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

[GreyhoundFan]

@formergothardite -- I agree, it would be the reality show of the century. However, if his attorneys are even a little on the ball, they'll never sign off on him testifying publicly.

 

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin: "Trump’s presidency becomes a legal swamp"

Spoiler

The Post reports:

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anticorruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

This clever legal gambit focuses on Trump’s possible violation of the emoluments clause. The first hurdle will be for the states’ attorneys general to show standing — that is, that Trump’s receipt of foreign monies harmed them. They will claim that the Trump International Hotel has an unfair advantage over other venues as foreign governments seek to give their business to the president and thus gain influence with him. (“The Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel after initially booking at the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. The hotel may be drawing business away from both the taxpayer-owned D.C. convention center and one in nearby Maryland subsidized by taxpayers.”)

As with other litigation, this suit offers the possibility that Trump may need to turn over tax returns and other financial records and even testify under oath.

In addition to the litigation, Trump faces the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the inquiry from the Senate Intelligence Committee. Collectively, these legal avenues offer the potential to require much more transparency than Trump has ever allowed. We might even get a full accounting of possible financial ties to regimes that he has gone out of his way to indulge (e.g. the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, China). Then let’s not forget about separate inquiries into Paul Manafort’s dealings with Vladimir Putin’s stooge in Ukraine and former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn’s unreported work for Turkey. Ironically, the man who gleefully litigated in order to bully a variety of business and media antagonists now finds himself caught in a web of civil and possible criminal litigation.

Russia provides the nexus between the emoluments clause lawsuits and the Mueller investigation. The meetings between Jared Kushner and Russian officials, for example, may tell us something about Russia meddling in our election, but also about financial deals. Was Kushner’s meeting with the chief executive of Vnesheconombank (VEB) about business or Russian relations or both, and why would he leave this off of his security clearance paperwork?

The multiplicity of inquiries creates several challenges for Trump and his high-octane, buffoonish lawyer Marc E. Kasowitz. With so many actions, the Trump-Russia probe in some form or another may come to dominate the news, eradicating any hope of achieving policy aims. In addition, if one action doesn’t meet the “standing” requirements or succeed in prying loose Trump’s financial records, perhaps another one will. With enough bites at the apple and enough courts, chances are that one or more actions will find their way through the maze of Trump finances and connections between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials. The burden on Trump aides and the legal peril in which some high-profile figures (Kushner, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump’s adult children, Flynn, Carter Page, etc.) find themselves will heighten — raising the prospect that one or more of them will become cooperating witnesses.

In short, the picture of an administration under siege and a president no longer anxious to travel overseas to a close ally such as Britain only adds to the sense of chaos. Trump still wants his staff shake-up — but if he cuts staff loose, will he lose control of them as potential witnesses? Will these scorned employees be motivated to tell courts and prosecutors what they know? Trump might well be president for the next 3½ years, but it’s hard to see what that is worth if his days and nights are spent beating back litigation. And for Republicans, the prospect of achieving any significant legislative ends recedes as the wave of litigation washes over the White House.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Supposedly Sessions wants to testify in public tomorrow because "the American public needs to hear the truth"

I take it to mean he wants a chance to lie to audiences who don't know any better. 

Do they actually tell him that all the fake memo signing ceremonies they hold are legislation or does he mean, "with few- only 44 or so- exceptions"

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump gives Priebus until July 4th to clean up White House"

Spoiler

President Donald Trump has set a deadline of July 4 for a shakeup of the White House that could include removing Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, according to two administration officials and three outside advisers familiar with the matter.

While Trump has set deadlines for staff changes before, only to let them pass without pulling the trigger, the president is under more scrutiny than ever regarding the sprawling Russia investigation, which is intensifying the pressure on his White House team.

Days after his return from his first foreign trip late last month, Trump berated Priebus in the Oval Office in front of his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and deputy campaign manager David Bossie for the dysfunction in the White House, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversation.

Trump had been mulling bringing on Bossie as his deputy White House chief of staff and Lewandowski as a White House senior adviser with a portfolio that includes Russia, but told the two at that meeting that they would not be joining the White House until Priebus had a fair chance to clean up shop, according to the sources.

"I'm giving you until July 4," Trump said, according to a person with knowledge of the conversation.

"I don't want them to come into this mess. If I'm going to clean house, they will come in as fresh blood."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, in a statement on Sunday, disputed the idea that Priebus is facing a July 4 deadline. "Whoever is saying that is either a liar or out of the loop," Spicer said.

The Independence Day timeframe is timed with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's deadline for passage of the health care bill through the chamber, which is also the start of the July 4th recess. Priebus took the brunt of the blame for the first failure to get a vote on the bill through the House, though the White House and Speaker Paul Ryan were ultimately able to secure its passage on a second try.

