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

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

They squawk about the 'illegal' leaks, but do they claim leaks are false? Can a leak be called a leak if it is a lie? I mean if I leaked to the press that @GreyhoundFan likes to post on FJ, would be a leak?  If I 'leaked' to the press @GreyhoundFan has dinner with the Duggars every third Wednesday and loves tater-tot casserole, that would not be a leak that would be a lie right?

Not to mention malicious slander and outright defamation of character. Don't do that to our esteemed and cherished @GreyhoundFan ! 

But, in all seriousness you do bring up an interesting question. Here's my take on it. 

What one leaks is information. The quality of that information doesn't factor into it. So you can leak both truths and falsehoods.

That said, if leaked information is false, that does not by definition mean that it is illegal to leak it. (The same applies to truthful information of course). By constantly reiterating that the leaks are illegal, they are merely attempting to discredit the information.
By their logic: leaking = Illegal = bad, therefore leaked information = bad.

But that isn't true.

I believe that trying to discredit and disparage the information by calling it illegal is instead, conversely, an indicator of the truthfulness of the information. Why else would you be claiming something is illegal, when simply stating that the information is false would suffice? Even more preferable would be refuting it with evidence to the contrary. But so far, they haven't done that at all. Probably because they can't. In that light, the only logical conclusion is that the leaked information is quite possibly true.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

They squawk about the 'illegal' leaks, but do they claim leaks are false? Can a leak be called a leak if it is a lie? I mean if I leaked to the press that @GreyhoundFan likes to post on FJ, would be a leak?  If I 'leaked' to the press @GreyhoundFan has dinner with the Duggars every third Wednesday and loves tater-tot casserole, that would not be a leak that would be a lie right?

It's all just smoke and mirrors. They want to focus on the leaks, not on the crimes. I'm not sure that leaking something that isn't true isn't really a leak, I think it's just a matter of semantics. Of course the bozos in this administration make crap up as they go along.

Oh, and I couldn't have dinner with the Duggars unless copious amounts of adult beverages were consumed before and during dinner. Also, their TTC recipe sounds positively repulsive!! 

@fraurosena -- thank you for your kind words! If I had to have dinner with the Duggars, I'd ask you to join me so there could be double the snark!

[fraurosena]

15 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It's all just smoke and mirrors. They want to focus on the leaks, not on the crimes. I'm not sure that leaking something that isn't true isn't really a leak, I think it's just a matter of semantics. Of course the bozos in this administration make crap up as they go along.

Oh, and I couldn't have dinner with the Duggars unless copious amounts of adult beverages were consumed before and during dinner. Also, their TTC recipe sounds positively repulsive!! 

@fraurosena -- thank you for your kind words! If I had to have dinner with the Duggars, I'd ask you to join me so there could be double the snark!

Oh my, @GreyhoundFanwhat a night that would be! I don't think Jim-Bobblehead would survive it... 

 

Meanwhile, the tangerine toddler's tantrum tweet tirade is still ongoing:

 

[onekidanddone]

19 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It's all just smoke and mirrors. They want to focus on the leaks, not on the crimes. I'm not sure that leaking something that isn't true isn't really a leak, I think it's just a matter of semantics. Of course the bozos in this administration make crap up as they go along.

Oh, and I couldn't have dinner with the Duggars unless copious amounts of adult beverages were consumed before and during dinner. Also, their TTC recipe sounds positively repulsive!! 

@fraurosena -- thank you for your kind words! If I had to have dinner with the Duggars, I'd ask you to join me so there could be double the snark!

If I really said you had dinner with the Duggars that would be libel and you could sue the hell out of me. No kidding about the adult beverages.  I'd be sneaking sips from my hip flask constantly. Hell I might even have to have two. If you and @fraurosena were there with me ,we would be snark texting each other under the table all evening.

[Childless]

17 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Oh my, @GreyhoundFanwhat a night that would be! I don't think Jim-Bobblehead would survive it... 

 

Meanwhile, the tangerine toddler's tantrum tweet tirade is still ongoing:

 

Apparently he's to stupid to tell the difference between making deals on behalf of the government and colluding to interfere in an election so you win.  Hey, Cheeto Von Tweeto: This is why you can't and won't be brought up on charges for selling a shit ton of weapons to Saudi Arabia, but are being investigated for diddling with the Russians in what is supposed to be a free and fair election. Try learning the difference dumbass.  Jeez, do Americans really want someone this ignorant as their president?

[onekidanddone]

13 minutes ago, Childless said:

Hey, Cheeto Von Tweeto

Love this. One of the best names I've seen for him in a long time.  As for what Americans want, I have no words. I'm not ashamed of America or being an American.  I am however, pissed off at and disgusted by all the orange zombies who voted him in and still support him. Don't get me started on what I think about the Rethuglicans on the Hill either.

