TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:55 am

“Take everything you’ve heard and multiply it by 50.”

Rinse Penis speaks


“Who Needs a Controversy Over the Inauguration?”: Reince Priebus Opens Up About His Six Months of Magical Thinking

Months after his chaotic resignation as chief of staff, and with his successor on the hot seat, Priebus comes clean about everything: the inauguration crowd-size fiasco, the decision to fire Comey, the Mooch, the tweets, how he helped saved Jeff Sessions’s job, and his mercurial former boss. “I still love the guy,” he says.

Chris Whipple

February 14, 2018 3:00 pm
From the Magazine

Reince Priebus (right) with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, January 2017.
Photograph by Andrew Harnik/A.P. Images.
Just after six a.m. on January 21, 2017, at his home in Alexandria, Virginia, Reince Priebus was watching the cable morning news shows, getting ready to leave for the White House. Suddenly his cell phone went off. It was Donald Trump. The new president, sworn in less than 24 hours earlier, had just seen The Washington Post, with photos showing Trump’s inaugural crowd dwarfed by that of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

The president was livid, screaming at his chief of staff. “He said, ‘This story is bullshit,’ ” recalled Priebus. “He said, ‘There’s more people there. There are people who couldn’t get in the gates. . . . There’s all kind of things that were going on that made it impossible for these people to get there.’ . . . The president said, ‘Call [Interior Secretary] Ryan Zinke. Find out from the Park Service. Tell him to get a picture and do some research right away.’ ” The president wanted his chief of staff to fix this story. Immediately.

Priebus tried to talk Trump off the ledge. “It doesn’t matter,” Priebus argued. “It’s Washington, D.C. We’re in an 85 percent Democrat area. Northern Virginia’s 60 percent. Maryland’s 65 percent. . . . This is a Democrat haven, and nobody cares.” But Trump was having none of it. Priebus thought, “Is this something that I really want to go to battle over on day one? Who needs a controversy over the inauguration?” Priebus realized he faced a decision: “Am I going to go to war over this with the president of the United States?”

Hours later, Press Secretary Sean Spicer stepped into the White House briefing room. “What happened,” Priebus remembered, “was Spicer decided to say that actually, if you combine online and television, radio, and in-person, it was the most watched inauguration.” The trouble with that reasoning was that Spicer’s response—a belligerent, Orwellian performance beamed around the world—was a lie. From the very start, the credibility of the Trump presidency became a laughingstock, immortalized by actress Melissa McCarthy in her devastating parody of Spicer on Saturday Night Live.

On day one, instead of going to war with Donald Trump, Priebus had gone along.

Adapted from a new edition of *[The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency](http://bit.ly/gatekeeperspb),* by Chris Whipple, published in paperback on March 6, 2018, by Crown, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC; © 2017, 2018 by the author.
Priebus cannot say he wasn’t warned. Just a month before the inauguration, he had been invited to lunch by Barack Obama’s outgoing chief of staff, Denis McDonough. Following the example of a memorable breakfast hosted eight years earlier by George W. Bush’s chief Josh Bolten—when 12 former White House chiefs had come to give advice to Obama’s incoming chief, Rahm Emanuel—McDonough was joined by 10 chiefs, Republicans and Democrats, in his West Wing office. And as they gathered around a long table, none doubted the enormity of the challenge facing Priebus. “We wanted to help Reince in any way we could,” said Jack Watson, who served President Jimmy Carter. “But I don’t think there was a chief in the room that thought he was going to be able to do the job, given Trump as his president.” Most of the former chiefs believed Trump was intellectually and temperamentally unfit for office—and few thought Priebus could rein him in or tell him hard truths. “We were thinking, God bless him. Godspeed. Good luck,” said Watson. “But he doesn’t have a prayer.”

Priebus was hobbled by two other factors. A former Republican National Committee chairman from Kenosha, Wisconsin, he barely knew his new boss, and he was part of the establishment that Trump had vilified. Moreover, during the campaign, the two men had been known to feud. Trump had been especially resentful of Priebus’s reaction to the campaign’s existential crisis just a month before Election Day: the release of the tawdry Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump had made graphic misogynist comments that were caught by an open microphone.