Talk of Trump’s July 4th deadline has made the rounds in the White House, but insiders and those close to the president are not holding their breath, given the perpetual talk that Priebus and other senior staffers are on the way out.

Trump’s first deadline for the firing of Priebus and many staffers that he brought on from the Republican National Committee was the 100-day mark.

The president then considered the idea of a Memorial Day shakeup when he returned from the foreign trip, and then most recently, July 4.

"It's become comical that every holiday becomes a referendum on Reince," said one adviser to the president.

Sensing his impending doom even before he was criticized for fallout related to the firing of FBI director James Comey, Reince had joked, "I've got one foot on a banana peel and another out the door," according to a person with knowledge of the conversation.

Deadlines haven't been Trump's only tactic for warning Priebus about his possible dismissal from the top of the administration.

Trump has openly floated the idea of other potential chiefs of staff, including former campaign aide David Urban and Wayne Berman, a Blackstone executive and advisor to Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman. Shortly after national security adviser Michael Flynn was fired in February, Trump invited New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to the White House to help brainstorm about a new chief of staff, according to a White House official and outside adviser with knowledge of the situation.

But those who have known Trump for years, like his former campaign adviser Sam Nunberg, says the "You're fired" persona associated with his "Apprentice" fame doesn't match up with the man away from the cameras.

"I don't think he likes to gratuitously fire people," said Nunberg, who was himself fired by Trump. "He wants to give people chances."

Another outside adviser who regularly speaks to the president said that Trump often threatens employees with the prospect of being fired to motivate them to do better, prompt them to resign, or to use them as an example for other staffers of what it can be like to be on his bad side.

"Trump will literally ask anyone who will listen, 'Do you think Reince is doing a good job?’ or ‘Do you think that I should get rid of him?'" said that adviser, who has been asked that question by Trump.

Trump has yet to allow Priebus to choose a deputy to replace his former deputy chief of staff, Katie Walsh. Walsh, a Priebus ally who worked with him at the RNC, was moved to an outside political group supporting Trump’s presidency after the first failure to pass the Obamacare repeal bill in March.

Former communications director Mike Dubke is a recent example of a White House staffer who was likely on the way out, but decided to get ahead of it by offering his own resignation, according to two White House officials. Dubke is now also helping out with the outside political group.

But a former campaign official noted that Priebus has been more effective in recent weeks in bringing order to the White House, despite the chaos outside, including Comey’s dramatic testimony before the Senate last week and Trump’s subsequent accusations against him.

"For the first time in the White House there's true structure and discipline and order instilled, despite other distractions that might be out there," the former official said.

"They are getting down to the work of governing and moving the ball forward."

The White House just wrapped up “Infrastructure Week,” which provided a more focused message about Trump’s legislative agenda — even if it got largely drowned out by Comey’s testimony. And Trump is about to launch “Workforce Development Week,” in which he’ll travel to Wisconsin with his daughter Ivanka on Tuesday before delivering a “major policy speech” at the Department of Labor on Wednesday.

Roger Stone, a long-time confidant of Trump, recalled the firing of former Trump Organization CEO Edward Tracy and Trump Atlantic City Associates CEO Nicholas Ribis as two examples of when Trump made drastic personnel decisions. He likened the firings to Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" and called it "sudden."

He suggested that if and when Trump removes Priebus, it will be at an opportune time and with a landing pad.

"I think it would be fair to say, that with the entire Comey controversy, that's a pretty good reason not to make a change at this exact moment," Stone said.

"Even when he lets him go, he's not going to fire him. He'll just give him another meaningless post. Because it's politics and it looks better that way. There's no reason to offend [Priebus'] friends in the party, so they'll find a much more important job for him."

Priebus was brought on to the White House as a broker between Trump and the Republican establishment, specifically because of his close relationship with Ryan, who Trump has reportedly been disenchanted with in recent weeks.

Trump has blamed Priebus for leaks out of the White House that he believes have come from disgruntled RNC staffers whom Preibus brought into the West Wing, two administration officials and three outside advisers said. He also blamed Spicer, who was brought on at Priebus' behest, for the lack of full-throated defense for his firing of Comey.

Many say Trump is unfairly placing the blame on Priebus, who faces an almost impossible task in trying to clean up a White House that has been laden with scandals relating to the Russia probe and the recent firing of Comey. But some point to disorganization even earlier than that, like the botched rollout of the healthcare bill and travel ban.

Trump has weighed the idea of moving Priebus to the role of ambassador to Greece, because of his Greek descent.

Trump told Bossie that Priebus "will enjoy Greece," according to two people with knowledge of the comment.

Another source close to the administration said that Trump is aware of the optics of having a chief of staff leaving the administration too soon, and does not want Priebus to leave with a shorter tenure than any other White House chief of staff in history.

Harry S. Truman was the first president to have a chief of staff. The shortest-serving chief of staff since then was James Baker who served the last five months of the George H.W. Bush administration. Priebus has yet to reach his fifth month.

