the country unfavorably and 87 percent lacking confidence in Trump.

Germany joins more than half of the 37 countries surveyed where approval for the United States fell by double digits this year. In Mexico, positive views of the United States have been cut in half, from 66 to 30 percent. Women tend to see the United States more negatively than do men in 10 of the countries surveyed, and in 16 countries, older people are more distrustful than the young.

At the same time, affinity for Americans remains intact, as does the popularity of American popular culture, Pew found. Most people think Washington respects the personal freedoms of Americans, yet there is growing doubt about American-style democracy, in France and Germany, among other countries. With Asia a notable exception, more people disapprove than approve of the spread of American ideas and customs to their countries. 

The complexity was on display recently in a classroom at the Free University in Berlin. The topic was “Democracy and the State in the U.S.”

One of the professors, Christian Lammert, said his students represent the first living generation to come to political consciousness with the United States’ position on the global stage in doubt. American democracy, in the students’ eyes, had proved imperfect, not least owing to the treatment of racial minorities. With their own country, Germany, playing a newly authoritative role, they are learning how fundamentally geopolitics could shift over the next decades, Lammert said.

In Britain, a country seized by political uncertainty as it sorts out its relationship to Europe, “there’s incredulity about Trump,” even among many who supported the Brexit referendum, said Michael Borio, a local council member in London.

Nicholas Guyatt, an American historian at the University of Cambridge who has written about the waning of American power, attributed Trump’s low favorability abroad not just to the spectacle of bedlam in Washington but to a deeper disconnect between the American president and the rest of the world. 

Abroad, Guyatt said, people see that Trump’s vision of American greatness is a relic.

“We’re in an uncertain place, because if the U.S. is no longer playing this role in a particular vision of world order, what’s the substitute? A different vision? Chaos?” he said.

The Pew Research Center survey was conducted from February to May among national random samples of 852 to 2,464 interviews in each of the 37 countries. The margin of sampling error for each country ranges from plus or minus 3.2 to 5.7 percentage points.

I'm sure twitler will just say this is fake news.

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Big surprise (NOT): "Poll shows U.S. tumbling in world’s regard under Trump"

  Hide contents

BERLIN — President Trump has alarmed citizens of the nation’s closest allies and others worldwide, diminishing the standing of the United States in their eyes, according to a wide-ranging international study released Monday.

But in the survey of 37 countries, Russia is a bright spot for Trump. As beleaguered as the president is at home, a majority of Russians say they have confidence in him. And Russians’ attitudes toward the United States have improved since Trump took office.

Elsewhere, though, and with remarkable speed, Trump’s presidency has taken a toll on the United States’ image abroad.

...

The international survey by the Pew Research Center found that favorable ratings of the United States have decreased from 64 percent of people across all countries surveyed at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency to 49 percent this spring. The new figures are similar to those toward the end of the George W. Bush administration.

The president himself has fared even worse: A median 22 percent are confident that Trump will do the right thing in global affairs, down from 64 percent who had confidence in Obama.

From Chile to Italy, from Sweden to Japan, majorities consider the president arrogant, intolerant, unqualified and dangerous. On the flip side, most view him as a strong leader. And many expect their country’s relationship with the United States to withstand his presidency.

...

It is perhaps unsurprising that a man who campaigned on a pledge to put American interests first would generate backlash in other parts of the world. Nor is it surprising that the negative reaction would carry over to opinions about the United States itself. Particularly in Europe, “that’s almost a reflex,” said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of state for European affairs.

What is surprising, said Frank G. Wisner, a former diplomat who served under Democrats and Republicans, is the degree to which Trump has scorned principles the United States has not only long espoused but also helped to define in the previous century. These include democratic governance, free markets, collective security, human rights and the rule of law — commitments that together, Wisner said, delineate the liberal international order.

“America’s image has taken hits in recent years, from the decision to invade Iraq to the events of 2007 and 2008, when the American financial model took a huge hit,” he said. “But the most consequential is the ascent of Mr. Trump to the Oval Office.”

Global popular opinion matters, Wisner said, in part because it defines how foreign leaders engage with American interests.