The morning after the video surfaced, Trump’s candidacy had been pronounced all but dead in the media. In response, the beleaguered nominee’s top aides—campaign C.E.O. Stephen Bannon, former New York mayor Rudy Giu­liani, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump—gathered at Trump Tower for a war council to advise the candidate on whether he should stay in the race or quit.

The nominee, sleep-deprived, surly, his jaw clenched, posed the crucial question: in light of the videotape, what were his chances of winning? Priebus went first: “If you decide to stay in, you will lose in the biggest landslide in American political history.” One by one, Trump’s other advisers danced around the question—until finally it was Bannon’s turn. “One hundred percent,” he declared. “One hundred percent you’re going to win this thing. Metaphysical.” (Priebus recalled things differently, saying no one was that emphatic.)

Trump, of course, pulled off an astonishing upset. And a month later, McDonough met his successor as chief of staff in the West Wing lobby and escorted him to his office. As the former chiefs went around the table, giving Priebus advice, they were unanimous about one thing: Trump would be unable to govern unless Priebus was empowered as first among equals in the West Wing. Trump’s incoming chief dutifully took notes on a yellow pad.

Suddenly there was a commotion; Barack Obama was entering the room. Everyone stood and shook hands, then Obama motioned for them to sit. The 44th president’s own chiefs—Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, Jack Lew, McDonough, and Pete Rouse (who served unofficially)—were all pres­ent, and Obama nodded toward them. “Every one of these guys at different times told me something that pissed me off,” Obama said, flashing his familiar grin. “They weren’t always right; sometimes I was. But they were right to do that because they knew they had to tell me what I needed to hear rather than what I wanted to hear.” Obama looked at Priebus. “That’s the most important function of a chief of staff. Presidents need that. And I hope you will do that for President Trump.” With that, Obama said his good-byes and departed.

The chiefs were not sure Priebus got the message. “I caught the eye of several of the others and we exchanged worried expressions,” one Republican in attendance remembered. “He seemed much too relaxed about being able to navigate a difficult job. I think he struck a lot of us as clueless.” Another was even more blunt about Priebus’s nonchalance: “He was approaching the job like it was some combination of personal aide and cruise director.”

priebus bannon spicer
Former chief strategist Steve Bannon and Priebus; Priebus and Spicer.

Left, by Martin H. Shannon/Redux; right, by Susan Walsh/A.P. Images.

Dining alone with Priebus a few weeks earlier, Bush’s chief Josh Bolten had been alarmed: Priebus seemed to regard himself as Trump’s babysitter and had given little thought to governing. “I could tell that he was nervous about leaving Trump alone and was kind of candid about ‘If I’m not there, Lord knows what happens,’” Bolten recalled. In his view, Priebus seemed “neither focused on organizing his White House staff nor in control of his own life. He was just responding to the fire of the day.”

And there was another ominous sign. Obama’s staff had spent months preparing voluminous transition briefs, thick binders designed to help the next administration get up to speed on subjects ranging from Iran to Cuba to climate change. Every previous incoming team had studied such volumes with care. But as the inauguration drew near, McDonough realized that the binders had not even been opened: “All the paperwork, all the briefings that had been prepared for their transition team, went unused,” he said. “Unread. Unreviewed.”

The inept start of the Trump presidency—with the flagrant lying about crowd sizes—confirmed the ex-chiefs’ worst fears. “It told me that Reince wasn’t in control,” observed Jack Watson. “It told me Reince had no power to say to the president, ‘Mr. President, we can’t do that! We are going to get killed if we do that.’ ” George W. Bush’s first chief, Andrew Card, watched with a sinking feeling: “I said to myself, ‘They don’t know what they’re doing. They have no process. And they don’t have discipline. You must taste your words before you spit them out!’”

In late October 2017, almost three months after he resigned as chief of staff, Priebus met me for dinner at a posh but empty restaurant near the White House. Wearing a blazer, tieless, and without his usual American-flag pin, he had been off the radar and had given no extensive interviews since his abrupt departure six months into his job as Trump’s chief. Unlike his friend Sean Spicer, who had struggled to find employment after his turn as Trump’s disgraced White House spokesman, Priebus had landed back at his old Washington law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP—as president. He was drumming up paid engagements on the lecture circuit. And he was conferring frequently by phone with Donald J. Trump.