Nunberg argued that Trump may feel less comfortable shaking up the West Wing than he did making major changes to the Trump Organization.

"The White House is different. You can't make quick changes, it's an institution. Once someone is gone from there, they're gone," Nunberg said.

"With that said, I think Reince will be there for the long haul."

Seriously: "I don't think he likes to gratuitously fire people," -- if Nunberg hadn't worked for the TT, I would have wondered if they had ever met.

[AmazonGrace]

Is he really going to risk disgruntled fired people spilling more dirt on him? 

[JMarie]

10 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Literally;

 

Tiffany's just "being a daughter" -- you know, like Ivanka herself promised during that 60 Minutes interview.

[Audrey2]

32 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Supposedly Sessions wants to testify in public tomorrow because "the American public needs to hear the truth"

I take it to mean he wants a chance to lie to audiences who don't know any better. 

Do they actually tell him that all the fake memo signing ceremonies they hold are legislation or does he mean, "with few- only 44 or so- exceptions"

I think they mean undoing everything the previous President did, almost like resetting a computer game. Unfortunately for all of us, this is real life. He has done too much in a short time too, by appointing "leadership" to undermine too many Federal Agencies and departments. This must be what he's referring to. All he needs to do now is appoint someone to lead NASA who believes the moon landing was faked and that space travel in impossible and morally against God.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

The videos are about the lawsuit.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, good, let's make ourselves look as guilty as possible: "Trump attorney won't rule out firing Mueller"

Spoiler

One of President Donald Trump’s attorneys on Sunday wouldn't rule out the possibility the president would fire the special counsel appointed to look into his campaign’s potential ties to Russia.

Robert Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department last month to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. And on Sunday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Trump attorney Jay Sekulow whether the president would pledge not to interfere or order the attorney general to fire Mueller.

“Look, the president of the United States, as we all know, is a unitary executive,” Sekulow said on ABC’s “This Week.” “But the president is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside. And I'm not going to speculate on what he will, or will not, do.”

Sekulow said he “can’t imagine” the issue would arise, but “that, again, is an issue that the president with his advisers would discuss if there was a basis.”

Yeah, that means they've discussed it.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump gives Priebus until July 4th to clean up White House"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Donald Trump has set a deadline of July 4 for a shakeup of the White House that could include removing Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, according to two administration officials and three outside advisers familiar with the matter.

While Trump has set deadlines for staff changes before, only to let them pass without pulling the trigger, the president is under more scrutiny than ever regarding the sprawling Russia investigation, which is intensifying the pressure on his White House team.

Days after his return from his first foreign trip late last month, Trump berated Priebus in the Oval Office in front of his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and deputy campaign manager David Bossie for the dysfunction in the White House, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversation.

Trump had been mulling bringing on Bossie as his deputy White House chief of staff and Lewandowski as a White House senior adviser with a portfolio that includes Russia, but told the two at that meeting that they would not be joining the White House until Priebus had a fair chance to clean up shop, according to the sources.

"I'm giving you until July 4," Trump said, according to a person with knowledge of the conversation.

"I don't want them to come into this mess. If I'm going to clean house, they will come in as fresh blood."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, in a statement on Sunday, disputed the idea that Priebus is facing a July 4 deadline. "Whoever is saying that is either a liar or out of the loop," Spicer said.

The Independence Day timeframe is timed with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's deadline for passage of the health care bill through the chamber, which is also the start of the July 4th recess. Priebus took the brunt of the blame for the first failure to get a vote on the bill through the House, though the White House and Speaker Paul Ryan were ultimately able to secure its passage on a second try.

Talk of Trump’s July 4th deadline has made the rounds in the White House, but insiders and those close to the president are not holding their breath, given the perpetual talk that Priebus and other senior staffers are on the way out.

Trump’s first deadline for the firing of Priebus and many staffers that he brought on from the Republican National Committee was the 100-day mark.

The president then considered the idea of a Memorial Day shakeup when he returned from the foreign trip, and then most recently, July 4.

"It's become comical that every holiday becomes a referendum on Reince," said one adviser to the president.

Sensing his impending doom even before he was criticized for fallout related to the firing of FBI director James Comey, Reince had joked, "I've got one foot on a banana peel and another out the door," according to a person with knowledge of the conversation.

Deadlines haven't been Trump's only tactic for warning Priebus about his possible dismissal from the top of the administration.

Trump has openly floated the idea of other potential chiefs of staff, including former campaign aide David Urban and Wayne Berman, a Blackstone executive and advisor to Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman. Shortly after national security adviser Michael Flynn was fired in February, Trump invited New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to the White House to help brainstorm about a new chief of staff, according to a White House official and outside adviser with knowledge of the situation.

But those who have known Trump for years, like his former campaign adviser Sam Nunberg, says the "You're fired" persona associated with his "Apprentice" fame doesn't match up with the man away from the cameras.