The depths of disapproval registered abroad suggest that Trump has undone the progress Obama made in burnishing the American brand. It took Bush eight years, and the quagmire in Iraq, to notch such dismal ratings overseas, according to Pew. It has taken Trump six months.

His unpopularity is the result of a mix of disagreement with his signature policy objectives, such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and distaste for his character, according to Pew’s analysis of poll results.

Among other world leaders studied by Pew, German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives relatively high marks. The share of people who report little or no confidence in her, a median of 31 percent across 37 countries, is less than half that for Trump, at 74 percent. The survey found that 59 percent lack confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin and 53 percent in Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trust in the American president plummeted most in some of the United States’ closest allies in Europe and Asia, as well as in the countries it borders, Canada and Mexico. In only two countries, Russia and Israel, does Trump receive a higher score than Obama.

...

Since 2002, when Pew began examining the United States’ image abroad, perceptions of the United States have run in parallel with judgments about the country’s president. Opinions of the United States have improved in Russia, as confidence in the president rose from 11 percent toward the end of Obama’s two terms to 53 percent under Trump, which is among his best ratings — along with figures for Israel, Nigeria and Vietnam.

There is no directly comparable number for Americans, as approval ratings and confidence questions employ different wording, although public polls have found that majorities of Americans disapprove of Trump’s overall job performance and his handling of foreign policy.

Germans hold some of the most negative opinions of the United States, with 62 percent viewing the country unfavorably and 87 percent lacking confidence in Trump.

Germany joins more than half of the 37 countries surveyed where approval for the United States fell by double digits this year. In Mexico, positive views of the United States have been cut in half, from 66 to 30 percent. Women tend to see the United States more negatively than do men in 10 of the countries surveyed, and in 16 countries, older people are more distrustful than the young.

At the same time, affinity for Americans remains intact, as does the popularity of American popular culture, Pew found. Most people think Washington respects the personal freedoms of Americans, yet there is growing doubt about American-style democracy, in France and Germany, among other countries. With Asia a notable exception, more people disapprove than approve of the spread of American ideas and customs to their countries. 

The complexity was on display recently in a classroom at the Free University in Berlin. The topic was “Democracy and the State in the U.S.”

One of the professors, Christian Lammert, said his students represent the first living generation to come to political consciousness with the United States’ position on the global stage in doubt. American democracy, in the students’ eyes, had proved imperfect, not least owing to the treatment of racial minorities. With their own country, Germany, playing a newly authoritative role, they are learning how fundamentally geopolitics could shift over the next decades, Lammert said.

In Britain, a country seized by political uncertainty as it sorts out its relationship to Europe, “there’s incredulity about Trump,” even among many who supported the Brexit referendum, said Michael Borio, a local council member in London.

Nicholas Guyatt, an American historian at the University of Cambridge who has written about the waning of American power, attributed Trump’s low favorability abroad not just to the spectacle of bedlam in Washington but to a deeper disconnect between the American president and the rest of the world. 

Abroad, Guyatt said, people see that Trump’s vision of American greatness is a relic.

“We’re in an uncertain place, because if the U.S. is no longer playing this role in a particular vision of world order, what’s the substitute? A different vision? Chaos?” he said.

The Pew Research Center survey was conducted from February to May among national random samples of 852 to 2,464 interviews in each of the 37 countries. The margin of sampling error for each country ranges from plus or minus 3.2 to 5.7 percentage points.

I'm sure twitler will just say this is fake news.

As you know, I'm not a fan of polls. However, I do think that this one does reflect what I am seeing around me. Following the news over here in Europe, I have noticed that (primarily since his foreign trip) the news about the presidunce has become more and more negative. He is painted as inept, laughable and rather dense. And a bully. He is most definitely not  being taken seriously.

There are an increasing number of articles about possible collusion with Russia, his questionable finances, and the blatant nepotism. Even your healthcare problems have been in the news lately; in a tsk, tsk, sort of way at first, but the reporting is getting a more vibe now.

Overall, I think the news about the tangerine toddler is increasingly negative, and the Americans seen as a people to be pitied.

But that's just my personal observation. 