The president, Priebus said, speaks with him often on a phone that is unmonitored by John Kelly, who replaced him as Trump’s chief of staff—sometimes just to chat, sometimes for counsel. Trump often called Bannon too—at least before his excommunication following his comments in Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury. Priebus insisted, contrary to Wolff’s description, that he never called Trump an “idiot.” In fact, for all the humiliation he endured, he said, “I still love the guy. I want him to be successful.” While visiting South Korea last November to give a speech, Priebus made a side trip to the demilitarized zone between South and North, and recommended to Trump that he go there during his Asia trip. (The president and his party tried but were forced to turn back due to bad weather.)

Even so, Priebus’s account of his tenure as Trump’s chief confirms the portrayal of a White House in disarray, riven by conflict. “Take everything you’ve heard and multiply it by 50,” Priebus said as we sat down. Being White House chief had been even more arduous than it looked from the outside. “No president has ever had to deal with so much so fast: a special counsel and an investigation into Russia and then subpoenas immediately, the media insanity—not to mention we were pushing out executive orders at rec­ord pace and trying to repeal and replace Obama­care right out of the gate.” Priebus was nervous, repeatedly asking, “This is all off the record, right?” (He later agreed to be quoted.)

“People mistake me for a laid-back guy from the Midwest,” he continued. “I’m much more aggressive, and much more of a knife fighter. Playing the inside game is what I do.” Before Priebus, 45, accepted the job, he had had an impressive, if modest, track rec­ord. “I took the R.N.C. from oblivion,” he explained. “Our team raised a ton of money, built the biggest full-time political-party operation ever, ran two conventions, won more races than anyone else, and hit all the marks—without drama, mistakes, or infighting.”

At first, Priebus had been stung by the relentless criticism of his White House run and was especially sensitive to the brickbats hurled by the pundits. But with time he had understood where they came from—including a jab or two thrown by me during interviews on television news shows. “You got me real good one time on Fox,” he said. “My point is, I know what you were saying. You were saying that Trump needed someone in control, and that we had set up a weak structure. But you have to remember: the president was the Trump campaign. The R.N.C. was the organization—but he accomplished almost everything in his life by himself. The idea that he was suddenly going to accept an immediate and elaborate staff structure regulating every minute of his life was never in the cards.

“One of the things all [the chiefs] told me,” Priebus said, “was: don’t take the job unless you’re designated A number 1, in charge of everything, beginning to end.” All of that was right for a typical president, Priebus thought, but Trump wasn’t typical; he was one of a kind.

As it turned out, there was a moment on Election Night when it looked as though the chief’s job might go to Bannon, who eventually became Priebus’s ally in the West Wing. (Others would be considered as well.) But he didn’t look the part. “Trump looked around and I remember I had a combat jacket on and I hadn’t shaved in a week,” said Bannon, who spoke with me at length just before the release of Fire and Fury. “I had the greasy hair [hanging] down. . . . I’m the senior guy—but look, it was obvious Reince had to be chief of staff.” Priebus, however, would be chief in name only: Trump, instead, anointed Bannon as Priebus’s co-equal, with Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, getting top billing.

priebus scaramucci
Priebus with ousted communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

By T. J. Kirkpatrick/Redux.

From the beginning, Priebus would face a challenge unique to this presidency: how to curb the commander in chief’s tweets. “We can get thrown off our message by tweeting things that aren’t the issues of the day,” he told Trump. At first Priebus thought he had succeeded in wresting Trump’s phone from him. “I talked about the security threat of having your own cell in the West Wing and got the Secret Service to go along with me to mothball his phone.” Priebus had managed to silence one device. But it turned out Trump had another.

Early on, the staff wrote daily tweets for him: “The team would give the president five or six tweets every day to choose from,” said Priebus, “and some of them would real­ly push the envelope. The idea would be at least they would be tweets that we could see and understand and control. But that didn’t allow the president to be fully in control of his own voice. Everybody tried at different times to cool down the Twitter habit—but no one could do it. . . . After [last year’s] joint session [of Congress] we all talked to him, and Melania said, ‘No tweeting.’ And he said, ‘O.K.—for the next few days.’ We had many discussions involving this issue. We had meetings in the residence. I couldn’t stop it. [But] it’s now part of the American culture and the American presidency. And you know what? In many ways, the president was right. And all of us so-called experts might be totally wrong.