"I don't think he likes to gratuitously fire people," said Nunberg, who was himself fired by Trump. "He wants to give people chances."

Another outside adviser who regularly speaks to the president said that Trump often threatens employees with the prospect of being fired to motivate them to do better, prompt them to resign, or to use them as an example for other staffers of what it can be like to be on his bad side.

"Trump will literally ask anyone who will listen, 'Do you think Reince is doing a good job?’ or ‘Do you think that I should get rid of him?'" said that adviser, who has been asked that question by Trump.

Trump has yet to allow Priebus to choose a deputy to replace his former deputy chief of staff, Katie Walsh. Walsh, a Priebus ally who worked with him at the RNC, was moved to an outside political group supporting Trump’s presidency after the first failure to pass the Obamacare repeal bill in March.

Former communications director Mike Dubke is a recent example of a White House staffer who was likely on the way out, but decided to get ahead of it by offering his own resignation, according to two White House officials. Dubke is now also helping out with the outside political group.

But a former campaign official noted that Priebus has been more effective in recent weeks in bringing order to the White House, despite the chaos outside, including Comey’s dramatic testimony before the Senate last week and Trump’s subsequent accusations against him.

"For the first time in the White House there's true structure and discipline and order instilled, despite other distractions that might be out there," the former official said.

"They are getting down to the work of governing and moving the ball forward."

The White House just wrapped up “Infrastructure Week,” which provided a more focused message about Trump’s legislative agenda — even if it got largely drowned out by Comey’s testimony. And Trump is about to launch “Workforce Development Week,” in which he’ll travel to Wisconsin with his daughter Ivanka on Tuesday before delivering a “major policy speech” at the Department of Labor on Wednesday.

Roger Stone, a long-time confidant of Trump, recalled the firing of former Trump Organization CEO Edward Tracy and Trump Atlantic City Associates CEO Nicholas Ribis as two examples of when Trump made drastic personnel decisions. He likened the firings to Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" and called it "sudden."

He suggested that if and when Trump removes Priebus, it will be at an opportune time and with a landing pad.

"I think it would be fair to say, that with the entire Comey controversy, that's a pretty good reason not to make a change at this exact moment," Stone said.

"Even when he lets him go, he's not going to fire him. He'll just give him another meaningless post. Because it's politics and it looks better that way. There's no reason to offend [Priebus'] friends in the party, so they'll find a much more important job for him."

Priebus was brought on to the White House as a broker between Trump and the Republican establishment, specifically because of his close relationship with Ryan, who Trump has reportedly been disenchanted with in recent weeks.

Trump has blamed Priebus for leaks out of the White House that he believes have come from disgruntled RNC staffers whom Preibus brought into the West Wing, two administration officials and three outside advisers said. He also blamed Spicer, who was brought on at Priebus' behest, for the lack of full-throated defense for his firing of Comey.

Many say Trump is unfairly placing the blame on Priebus, who faces an almost impossible task in trying to clean up a White House that has been laden with scandals relating to the Russia probe and the recent firing of Comey. But some point to disorganization even earlier than that, like the botched rollout of the healthcare bill and travel ban.

Trump has weighed the idea of moving Priebus to the role of ambassador to Greece, because of his Greek descent.

Trump told Bossie that Priebus "will enjoy Greece," according to two people with knowledge of the comment.

Another source close to the administration said that Trump is aware of the optics of having a chief of staff leaving the administration too soon, and does not want Priebus to leave with a shorter tenure than any other White House chief of staff in history.

Harry S. Truman was the first president to have a chief of staff. The shortest-serving chief of staff since then was James Baker who served the last five months of the George H.W. Bush administration. Priebus has yet to reach his fifth month.

Nunberg argued that Trump may feel less comfortable shaking up the West Wing than he did making major changes to the Trump Organization.

"The White House is different. You can't make quick changes, it's an institution. Once someone is gone from there, they're gone," Nunberg said.

"With that said, I think Reince will be there for the long haul."

Seriously: "I don't think he likes to gratuitously fire people," -- if Nunberg hadn't worked for the TT, I would have wondered if they had ever met.

Oh, good. I love it when they give us lots of warning for an upcoming train wreck. There will be blood. Or massive lies. Maybe both!

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, good, let's make ourselves look as guilty as possible: "Trump attorney won't rule out firing Mueller"

  Reveal hidden contents

One of President Donald Trump’s attorneys on Sunday wouldn't rule out the possibility the president would fire the special counsel appointed to look into his campaign’s potential ties to Russia.

Robert Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department last month to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. And on Sunday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Trump attorney Jay Sekulow whether the president would pledge not to interfere or order the attorney general to fire Mueller.

“Look, the president of the United States, as we all know, is a unitary executive,” Sekulow said on ABC’s “This Week.” “But the president is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside. And I'm not going to speculate on what he will, or will not, do.”