[onekidanddone]

His "yea, but Hillary" is not a valid defense in court.  Somebody goes on trial for car theft can't use the excuse, "Well yea that other guy five years ago stole a car, so you can't charge me with the one I stole" I'm not saying Clinton is guilty or not guilty of any crime, I'm just saying I don't think he can use "but her e-mails".  Makes him look even more guilty. 

[Cartmann99]

2 hours ago, Childless said:

 Cheeto Von Tweeto

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, and I couldn't have dinner with the Duggars unless copious amounts of adult beverages were consumed before and during dinner. Also, their TTC recipe sounds positively repulsive!! 

@fraurosena -- thank you for your kind words! If I had to have dinner with the Duggars, I'd ask you to join me so there could be double the snark.

I think I've told you guys that when I read FJ, I "hear" the comments coming from whatever someone has as their avatar. Since both of you have versions of Donald Trump as your avatars, I "hear" your comments in his voice. With two Donald Trumps coming to dinner at the Duggar house, you guys are probably going to get the "special" version of tater tot casserole! I have no idea what that would be, but I strongly suggest burying it in the backyard to be on the safe side. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Hmmmm: "Trump lashes out at Russia probe; Pence hires a lawyer"

Spoiler

A heightened sense of unease gripped the White House on Thursday, as President Trump lashed out at reports that he’s under scrutiny for obstructing justice, aides repeatedly deflected questions about the probe and Vice President Pence acknowledged hiring a private lawyer to handle fallout from investigations into Russian election meddling.

Pence’s decision to hire Richard Cullen, a Richmond-based lawyer who previously served as a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, came less than a month after Trump hired his own private lawyer.

The hiring of Cullen, whom an aide said Pence was paying for himself, was made public a day after The Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is widening his investigation to examine whether the president attempted to obstruct justice.

A defiant Trump at multiple points Thursday expressed his frustration with reports about that development, tweeting that he is the subject of “the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history,” and one that he said is being led by “some very bad and conflicted people.”

Trump, who only a day earlier had called for a more civil tone in Washington after a shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., fired off several more tweets in the afternoon voicing disbelief that he was under scrutiny while his “crooked” Democratic opponent in last year’s election, Hillary Clinton, escaped prosecution in relation to her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Before the day ended, the White House was hit with the latest in a series of cascading headlines relating to the Russian probe: a Post story reporting that Mueller is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-law and adviser.

“The legal jeopardy increases by the day,” said one informal Trump adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss conversations with White House aides more freely. “If you’re a White House staffer, you’re trying to do your best to keep your head low and do your job.”

At the White House on Thursday, aides sought to portray a sense of normalcy, staging an elaborate event to promote a Trump job-training initiative, while simultaneously going into lockdown mode regarding Mueller’s probe.

At a previously scheduled off-camera briefing for reporters, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the principal deputy White House press secretary, was peppered with more than a dozen questions about ongoing investigations over about 20 minutes. In keeping with a new practice, she referred one after another to Trump’s personal lawyer.

Sanders, for example, was asked whether Trump still felt “vindicated” by the extraordinary congressional testimony last week by James B. Comey, the FBI director whose firing by Trump has contributed to questions about whether the president obstructed justice.

“I believe so,” Sanders said, before referring reporters to Marc E. Kasowitz, Trump’s private attorney.

As Trump’s No. 2 and as head of the transition team, Pence has increasingly found himself drawn into the widening Russia investigation.

Pence — along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Kushner, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and White House Counsel Donald McGahn — was one of the small group of senior advisers the president consulted as he mulled his decision to fire Comey, which is now a focus of Mueller’s investigation.

He also was entangled in the events leading up to the dismissal of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who originally misled Pence about his contact with Russian officials — incorrect claims that Pence himself then repeatedly publicly.

The vice president was kept in the dark for nearly two weeks about Flynn’s misstatements, before learning the truth in a Post report. Trump ultimately fired Flynn for misleading the vice president. 

There were also news reports that Flynn’s attorneys had alerted Trump’s transition team, which Pence led, that Flynn was under federal investigation for his secret ties to the Turkish government as a paid lobbyist — a claim the White House disputes. And aides to Pence, who was running the transition team, said the vice president was never informed of Flynn’s overseas work with Turkey, either.

On Capitol Hill on Thursday, Russian election meddling and related issues were a prominent part of the agenda.

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats spent more than three hours in a closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee, just days after he refused to answer lawmakers’ questions in an open session about his conversations with Trump regarding the Russia investigation.

Several GOP lawmakers said they think Mueller should be able to do his job — including probing possible obstruction by Trump — but added that they were eager to put the probe behind them.

Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the second-ranking Senate Republican, said he retains confidence in Mueller and that he’s seen nothing so far that would amount to obstruction by Trump. His assessment, Cornyn said, includes the testimony last week by Comey, who said he presumed he was fired because of Trump’s concerns about the FBI’s handling of the Russian probe.

“I think based on what he said then, there doesn’t appear to be any there there,” Cornyn said. “Director Mueller’s got extensive staff and authorities to investigate further. But based on what we know now, I don’t see any basis.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he didn’t find news that Mueller is exploring obstruction of justice particularly surprising given it’s clear he is “going to look at everything.”

“There has been a lot of time spent on the collusion issue — 11 months by the FBI and six months by Congress — and both sides agree they haven’t found anything there,” Thune said. “I hope at some point all this stuff will lead to an ultimate conclusion, and we’ll put this to rest.”

In the meantime, the Republican National Committee appears to be girding for a fight.

A series of “talking points” sent Wednesday night to Trump allies provided a road map for trying to undercut the significance of the latest revelation related to possible obstruction of justice.

“This apparent pivot by the investigative team shows that they have struck out on trying to prove collusion and are now trying to switch to another baseless charge,” the document said.

The RNC also encouraged Trump allies to decry the “inexcusable, outrageous, and illegal” leaks on which it said the story was based and to argue that there is a double standard at work.

The document said there was “an obvious case” of obstruction that was never investigated against former attorney general Loretta E. Lynch related to the FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server.

In his afternoon tweets, Trump picked up on that argument. In one tweet, the president wrote: “Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, ‘bleached’ emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?”

“Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?” Trump said in another.

Trump restricted his musing Thursday on Mueller’s investigation to social media, passing on opportunities to talk about it in public.

The president did not respond to shouted questions about whether he believes he is under investigation as he departed an event Tuesday morning designed to highlight his administration’s support of apprenticeship programs.

That event was part of a schedule that suggested no outward signs of concern by Trump about his latest troubles.

He was joined at the apprenticeship event by several governors, lawmakers and other dignitaries. Before turning to the subject at hand, Trump provided an update on the condition of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was shot Wednesday during the attack on Republican lawmakers at an early morning baseball practice.

Attempting to strike a unifying chord, Trump said: “Steve, in his own way, may have brought some unity to our long-divided country,”

Later in the afternoon, Trump and the first lady traveled to the Supreme Court for the investiture ceremony for Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Among the questions Sanders deflected Thursday was to whom exactly Trump was referring to as “bad and conflicted people” in one of his early morning tweets.

“Again, I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel on all questions relating to the investigation,” Sanders said.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the outside counsel, did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment on the questions Sanders referred to him.

Earlier this week, one of the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., highlighted on Twitter an op-ed in USA Today that argued that Mueller should recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he has a potential conflict of interest, given his longtime friendship with Comey, a crucial witness.

The piece, which Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, was written by William G. Otis, an adjunct law professor and Georgetown University and a former special counsel for then-President George H.W. Bush.

Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump’s, made headlines this week when he said during a PBS interview that he believed Trump was considering firing Mueller.

The White House didn’t immediately deny that notion but made clear that Ruddy was not speaking for Trump. The following day, Sanders said Trump had no intention of trying to dislodge Mueller.

Sanders was asked again Thursday whether Trump still has confidence in Mueller.

“I believe so,” she said, later adding: “I haven’t had a specific conversation about that, but I think if he didn’t, he would probably have intentions to make a change, and he certainly doesn’t.

Two observations: Number 1: Pence must be feeling some heat to pony up his own money for an attorney, and Number 2: Junior needs to have his phone taken away almost as much as daddy.

[47of74]

There's no love lost between fuck head and Patti LuPone

(H/T Variety)

http://variety.com/2017/legit/news/patti-lupone-wont-perform-for-trump-video-1202467673/

[GreyhoundFan]

More from Jennifer Rubin: "Why a third emoluments lawsuit?"

Spoiler

There are now three lawsuits brought by various parties asserting President Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by continued ownership of various business that afford him payments from foreign governments. First, we had the lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (later joined by private parties claiming direct economic harm from Trump-owned properties). A second suit filed by the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Maryland alleges that their jurisdictions have been harmed. On Wednesday, nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress (mostly House members but also about two dozen senators) filed suit, claiming:

Because the Foreign Emoluments Clause requires the President to obtain “the Consent of the Congress” before accepting otherwise prohibited “Emolument,” Plaintiffs, as members of Congress, must have the opportunity to cast a binding vote that gives or withholds their “Consent” before the President accepts any such “Emolument.”

The lawmakers ask the court to provide declaratory relief that Trump is in violation of the Constitution “when he accepts any monetary or nonmonetary benefit — any ‘present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever’ — from a foreign state without first obtaining ‘the Consent of the Congress.’ ” They also seek an injunction to stop Trump from receiving any future benefits from a foreign government without first getting Congress’s consent. (Interestingly, the lawmakers do not go so far as to seek that Trump disgorge emoluments illegally received to date.)