[SilverBeach]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2017/06/15/opinion/the-case-for-obstruction-charges.html

The facts are clear, Presidunce does not have unfettered power any more than an employer in an at-will state can fire someone for illegal reasons such as race or religion. The suspension of logic, not to mention human decency, by Trumpvidians is amazing, and not in a good way.

[SilverBeach]

Limited travel ban-so, if you have family here, you can get in. No family, but going to college or work, you are SOL. And of course just coming for tourism reasons is out of the question.

Stupid. Home-grown terrorists give us more to fear than nameless foreigners. This is just Drumpf's effort to demonize a group of people to create a common enemy for the BTs to rally around, similar to what Hitler did with the Jews.

[tropaka]

Students already registered at an American university/college will be allowed to enter, but people seeking to newly enroll or form business relationships with American entities are not permitted.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403

 

Quote

The Supreme Court has offered some clarification on what this means:

"For individuals, a close familial relationship is required"

"As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading" the order

This means a student registered at a US university, or a worker who had accepted an offer of employment in the US (or someone invited to, for example, deliver a lecture) would be allowed to enter

However, it also means that anyone trying to engineer a connection with a US organisation would be banned. For example, "a non-profit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion"

 

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, tropaka said:

Students already registered at an American university/college will be allowed to enter, but people seeking to newly enroll or form business relationships with American entities are not permitted.

snip

I bet if you wanted to form a new business relationship with the presidunce or one of his family members, you'd be permitted.

[Childless]

So the best and brightest from these countries will go elsewhere and those countries will benefit.  Not to mention the bad image this creates will drive the best and brightest from nations not on the list to seek employment elsewhere also.  Hell, tourism is already down 20%.  And all this after already driving American scientists to seek employment in other countries.  Maybe the GOP plan all along was to create a country full of dumbasses so they never lose another election.  Seems to be working.  I'm seriously thinking of taking my engineering degree and leaving the country.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, good gravy: "Trump tweeted that the Supreme Court decided "9-O" to uphold the travel ban. It didn't."

Spoiler

President Donald Trump tweeted Monday to say he was "very grateful" that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, ruled unanimously to uphold Trump's controversial travel ban, which prohibits passage into the United States from for nationals hailing from six majority-Muslim countries.

...

To borrow one of Trump's favorite phrases, the claim that the Supreme Court decided anything — let alone to a count of "9-O" (and not, say, "9-0") — is fake news. The Supreme Court made no such decision Monday with regard to the legality of the travel ban. But here's what Trump's tweet likely meant.

On Monday morning, the supreme court announced that it would hear arguments for and against the constitutionality of Trump's so-called "Muslim ban" when the Supreme Court reconvenes in October for its fall session. Until they could hear the arguments concerning the ban's legality, six of the court's nine justices moved to allow a more limited version of the ban — which would temporarily allow nationals from the six targeted countries with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" to travel through our borders while temporarily preventing everyone else.

In Justice Clarence Thomas' partial dissent, where he was joined by Justice Samuel Alito and Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas argued that Trump's travel ban should have been reinstated in full ahead of the Supreme Court's fall session.

In other words, even though each justice of the Supreme Court agreed that at least part of the travel ban should go into effect ahead of the fall session, Trump was mistaken in suggesting that today's announcement explicitly presages anything about the future of his controversial executive order, which a federal appeals court ruling said "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination."

Trump, the American public and nationals from the six majority-Muslim countries targeted by the travel ban will learn its fate this fall. Until then, you can read the Supreme Court's recent decision in full here.

I'm sure the Notorious RBG would not be thrilled to read that the TT thinks she supported his full travel ban permanently.

[GrumpyGran]

5 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2017/06/15/opinion/the-case-for-obstruction-charges.html

The facts are clear, Presidunce does not have unfettered power any more than an employer in an at-will state can fire someone for illegal reasons such as race or religion. The suspension of logic, not to mention human decency, by Trumpvidians is amazing, and not in a good way.

Yeah, but as someone who has lived in one of those states I can tell you that the only thing that keeps employers from firing people is the possibility that they may pick up negative publicity. And it's a faint possibility. My husband was fired for refusing to participate with another favored employee in a scheme to cheat other employees out of commission. A lawyer told him that no one would take his case because it wasn't worth the trouble. When there's no one to fight FOR what's right, especially someone with power, then corruption has no limits.