Sekulow said he “can’t imagine” the issue would arise, but “that, again, is an issue that the president with his advisers would discuss if there was a basis.”

Yeah, that means they've discussed it.

Yup, this will be more tempting for him than two scoops of ice cream.

[AmazonGrace]

If you want you can watch the cabinet meeting. Spoiler: Everyone kisses Trump's ass in turn. 

9th district decision on the travel ban that is not a travel ban; 

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

Is he really going to risk disgruntled fired people spilling more dirt on him? 

Ooooh, I certainly hope so! 

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Is he really going to risk disgruntled fired people spilling more dirt on him? 

I'm thinking  he can try and silence them through blackmail and non-disclosure agreements. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump is likely to get much, much worse. Here are a few big things to watch for."

Spoiler

Are Republicans prepared for the possibility that President Trump’s abuses of power could continue their slide to depths of madness or autocracy that make the current moment look relatively tame by comparison? This isn’t meant as a rhetorical question. It is genuinely unclear — from the public statements of Republicans and the reporting on their private deliberations — whether they envision a point at which Trump’s conduct could grow unhinged enough, or threaten serious enough damage to our democracy, to warrant meaningful acknowledgment, never mind action.

Politico’s Playbook this morning tries to sum up the thinking among Republicans. The gist: Republicans are increasingly worried they will lose the House amid a “toxic political environment that appears to be worsening.” They cite the possibility that they won’t secure any serious legislative wins, as well as “serious concerns” about “more revelations” coming on Trump. In the background, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation “remains the wild card.”

For sure, but how much worse could this get? The chatter on the Sunday shows hinted at where we may be headed. Here are a few things to watch for:

The tapes Trump hinted at turn out not to exist. On ABC’s “This Week,” Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump’s legal team, said Trump will make a decision very soon on whether to release the tapes he may have made of his conversations with then-FBI Director James B. Comey.  After the news broke that Trump may have demanded a “loyalty” pledge from Comey, the president tweeted that Comey had better hope he doesn’t have tapes of their conversations. Trump has since hinted he still might release them, and congressional investigators have demanded them.

This state of play is utter lunacy in its current form — the White House has still not said whether these tapes exist, even as Trump hints they might still be coming, and we are so numb to Trump’s daily crazy at this point that we now oddly treat this as somewhat unremarkable. Maybe they do exist. But what happens if the White House, in response to those congressional demands, ultimately confirms that they don’t? Experts think the White House will have to come clean in some way. At that point, it would be confirmed that Trump invented the existence of these tapes to chill Comey from offering a full public accounting of the events leading up to his firing — which itself was a massive abuse of power, given that Trump allowed it was because of the FBI’s Russia probe — in the full knowledge that Comey was going to serve as a witness before long. What will Republicans say about that?

Trump tries to get the special prosecutor fired. Also on ABC’s “This Week,” Sekulow refused to rule out the possibility that Trump might end up trying to order Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to fire Mueller. It is possible that Trump is cognizant enough of the history here (Richard Nixon tried pretty much the same thing) to avoid the drastic step of trying to get Mueller axed mainly because he’s closing in on wrongdoing.

But Trump is not inclined to let institutional constraints limit his options, and he and his team have already shown themselves to be less than shrewd at gaming out the consequences of trampling on them. The circumstances of Trump’s firing of Comey are a case in point. The White House thought it could get away with floating the idea that Rosenstein had provided the rationale (his memo fingered Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe). But that story fell apart, raising the possibility that Rosenstein had provided Trump cover for the real rationale, which Trump subsequently admitted on national television was Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. This basically required Rosenstein to appoint the special counsel.

So can we really count on Trump refraining from trying to get Mueller removed? Nope. Somewhat unlike in Nixon’s time, Republicans may well still stand by Trump even if this happens. If so, they’d be in a considerably darker place than they are even now. And so would we all.

MEANWHILE, WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUMP TESTIFIES UNDER OATH? Trump has now said that he’s “100 percent” ready to testify under oath to special counsel Mueller about his interactions with Comey. But Bloomberg Politics’ Paul Barrett points out that this could create a big problem later:

Trump, through his comments, has limited his lawyer’s maneuvering room. The “100 percent” promise means that if Mueller asks the president to testify under oath — and Mueller eventually will ask — the president has unilaterally disarmed himself from arguing that there’s some reason he shouldn’t have to be questioned under penalty of perjury.

If so, what does Trump say under oath? His lead lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, is flatly contesting Comey’s contention that Trump tried to influence his ongoing probe, and Trump has claimed Comey is lying. But as Brian Beutler points out, even many Republicans are not doing that, which amounts to a “tacit acknowledgment that Trump is lying” about his conversations with Comey, even as they are vaguely defending Trump’s conduct in them.

If Trump should end up testifying, the president would now be under dramatically increased pressure to tell the truth. And Republicans would be under dramatically increased pressure to clarify whom they really believe.