The lawmakers claim “standing,” the right to bring suit, because the Constitution specifically allocates them the power to approve emoluments and without court intervention they have no mechanism to force the president to do so. They observe that they do not even know what he owns, so they cannot “exercise their constitutional prerogative to authorize or reject the specific emoluments he is accepting.”

The provision that Congress must consent to emoluments distinguishes this suit from the other two. Trump often complains that it is not fair for him to give up his businesses. The Constitution does not require him to — but it does require him to seek consent. Trump’s refusal to provide transparency goes to the heart of the problem the emoluments clause was seeking to address — secret conflicts and hidden interests that could influence the president. In refusing even to seek consent, Trump is snubbing his nose at Congress and the clear text of the Constitution.

The suit rejects the argument that emoluments as defined in the Constitution do not include monies received for fair-market value for goods or services:

Notably, the word “emolument” was defined broadly in the eighteenth century to mean “profit,” “advantage,” “benefit,” and “comfort.” Contemporary writers used the term to refer, among other things, to profits accruing from private commerce. Founding-era statesmen including George Washington and James Madison likewise used the term when referring to “the consequences of ordinary business dealings.” And Governor Randolph’s comments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, specifically addressing the Foreign Emoluments Clause, reflected this broad definition as well.

The lawsuit, in essence, seeks to enforce the anti-corruption purpose of the Founders. The suit alleges that “because Defendant is not coming to Congress and identifying the emoluments he wishes to accept, the American people will have no way of knowing whether his actions as President reflect only his beliefs about what is best for the country, or whether they are partly motivated by personal financial considerations.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the architects of the legal attack, tells me that as soon as Trump announced he would not fully divest himself, Nadler and his staff knew Trump would be “a walking violation of the Emoluments Clause.” While other lawsuits proceed, he says, “It’s Congress’s job specifically to vote on [emoluments].” As for the defense that the Constitution does not apply to fair-market-value transactions, he concedes, “It’s an argument. It’s wrong. But it’s an argument.” Given how little litigation has taken place on this, it becomes a true case of first impression for the courts.

Ironically, Republicans could very well offer that approval, but of course they want no part in forcing Trump to disclose what he owns, a sad commentary on their failure to uphold their constitutional obligations. Nadler says, “I do hope Republicans join the lawsuit. We have institutional responsibility as members of Congress.” As we have noted, “constitutional conservatives” display gross hypocrisy in choosing to ignore some of the most unequivocal language in the Constitution. They might find it noteworthy that the clause appears in Article I — setting forth the powers of Congress — not in Article II, which delineates the president’s requirements and powers.

Nadler knows that the special counsel looking into the Trump campaign’s Russia connections might seek some of the same financial material (e.g. tax returns, business records) to determine whether financial crimes have taken place. That does not mean the two efforts (four efforts, if you include the two other emoluments lawsuits) cannot proceed down parallel tracks. Indeed, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a key player in the lawsuit, tells me, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” He observes that with transparency the potential for financial criminal activity is reduced.

Legal scholars say that the emoluments clause is not a trivial matter and serves separate purposes from any criminal investigation. Fordham law professor Jed Shugerman explains, “It is the Foreign Emoluments clause’s reliance on disclosure that makes these suits constitutionally vital for discovery and disclosure. These criminal [the special prosecutor’s actions] and constitutional interests overlap.” He continues, “The Framers were very concerned with foreign states buying influence, and that concern is even greater when those payments are criminal, like laundering and bribery, because it opens the door to foreign entities extorting and blackmailing for even more influence. The crimes turn the carrot of payments into a stick of blackmail.” He concludes, “Both the emoluments suits and [Robert S.] Mueller [III] need to investigate the financial carrots and, if criminal, their accompanying blackmail sticks.”

Blumenthal tells me he is reaching out to discuss the lawsuit with colleagues. “I think many of them are concerned about the precedent,” he says. Whether it is fear of Trump or lack of focus on the constitutional mechanism, he stresses that “the Founders gave this power to Congress.” He recalls that the consent of Congress for emoluments was not in the Articles of Confederation. He thinks it’s critical to reaffirm the checks and balances. “We have the right to bring the lawsuit; we have the right to transparency because the Constitution gives us this power,” he observes.

If the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss, the lawmakers would seek vast discovery as they attempt to find out what the president owns and what he receives from foreign governments. In an eye-popping admission, the counsel for Trump’s business acknowledged that there were such monies but that it was too much trouble to identify them. The “it’s too much trouble to comply” excuse obviously is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and demonstrates the extent of Trump’s contempt for its language.