Someone in those comments made a very good point. At least with Watergate, there were still some people in power on the right who had a sense of morality and ethics. Now the right is owned hook, line and sinker, by big money. Gun manufacturers, health care companies, military manufacturers, oil companies. They've invested heavily in these Representatives and Senators and they want their payback.

[fraurosena]

Here's George Takei's compelling story from relatively recent American history. Shades of this dark episode are reverbrating again within American society. How sad, that apparently nothing has been learnt from the lessons of history. Another consequence of lack of education.

 

[SilverBeach]

@GrumpyGran, I should have been more clear that firing for illegal reasons certainly happens, but it is nonetheless a statutory limitation to the at-will doctrine. Of course, victims have to be willing to fight to enforce their rights for it to mean anything. I'm Black, in the workforce for forty years, and I know the shenanigans that go on.

ETA that what happened to your husband sucks. It's like when I was told my dad's life had no economic value so there was no point in filing a malpractice/wrongful death suit after he died under suspicious circumstances following hip replacement surgery. He was seventy. So no, there is not legal recourse for every wrong, unfortunately. 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Gee, it's fake, just like Agent Orange's tan: "A Time Magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake."

Spoiler

The framed copy of Time Magazine was hung up in at least four of President Trump’s golf clubs, from South Florida to Scotland. Filling the entire cover was a photo of Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” the big headline said. Above the Time nameplate, there was another headline in all caps: “TRUMP IS HITTING ON ALL FRONTS . . . EVEN TV!”

This cover — dated March 1, 2009 — looks like an impressive memento from Trump’s pre-presidential career. To club members eating lunch, or golfers waiting for a pro-shop purchase, it seemed to be a signal that Trump had always been a man who mattered. Even when he was just a reality-TV star, Trump was the kind of star who got a cover story in Time.

But that wasn’t true.

The Time cover is a fake.

There was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time Magazine. And there was no issue at all in 2009 that had Trump on the cover.

In fact,the cover on display at Trump’s clubs, observed recently by a reporter visiting one of the properties, contains several small but telling mistakes. Its red border is skinnier than that of a genuine Time cover, and, unlike the real thing, there is no thin white border next to the red. The Trump cover’s secondary headlines are stacked on the right side — on a real Time cover, they would go across the top.

And it has two exclamation points. Time headlines don’t yell.

“I can confirm that this is not a real TIME cover,” Kerri Chyka, a spokeswoman for Time Inc., wrote in an email to The Washington Post.

So how did Trump — who spent an entire campaign and much of his presidency accusing the mainstream media of producing “fake news” — wind up decorating his properties with a literal piece of phony journalism?

The Trump Organization did not respond to questions this week about who made the cover and why it was displayed at Trump clubs. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to say whether Trump had known the cover wasn’t real.

“We couldn’t comment on the decor at Trump Golf clubs one way or another,” Sanders wrote in an email.

The cover seems to fit a broader pattern for Trump, who has often boasted of his appearances on Time’s cover and adorned his Trump Tower office with images of himself from magazines and newspapers. Trump has made claims about himself — about his charitable giving, his business success, even the size of the crowd at his inauguration — that are not supported by the facts.

In this case, Trump’s golf clubs might seem like a place where he wouldn’t need to stretch the truth. Reality is flattering enough. The clubs are monuments to Trump’s success — they bear his name and are filled with his images. But, still, his staff added an extra trophy that was phony.

It is not clear who created this fake Time cover — or why.

Its date might be a clue: March 1, 2009, was the season debut of Trump’s show “The Celebrity Apprentice.” But a transcript of that show offers no answers. In that episode, various B-list celebrities competed to sell cupcakes, and Trump fired comedian Andrew Dice Clay for poor performance. Nobody mentioned Time Magazine.

While it’s not difficult to mock up a fake cover using graphic-design software, whoever made this one actually sought out real Time headlines, to add to the fake.

There are secondary headlines on the Trump cover that tout stories on President Barack Obama, climate change and the financial crisis. Two of those are taken from a real March 2, 2009, issue of Time, which featured actress Kate Winslet on the cover. But the issue makes no mention of Trump.