...

Every time I think it can't get worse, it does. So, I have stopped thinking it can't get worse.

[Childless]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Is he really going to risk disgruntled fired people spilling more dirt on him? 

If I worked at the WH and he canned me, I'd sing like a canary.  You know those people have some wild stories and he hasn't even been there six months yet.

[AmazonGrace]

 

This made my day

[fraurosena]

Teehee. 

Federal appeals court upholds freeze on Trump’s travel ban

Spoiler

A West Coast federal appeals court upheld the freeze on President Trump’s travel ban Monday, declaring that Trump had exceeded his lawful authority in suspending the issuance of visas to residents of six Muslim majority countries and suspending the U.S. refu­gee program.

A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration unanimously. Their ruling is another blow to Trump — though the fate of his travel ban already had been destined to be decided by the Supreme Court after a different federal appeals court ruled against him in a separate case, and the administration asked the nation’s top justice to intervene.

Unlike other courts in the past, the three judges on the 9th Circuit did not dwell on Trump’s public comments. Instead, they ruled that Trump’s travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal.

“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.”

The court’s ruling is both practically and symbolically important.

While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit already had upheld a separate freeze on Trump’s ban, that freeze did not apply to the portion of Trump’s order dealing with refugees.

The 9th Circuit was considering a freeze that did, and they concluded Trump had not provided sufficient justification to either temporarily suspend refu­gee admission or lower the refu­gee cap for fiscal 2017 to 50,000.

The opinion also clarified that the administration could conduct an internal review to assess vetting procedures.

That could be construed as a win for Trump: The appeals court said a federal judge in Hawaii was wrong to restrict his administration from conducting such a review. But it also forces the Supreme Court to act quickly if the travel ban is to be salvaged.

That is because the measure is supposed to be temporary — barring the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim majority countries for 90 days and suspending the U.S. refu­gee program for 120 days so officials could review vetting procedures. The Justice Department had argued that they felt blocked from conducting such a review by the Hawaii judge, meaning the clock had essentially stopped.

That clock will presumably now run again, and with a Supreme Court recess looming, the ban could expire before the justices reach a decision. 

The opinion was authored by judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez, all appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Just wait for the tantrum tweets...

 

[Audrey2]

14 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Teehee. 

Federal appeals court upholds freeze on Trump’s travel ban

  Reveal hidden contents

A West Coast federal appeals court upheld the freeze on President Trump’s travel ban Monday, declaring that Trump had exceeded his lawful authority in suspending the issuance of visas to residents of six Muslim majority countries and suspending the U.S. refu­gee program.

A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration unanimously. Their ruling is another blow to Trump — though the fate of his travel ban already had been destined to be decided by the Supreme Court after a different federal appeals court ruled against him in a separate case, and the administration asked the nation’s top justice to intervene.

Unlike other courts in the past, the three judges on the 9th Circuit did not dwell on Trump’s public comments. Instead, they ruled that Trump’s travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal.

“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.”

The court’s ruling is both practically and symbolically important.

While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit already had upheld a separate freeze on Trump’s ban, that freeze did not apply to the portion of Trump’s order dealing with refugees.

The 9th Circuit was considering a freeze that did, and they concluded Trump had not provided sufficient justification to either temporarily suspend refu­gee admission or lower the refu­gee cap for fiscal 2017 to 50,000.

The opinion also clarified that the administration could conduct an internal review to assess vetting procedures.

That could be construed as a win for Trump: The appeals court said a federal judge in Hawaii was wrong to restrict his administration from conducting such a review. But it also forces the Supreme Court to act quickly if the travel ban is to be salvaged.

That is because the measure is supposed to be temporary — barring the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim majority countries for 90 days and suspending the U.S. refu­gee program for 120 days so officials could review vetting procedures. The Justice Department had argued that they felt blocked from conducting such a review by the Hawaii judge, meaning the clock had essentially stopped.

That clock will presumably now run again, and with a Supreme Court recess looming, the ban could expire before the justices reach a decision. 

The opinion was authored by judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez, all appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Just wait for the tantrum tweets...

 

Let the tweetstorm begin:

Illegitimate ninth circuit illegally nixes my order. Sad.

Time to fire all ninth circuit judges to Make America Great Again.

Time to dissolve the ninth circuit.

(All 3 of these are my original thoughts, not actual Trumpertantrum tweets-yet.)

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Let the tweetstorm begin:

Illegitimate ninth circuit illegally nixes my order. Sad.

Time to fire all ninth circuit judges to Make America Great Again.

Time to dissolve the ninth circuit.

(All 3 of these are my original thoughts, not actual Trumpertantrum tweets-yet.)

"So-called 9th circuit judges appointed by Hillary's husband! Sore losers! I won bigly. Will win again in SC!"

[fraurosena]

Hilarious!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

OMG! I was right... 