In sum, the latest lawsuit invoking the emoluments clause may be the most powerful if only because it demonstrates the degree to which Trump and the GOP-led Congress dismiss the plain language of the Constitution they swear to uphold.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump keeps creating his own personal hell"

Spoiler

Last month President Trump apparently told the Russians he fired FBI director James B. Comey to relieve pressure on him. Except, in firing Comey, Trump has upped the pressure cooker he's in by a factor of 10.

“I'm not under investigation,” Trump then told the Russian foreign minister in the Oval Office, according to the New York Times.

Now, it appears he is.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, related to Comey's testimony alleging that Trump tried to interfere in some of the FBI's Russia investigations.

Until recently, the FBI's investigation had focused on Russia meddling in the presidential campaign and whether Trump's campaign helped. We knew the investigation was looking into Trump's adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, but we had no idea how much higher it would go. Now, that investigation has branched out into obstruction into its first investigation. And the spotlight on the obstruction case is entirely on the president himself.

This is the great irony for Trump, an irony he doesn't seem to have comprehended: When he feels backed into a corner, he lashes out in politically inadvisable ways that often makes his life much more difficult. But he can't seem to stop doing it.

As a candidate behind in the polls, Trump lurched at Hillary Clinton in a way that gave her supporters leverage to claim Trump wasn't supportive of women. As a president who watched health-care legislation stall in the House of Representatives, he blamed conservatives in a way that fractured his delicate relationship with Congress. When he tweeted about an impending court decision on his travel ban, a federal court used that against him.

Some of that still worked out for him, some of it hasn't.

But when Trump feels encroached by a serious and multipronged legal investigation, lashing out attracts a different set of consequences for the president: Legal ones that directly threaten him.

...

“He expanded [the pressure he's in] considerably,” said Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. "That, combined with the recent emoluments clause lawsuits, really leads to the perception of a wall around him." (We'll get to the emoluments lawsuits in a minute. )

Jacobovitz doesn't think it's a coincidence that, last week, a friend of the president said Trump was considering firing Mueller. (A consideration the White House didn't deny: They later said Trump has “no intention” of firing Mueller.)

A few days later, sources with knowledge of the closed-door special counsel investigation leaked to The Post that Trump himself is under investigation. That's a shocking development.

But making the scope public is like a buffer for Mueller's job security — and it could act as a buffer to try to save the president from himself.

“Now it's clear that he's being investigated, it makes it even more difficult to fire Mueller,” Jacobovitz said, “because it looks like he's trying to terminate an investigation against himself. ... It would be political suicide.”

If Trump were to follow through on his natural instinct to lash out and fire Mueller, he would have little support. Pretty much everyone who's anyone in Washington has made clear they think it'd be a terrible, terrible idea for Trump to sack Mueller.

“I think the best advice is to let Robert Mueller do his job,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters on Tuesday.

For how Trump could, feasibly, fire Mueller, here's a flow chart by Washington Post's Philip Bump, who explains the process in detail here:

,,,

That doesn't mean Trump will keep his head down. Especially since things could get even worse for him on the legal front.

Attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit against the president, alleging he's violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by not fully separating himself from his business. (He retains an ownership stake in the business his sons run.) So has a government watchdog advocacy group. And nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress will soon file a similar lawsuit.

If any one of those gets traction in the courts (and Jacobovitz thinks one will), Trump could be investigated for his personal finances as well as his actions as president. Oh, and Mueller's investigation is also reportedly looking into unexplained “broad financial crimes.”

Add it all up and you have a president who could soon be under attack on multiple legal fronts. Trump's go-to move when he feels under attack is to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation. That's why there's an obstruction of justice investigation in the first place.

At this point, the president has boxed himself into a corner where following his instincts could make his life exponentially worse.

I feel not one shred of pity. He's doing all he can to ruin America and the rest of the world, so if he ends up in an orange jumpsuit, I would cheer so loudly that everyone within 200 miles will hear me.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

 

 

 

Because you're the f*cking President you moron! You won bigly didn't you? So now Hillary is Mrs Nobody-couldn't-care-less while you are Mr President-accountable-to-the-whole-country-and-the-whole-world-is-watching! Can't you grasp the difference? BTW now you are investigated for obstruction of justice, you jumped from that cliff on the world stage all on your own, Clinton didn't push you. Also she isn't twiting self incriminating insanities.

[fraurosena]

 

Hmmmm: "Trump lashes out at Russia probe; Pence hires a lawyer"

 

A heightened sense of unease gripped the White House on Thursday, as President Trump lashed out at reports that he’s under scrutiny for obstructing justice, aides repeatedly deflected questions about the probe and Vice President Pence acknowledged hiring a private lawyer to handle fallout from investigations into Russian election meddling.

Pence’s decision to hire Richard Cullen, a Richmond-based lawyer who previously served as a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, came less than a month after Trump hired his own private lawyer.