The Post found that the fake cover had been hung in at least four of Trump’s 17 golf clubs.

At Trump’s resort in Doral, Fla., outside Miami, the fake image hangs in two prominent spots.

In the pro shop, it shares a wall with 11 other framed magazine pages — all of them highlighting Trump, another member of the Trump family or a Trump golf course.

Among the covers with Trump’s face on them, the Time cover looks like one of the most impressive. The others are old — such as a 1984 cover of GQ — or from less prominent titles, such as “Fairways + Greens” magazine and TV Guide Canada. Those two publications are out of print.

A copy of the fake cover also hangs in Champions, the Doral resort’s sports bar. It faces a framed cover of Fortune magazine from 2004, showing Trump’s face with the headline “Trumped.” That one is real.

In Virginia, the phony Time cover hangs on the wall of the member’s dining room at the Trump golf course in suburban Loudoun County, near Washington. Trump has visited that club more frequently since moving into the White House. In early June, the president ate lunch in that dining room with football star Peyton Manning and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn).

A photo taken during their lunch shows that Trump’s chair faced the fake Time cover.

At the same club, Trump’s staff put up a historical marker declaring that there had been a Civil War battle on the site — and that the adjacent Potomac River became a “River of Blood.” Historians say this battle never happened. The marker was first reported by the New York Times.

The Time cover also appears to have been hung up at Trump’s golf resort in Doonbeg, in western Ireland. Trump bought the club in 2014. Photos posted on TripAdvisor show it on the wall of a dining room. But when a reporter visited the club this past weekend, it was gone.

A bartender later found it in the manager’s office. Officials at the club could not explain why it had been moved.

And at Trump’s Turnberry club in Scotland, employees said they recognized the cover. It had been added after Trump bought the course in 2014, said the employees, who spoke to The Post on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment to the media. One employee said the fake cover had previously hung in the resort’s pub, called “The Duel in the Sun” after a famous golf match played at Turnberry in 1977.

But, she said, the cover was taken down a few weeks ago.

“We used to have a Time Magazine cover up — aye, it was there for ages and ages, as long as I’ve been here. I know the one you’re on about,” the employee said. “But they came and took it down a while back.”

In its place, the club had hung up an old-timey photo of the course.

Club officials did not respond to queries about why it was taken down. The employee said it was part of a general reduction in photos of Trump.

“We certainly have been hearing more grumbling about all the stuff like that up on the walls since his election,” the employee said. “From Americans, mostly, funny enough. That’s why we all assumed they started taking some of his photos off the walls.”

“But it was just a guess. I don’t actually have a Scooby,” the employee added, using an expression that means, “I don’t have a clue.”

The Post also looked for the fake cover at two Trump courses in the United States that are open to the public, in the Bronx and in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. It was not on display at either. The rest of Trump’s courses are members-only, making it difficult to get inside to look at the decor.

The image does not appear to be among the many framed magazine covers that adorn Trump’s old office in Trump Tower, based on photos of the office.

One thing that is clear, from the president’s past statements, is that he views the cover of Time as a significant honor.

Trump has bragged that he’s been on more Time covers than anyone. “I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time Magazine,” he said during a January speech at CIA headquarters.

That is wrong. Richard Nixon has appeared on far more than Trump.

In a 2016 interview, when Trump was a candidate, he offered a mental tally of how many times he had appeared on the magazine’s cover.

“I think I was on the cover of Time Magazine twice in my life and like six times in the last number of months. So you tell me, which is more important, real estate or politics, okay?” Trump said. “I have six for politics and I have two for real estate or whatever they put me on for.”

But that count was wrong.

According to Time Magazine’s tally, Trump had been on the cover only once before he got into politics. That was in January 1989.

I guess he doesn't know how to use the calculator on his phone, just the twitter app.

[47of74]

40 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Gee, it's fake, just like Agent Orange's tan: "A Time Magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake."

I guess he doesn't know how to use the calculator on his phone, just the twitter app.

Yeah I was just coming here to remark on how fuck face had a fake Time cover that the real Time asked him to take down.  What an attention seeking ass.  That was good that Time asked them to take the covers down, it could lead to the impression that they thought as highly of fuck face as he does of himself.