Well, kinda. It wasn't a tantrum tweet, it was Spicey saying it.

 

[onekidanddone]

3 hours ago, JMarie said:

Tiffany's just "being a daughter" -- you know, like Ivanka herself promised during that 60 Minutes interview.

Run Tiffany run and take Baron with you.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump touts ‘amazing’ progress, basks in praise of his Cabinet"

Spoiler

President Trump on Monday used his first full-fledged Cabinet meeting to try to make a case that, despite the Russian investigation and other distractions, his administration is racking up accomplishments at a record clip.

“Never has there been a president, with few exceptions — case of FDR, he had a major depression to handle — who has passed more legislation and who has done more things than what we’ve done,” Trump, referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, said during the meeting at the White House.

“I think we’ve been about as active as you can possibly be at a just about record-setting pace,” Trump said.

The meeting was also notable in that Trump allowed his Cabinet members, in full view of the media, to take turns praising him and his policy agenda.

“We thank you for the opportunity and blessing . . . to serve your agenda,” White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said in remarks that were echoed by other senior members of the administration.

Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, also lavished Trump with praise, saying “what an incredible honor it is” to lead his department “at this pivotal time under your leadership.”

“I can't thank you enough for the privileges you've given me and the leadership that you've shown,” Price said.

While Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, Congress has yet to pass any of his marquee agenda items, including a revamp of the Affordable Care Act, a tax-code overhaul or an infrastructure package. Most bills that Trump has signed have been modest in nature, including several rolling back regulations adopted in the closing stretch of President Barack Obama’s tenure.

Conservatives have also touted the confirmation of Trump’s first pick for Supreme Court justice, Neil M. Gorsuch.

Trump began the meeting by berating Democrats for taking longer than he wanted to confirm his Cabinet picks and accused them of being obstructionists on his high-profile agenda items.

“If we had the greatest bill in the history of the world on health care, we wouldn't get one vote from the Democrats, because they're obstructionists,” Trump said. “That's what they want to do. That's the game. They think that's their best political gain.”

During the meeting, Trump also announced that he would hold a news conference in two weeks to lay out his administration’s plan to fight the Islamic State terrorist group.

He said his administration had already taken steps to cut off funding for terrorist groups.

“We are stopping the funding of terrorism,” Trump said. “You have to starve the beast, and we’re going to starve the beast.”

Everyone must stroke the TT's ego...

[Destiny]

How fucking dare you you fucking asshole? Unlike whatever staff flunkie got to post this tweet, I fucking remember you using this tragedy to boost your Muslim hate agenda before you said anything about the victims, just like you do with every fucking tragedy. You don't care about victims of terrorism, and you most definitely do not care about gay people.

Fuck the actual fuck off.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Trumps are complaining about the ‘viciousness’ of politics. Irony is dead."

Spoiler

For the second time in a week, one of President Trump's children took to the Fox News airwaves to complain about just how rough-and-tumble our political system is.

A few days after Eric Trump decried the political left as “not even people” over its “hatred” and treatment of his father, Ivanka Trump went on “Fox and Friends” on Monday morning and decried the “viciousness” of Washington.

“There’s a level of viciousness that I was not expecting,” she said. “I was not expecting the intensity of this experience.”

...

Here's what Eric Trump said a few days ago on Sean Hannity's show:

I've never seen hatred like this, and to me they're not even people. It's so, so sad, I mean morality is just gone, morals have flown out the window. We deserve so much better than this as a country. You know it's so sad.

This seems to be a talking point for the White House now. And it is ridiculous. Not because politics in Washington isn't vicious — it certainly can be and is — but because Ivanka and Eric Trump's father's political rise was marked by probably the nastiest and most bare-knuckled brand of public campaigning that we've seen in modern history.

In case you've blocked out everything that happened between June 2015 and November 2016 (which=understandable), here is a quick refresher of the things Donald Trump did as a candidate:

• Called his chief opponents “Lyin' Ted,” “Crooked Hillary” and “Little Marco”
• Suggested “Lyin' Ted's” father may have taken part in the Kennedy assassination
• Said he would put “Crooked Hillary” in jail when president
• Seemed to allude to potential violence again and again and again
• Continued his years-long effort to question the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's U.S. birth and, by extension, his entire presidency
• Appeared to mock a reporter's physical handicap
• Suggested a judge was inherently biased against him because the judge's Mexican heritage
• Said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wasn't a war hero because he was captured

The number of things Trump did that were apparently unprecedented as a candidate and would probably have sunk any other politician were so numerous that Philip Bump spotlighted 23 of them for The Fix — in June 2016, before Trump was even officially nominated by the GOP. Not all of them were vicious, mind you, but most of them were. Trump's campaign was marked by a kind of innuendo and even outright nastiness that we simply haven't seen in a very long time, if ever. It may have worked, but it was certainly nasty.