The hiring of Cullen, whom an aide said Pence was paying for himself, was made public a day after The Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is widening his investigation to examine whether the president attempted to obstruct justice.

A defiant Trump at multiple points Thursday expressed his frustration with reports about that development, tweeting that he is the subject of “the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history,” and one that he said is being led by “some very bad and conflicted people.”

Trump, who only a day earlier had called for a more civil tone in Washington after a shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., fired off several more tweets in the afternoon voicing disbelief that he was under scrutiny while his “crooked” Democratic opponent in last year’s election, Hillary Clinton, escaped prosecution in relation to her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Before the day ended, the White House was hit with the latest in a series of cascading headlines relating to the Russian probe: a Post story reporting that Mueller is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-law and adviser.

“The legal jeopardy increases by the day,” said one informal Trump adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss conversations with White House aides more freely. “If you’re a White House staffer, you’re trying to do your best to keep your head low and do your job.”

At the White House on Thursday, aides sought to portray a sense of normalcy, staging an elaborate event to promote a Trump job-training initiative, while simultaneously going into lockdown mode regarding Mueller’s probe.

At a previously scheduled off-camera briefing for reporters, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the principal deputy White House press secretary, was peppered with more than a dozen questions about ongoing investigations over about 20 minutes. In keeping with a new practice, she referred one after another to Trump’s personal lawyer.

Sanders, for example, was asked whether Trump still felt “vindicated” by the extraordinary congressional testimony last week by James B. Comey, the FBI director whose firing by Trump has contributed to questions about whether the president obstructed justice.

“I believe so,” Sanders said, before referring reporters to Marc E. Kasowitz, Trump’s private attorney.

As Trump’s No. 2 and as head of the transition team, Pence has increasingly found himself drawn into the widening Russia investigation.

Pence — along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Kushner, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and White House Counsel Donald McGahn — was one of the small group of senior advisers the president consulted as he mulled his decision to fire Comey, which is now a focus of Mueller’s investigation.

He also was entangled in the events leading up to the dismissal of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who originally misled Pence about his contact with Russian officials — incorrect claims that Pence himself then repeatedly publicly.

The vice president was kept in the dark for nearly two weeks about Flynn’s misstatements, before learning the truth in a Post report. Trump ultimately fired Flynn for misleading the vice president. 

There were also news reports that Flynn’s attorneys had alerted Trump’s transition team, which Pence led, that Flynn was under federal investigation for his secret ties to the Turkish government as a paid lobbyist — a claim the White House disputes. And aides to Pence, who was running the transition team, said the vice president was never informed of Flynn’s overseas work with Turkey, either.

On Capitol Hill on Thursday, Russian election meddling and related issues were a prominent part of the agenda.

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats spent more than three hours in a closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee, just days after he refused to answer lawmakers’ questions in an open session about his conversations with Trump regarding the Russia investigation.

Several GOP lawmakers said they think Mueller should be able to do his job — including probing possible obstruction by Trump — but added that they were eager to put the probe behind them.

Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the second-ranking Senate Republican, said he retains confidence in Mueller and that he’s seen nothing so far that would amount to obstruction by Trump. His assessment, Cornyn said, includes the testimony last week by Comey, who said he presumed he was fired because of Trump’s concerns about the FBI’s handling of the Russian probe.

“I think based on what he said then, there doesn’t appear to be any there there,” Cornyn said. “Director Mueller’s got extensive staff and authorities to investigate further. But based on what we know now, I don’t see any basis.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he didn’t find news that Mueller is exploring obstruction of justice particularly surprising given it’s clear he is “going to look at everything.”

“There has been a lot of time spent on the collusion issue — 11 months by the FBI and six months by Congress — and both sides agree they haven’t found anything there,” Thune said. “I hope at some point all this stuff will lead to an ultimate conclusion, and we’ll put this to rest.”

In the meantime, the Republican National Committee appears to be girding for a fight.

A series of “talking points” sent Wednesday night to Trump allies provided a road map for trying to undercut the significance of the latest revelation related to possible obstruction of justice.

“This apparent pivot by the investigative team shows that they have struck out on trying to prove collusion and are now trying to switch to another baseless charge,” the document said.

The RNC also encouraged Trump allies to decry the “inexcusable, outrageous, and illegal” leaks on which it said the story was based and to argue that there is a double standard at work.

The document said there was “an obvious case” of obstruction that was never investigated against former attorney general Loretta E. Lynch related to the FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server.

In his afternoon tweets, Trump picked up on that argument. In one tweet, the president wrote: “Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, ‘bleached’ emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?”

“Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?” Trump said in another.

Trump restricted his musing Thursday on Mueller’s investigation to social media, passing on opportunities to talk about it in public.

The president did not respond to shouted questions about whether he believes he is under investigation as he departed an event Tuesday morning designed to highlight his administration’s support of apprenticeship programs.