Which is what makes Eric and Ivanka Trump's comments over the past week so disingenuous. It's like the golf thing. In a vacuum, President Trump golfing so frequently as president isn't a bad thing. But when he spent years attacking Obama for golfing even less frequently than he does now and suggested presidents shouldn't spend so much time golfing, it makes his golfing blatantly hypocritical. It makes him look like he has no real moral center or true system of beliefs.

...

Similarly, when you spend the better part of 17 months habitually breaking political norms with your unusually nasty campaign, you can't spend time during your presidency complaining about the nastiness of the political system that you will now oversee as president.

That's trying to have it both ways, which happens to be one of the few things the Trump White House is consistent about.

Aw, their fee fees are hurt. I wish they'd just shut up and go away.

[GrumpyGran]

48 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Hilarious!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

OMG! I was right... 

Well, kinda. It wasn't a tantrum tweet, it was Spicey saying it.

 

OMG, Spicey's back! I was 80% sure he was in a shallow grave somewhere on the White House grounds.

[GreyhoundFan]

2 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

OMG, Spicey's back! I was 80% sure he was in a shallow grave somewhere on the White House grounds.

Or at least hiding in the ornamental shrubbery.

 

Jennifer Rubin is on a streak: "Opponents of Trump’s travel ban must be tired of winning"

Spoiler

President Trump’s losing streak on his travel ban continues. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld almost entirely the ruling from a district court in Hawaii (“an island in the Pacific”) striking down the second version of his travel ban. The time spent in defending thinly disguised efforts to stoke Islamophobia has long surpassed the time he originally laid out in the original plan to devise a super-duper vetting plan to examine people from the seven (later six) countries he identified.

An ACLU spokesman told me, “Two appeals courts have now looked at the Muslim ban and both have forcefully ruled that the ban is unlawful. Although the Fourth and Ninth Circuits used different rationales, both courts were clear that there is no justification for this type of ban.”

The Ninth Circuit once again rejected his claim that he has near-unlimited power to ban certain groups:

Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show. The President’s authority is subject to certain statutory and constitutional restraints. We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress. In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority: The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Further, the Order runs afoul of other provisions of the INA that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the President to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees. On these statutory bases, we affirm in large part the district court’s order.

In months of litigation, the administration seems not to have learned that courts simply do not buy arguments that his actions are unreviewable. As to the first, the court instructed the administration: “Whatever deference we accord to the President’s immigration and national security policy judgments does not preclude us from reviewing the policy at all. …  We do not abdicate the judicial role, and we affirm our obligation ‘to say what the law is’ in this case. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).” Why the government persists in the arrogant argument that courts have no place in this legal debate defies logic and competent legal strategy.

On the specific legal grounds, the court found the president did not “find that the entry of a class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The court slams the administration for failing to provide minimal support for its draconian action: “We reject the first three reasons provided in Section 2(c) because they relate to preservation of government resources to review existing procedures and ensure adequate vetting procedures. 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. 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.” It is as if the government’s lawyers aren’t bothering to or cannot get their client to collect data that the government certainly would have in its control — unless, of course, it has no evidentiary support for a purely political gesture.

As for the national security justification, the court likewise finds the government didn’t come up with much of anything to justify excluding people from these countries. (“The Order does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six designated countries. It does not identify these nationals as contributors to active conflict or as those responsible for insecure country conditions. It does not provide any link between an individual’s nationality and their propensity to commit terrorism or their inherent dangerousness. In short, the Order does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”) Turning to the ban on refugees — you guessed it — the court likewise doesn’t see any rationale for the broad claim that such people are a threat to the United States.

Moreover, the court also finds that the president’s power is restricted by legislation passed in 1965 that prohibits discrimination in the visa issuance process. Supporters of the ban have argued that this statute didn’t curtail the president’s more general authority over immigration. The court didn’t buy it.

Because the court found the administration did not meet its statutory requirements, there was no need to look at the constitutional infirmities of the ban.

The only “wins” here were the court’s recognition that the government could continue its inter-agency review of vetting and that it was not necessary to enjoin the president specifically.

We find it hard to understand why the government’s lawyers do not prevail upon the government to collect necessary data and make a persuasive showing as to why the travel ban is required for these six countries or why all refugees need to be banned. “I’m struck by the cumulative effect of the president’s losses,” says former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “He’s lost on statutory grounds. He’s lost on constitutional grounds. He’s lost in the east, the west, and even on an island floating in the Pacific. He’s lost on his first order, and he’s lost on his second ‘politically-correct, watered down’ version.” He adds: “For a president who promised we’d get tired of all of his winning, his travel ban has been a catastrophe from day one.”

One might conclude that the administration is too incompetent or lazy to make the required showing. We prefer a different theory: These orders have no national security or other justification, but rather are blatant appeals to prejudice that have no factual, rational basis. No lawyer in the world can defend that in court.