That event was part of a schedule that suggested no outward signs of concern by Trump about his latest troubles.

He was joined at the apprenticeship event by several governors, lawmakers and other dignitaries. Before turning to the subject at hand, Trump provided an update on the condition of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was shot Wednesday during the attack on Republican lawmakers at an early morning baseball practice.

Attempting to strike a unifying chord, Trump said: “Steve, in his own way, may have brought some unity to our long-divided country,”

Later in the afternoon, Trump and the first lady traveled to the Supreme Court for the investiture ceremony for Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Among the questions Sanders deflected Thursday was to whom exactly Trump was referring to as “bad and conflicted people” in one of his early morning tweets.

“Again, I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel on all questions relating to the investigation,” Sanders said.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the outside counsel, did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment on the questions Sanders referred to him.

Earlier this week, one of the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., highlighted on Twitter an op-ed in USA Today that argued that Mueller should recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he has a potential conflict of interest, given his longtime friendship with Comey, a crucial witness.

The piece, which Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, was written by William G. Otis, an adjunct law professor and Georgetown University and a former special counsel for then-President George H.W. Bush.

Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump’s, made headlines this week when he said during a PBS interview that he believed Trump was considering firing Mueller.

The White House didn’t immediately deny that notion but made clear that Ruddy was not speaking for Trump. The following day, Sanders said Trump had no intention of trying to dislodge Mueller.

Sanders was asked again Thursday whether Trump still has confidence in Mueller.

“I believe so,” she said, later adding: “I haven’t had a specific conversation about that, but I think if he didn’t, he would probably have intentions to make a change, and he certainly doesn’t.

Two observations: Number 1: Pence must be feeling some heat to pony up his own money for an attorney, and Number 2: Junior needs to have his phone taken away almost as much as daddy.

Oh lordy, Pencey-poo is following the presidunce's example in more ways than one.

 

[Cartmann99]

Mrs. Pence is going to have to start selling those silly towel charms again, as her husband's salary is about to be gobbled up by legal fees.

[fraurosena]

 

Mrs. Pence is going to have to start selling those silly towel charms again, as her husband's salary is about to be gobbled up by legal fees.

Say what now? 

What on earth are towel charms? 

[nvmbr02]

 

Say what now? 

What on earth are towel charms? 

 

A little charm, like the type you put on a wine glass, that you put on towel so you know it is yours.  It has got to be one of the least useful things I have ever heard of. 

What Exactly Is a Towel Charm? A Brief Investigation

[fraurosena]

 

A little charm, like the type you put on a wine glass, that you put on towel so you know it is yours.  It has got to be one of the least useful things I have ever heard of. 

What Exactly Is a Towel Charm? A Brief Investigation

Owwwkay then. 

Although I have absolutely no problem with anyone starting up a business and selling stuff (even if it's completely usless), I do wonder about this business of hers though. She's so so so religious, a born-again pentecostal christian, and altogether holier-than-thou, right?

Well, how can she justify calling her product a 'charm', which is a decidedly magical and pagan attribute? Isn't that downright blasphemy? 

[Zola]

Maybe the blasphemy of calling it a charm is outweighed by the modest necessity of being sure you are using only the beach towel allotted to you and not having to worry that you have picked up another, or *gasp* someone else is using yours? The violation!

So ridiculous. Who actually cares that much if the one towel out of the matching set that you have designated as 'yours' is being used by you and only you or if another has picked it up? Seems rather petty and anal to me. But whatever, if that's what she's into.

Not sure about her, but I question Pence's religiosity. I wonder how a man with his "never alone with not-wife" standards can rationalize being so closely publicly aligned with a flagrant adulterer (and liar, cheater, thief, rounder, bounder, cad, blackguard, all-around scoundrel & charlatan, etc) like Trump. I mean, you might be corrupted by any random woman at any moment but being second to Trump and being in the thick of the way he conducts himself and his business is fine and dandy?

I don't know...it just doesn't add up for me. Misogyny? Party before God? I like it not.

[Howl]

Follow the money!  Hubs watches Morning Joe and one of the guests just talked about following the money.  His take was that Trump has always been a sleazy business man to the point where US banks would simply not do business with him, and that the financial angle,  not the Russian angle, would be the undoing of the Trump presidency.  As Mueller continues to pull in more investigators, who's knows what will be exposed.  When I posted upthread a post from TalkingPointsMemo about a WaPo article, this stood out.  I'll italicize the quote; the spoiler and quote options are gone from the tool bar: 

Just consider what was from a financial perspective, a tiny island in the Trump archipelago of mischief, The Trump Foundation, which David Fahrenthold did so much with. Almost every rock Fahrenthold overturned exposed some self-dealing, at least legal violations and often real wrongdoing and as much as anything a wild level of sloppiness and indifference to doing business like even semi-honest people. From one perspective it’s hard to say Trump knowingly broke the law with the Foundation since the whole conduct of the Foundation seemed to be carried on as though none of the relevant laws even existed. Again, the Foundation was just a sideline for Trump. It’s not where he made his big money and ran off from his biggest obligations. That’s how they do business.

Yup, Trump goes through life as though laws don't apply to him.  Here's hoping for a big wake-up call! 

[fraurosena]

From today's tangerine toddler tantrum twitter tirade:

Uhm, ok. Which jobs exactly? Facts please. Enthusiasm to get rid of you really is way up, though, that's true enough.

Aha, he finally admits he's being investigated. 

LOL, he doesn't realize that not everybody that follows him does so because they support him. A lot of other commenters are clearly not supporters. I sure as hell don't support him, but my egg follows him just to keep up with his idiocy and self-incrimination. And that self-incriminatory effect of his SM is very powerful.   

Uh, of course they're not going to show any proof yet, the investigation is still ongoing.  
Doesn't mean they don't have proof, you little twit-weasle!

[GreyhoundFan]

@fraurosena -- well, his family got jobs because of his presiduncy. And, I'm sure his family is enthusiastic about all the extra money that is coming in from his position.

[fraurosena]

 

@fraurosena -- well, his family got jobs because of his presiduncy. And, I'm sure his family is enthusiastic about all the extra money that is coming in from his position.

Well, they'd better not get used to it.

Not only is TT himself being investigated, they're also looking into Jared's finances and apparently Ivanka's too.  Not to mention the emoluments lawsuits that also include Dumb & Dumber.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

@fraurosena -- yes, I find myself inserting evil laughter into many things recently. It falls under the "laugh or cry" category.

 

Jennifer Rubin is on another tear: "Trump is hastening his own political death spiral"

President Trump’s inability to extend a better-than-usual public moment has been the telltale sign of his campaign and presidency. All those “pivots” and glimpses of “normalcy” have been swiftly followed by a reversion to his lifelong behavior — undisciplined antagonism, self-pitying and just plain lying. So it was on Thursday, less than 24 hours after the horrific shooting at the GOP congressional baseball team practice in Alexandria — and a much-praised speech and appropriate evening hospital visit to sit with injured House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) — that Trump reverted to attacking the special counsel, railed at Hillary Clinton (!) and, frankly, seemed once again unglued. The Post reported:

A defiant Trump at multiple points Thursday expressed his frustration with [the special counsel’s widening investigation], tweeting that he is the subject of “the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history,” and one that he said is being led by “some very bad and conflicted people.”

Trump, who only a day earlier had called for a more civil tone in Washington after a shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., fired off several more tweets in the afternoon voicing disbelief that he was under scrutiny while his “crooked” Democratic opponent in last year’s election, Hillary Clinton, escaped prosecution in relation to her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Trump may want to stay away from the topic of “pols who endanger national security by failing to take precautions against the Russians.” More important, each accusatory tweet sounds like one more instance in a pattern of trying to stop or divert investigators and lean on potential witnesses. Meanwhile, Trump’s surrogates launched ham-handed attacks on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III (which virtually no elected Republican thinks are warranted).

You can almost hear Trump champing at the bit, ready to fire Mueller just as he did former FBI director James B. Comey, over the protests of some saner members of his family and staff. (Trump seems not to recall that this backfired, prompting Comey to step forward with his memos memorializing conversations with the president and to lay out the case for obstruction.)

Trump’s inability to restrain himself under pressure is nothing new. We saw him dig deeper and deeper when it came to attacking the Hispanic judge in the Trump University case or insulting the Gold Star family of Army Capt. Humayun Khan. Now, however, his obsessive attacks take on legal meaning — perhaps instances of obstruction of justice in and of themselves, or, at the very least, powerful evidence that Trump would have tried just about anything to throw the FBI off the trail.

Trump likely will become more unhinged as headlines dog him day after day, a parade of witnesses troop in to talk to the special counsel and the investigation metastasizes. First we had collusion allegations, then obstruction allegations and now reportedly financial crimes allegedly committed by multiple individuals, including Jared Kushner. We don’t know whether these activities, not the purported collusion with the Russians during the campaign, were the source of Trump — and Kushner’s — angst about letting Comey proceed with his investigation. At any rate, the noose will tighten, especially as the prosecutorial team demands financial records that Trump has so far concealed from view. If ordered to comply with document subpoenas, will he comply as Richard Nixon was obliged to do after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the tapes — or will he defy the order of one of those so-called judges and finally take his ball and stomp off for good?

[Howl]

As horrible as Trump is, he's horrible in a bumbling idiot kind of way.  I truly fear the potential for 7.5 years of a Pence theocracy.