“[Trump] is a man who fears no one and nothing,” continued Priebus, “and there is absolutely nothing he’s intimidated by. . . . And that’s very rare in politics. Most people in politics are people who have sort of an approval addiction. Now, granted, President Trump does too, but he’s willing to weather one storm after the next to get to an end result that most people are not willing to weather. . . . He doesn’t mind the craziness, the drama, or the difficulty, as long as an end goal is in sight. He will endure it.”

Soon after the inauguration, the president began to lash out wildly at members of the Justice Department who were poised to open probes into possible misconduct or overreach by members of his administration. On his 11th day in office, he fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to enforce his controversial travel ban. Then Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for New York’s Southern District. Next up: F.B.I. director James Comey.

Priebus and White House counsel Donald McGahn tried to stall the freight train coming toward them, sensing that sacking Comey would be a fateful political mistake. But Jared Kushner supported Trump’s decision, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo—criticizing the F.B.I. director’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation—gave Trump the pretext. On May 9, Trump fired Comey. It would trigger the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel and would prove to be among the most politically disastrous decisions since Richard Nixon fired Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox.

“[White House counsel] Don McGahn said, ‘We’ve got a problem. . . . [Jeff] Sessions just resigned.’”
While Priebus and Bannon watched the fiasco explode as the pundits excoriated the Trump White House on every cable news show, Kushner did a slow burn. He was livid, furious that the communications team could not defend Comey’s firing. Bannon blew his stack. “There’s not a fucking thing you can do to sell this!,” he shouted at Kushner. “Nobody can sell this! P. T. Barnum couldn’t sell this! People aren’t stupid! This is a terrible, stupid decision that’s going to have massive implications. It may have shortened Trump’s presidency—and it’s because of you, Jared Kushner!”

The screaming matches and white-knuckle showdowns continued. Eight days later, Priebus got an unexpected visit from the White House counsel—a story he has not told publicly before. “Don McGahn came in my office pretty hot, red, out of breath, and said, ‘We’ve got a problem.’ I responded, ‘What?’ And he said, ‘Well, we just got a special counsel, and [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions just resigned.’ I said, ‘What!? What the hell are you talking about?’ ”

It was bad enough that Trump, having fired Comey, would now be the target of a special prosecutor. Even worse, unbeknownst to Priebus, the president, only moments before, had subjected Sessions to a withering tirade in the Oval Office, calling him an “idiot” and blaming Sessions’s recusal from the Russia investigation for the whole mess. Humiliated, Sessions said he would resign.

Priebus was incredulous: “I said, ‘That can’t happen.’” He bolted down the stairway to the West Wing parking lot. He found Sessions in the backseat of a black sedan, with the engine running. “I knocked on the door of the car, and Jeff was sitting there,” Priebus said, “and I just jumped in and shut the door, and I said, ‘Jeff, what’s going on?’ And then he told me that he was going to resign. I said, ‘You cannot resign. It’s not possible. We are going to talk about this right now.’ So I dragged him back up to my office from the car. [Vice President Mike] Pence and Bannon came in, and we started talking to him to the point where he decided that he would not resign right then and he would instead think about it.” Later that night, Sessions delivered a resignation letter to the Oval Office, but, Priebus claimed, he ultimately persuaded the president to give it back.

In June, Trump was still on a tear. He considered dumping special counsel Mueller, according to The New York Times, but was dissuaded from doing so. And by July, Trump was back on Sessions’s case, tweeting insults and calling him “weak.” “Priebus was told to get Sessions’s resignation flat out,” said a White House insider. “The president told him, ‘Don’t give me any bullshit. Don’t try to slow me down like you always do. Get the resignation of Jeff Sessions.’ ”

Once more, Priebus stalled Trump, recalled a White House insider. “He told the president, ‘If I get this resignation, you are in for a spiral of calamity that makes Comey look like a picnic.’ Rosenstein’s going to resign. [Associate Attorney General] Rachel Brand, the number three, will say, ‘Forget it. I’m not going to be involved with this.’ And it is going to be a total mess.” The president agreed to hold off. (Sessions didn’t comment on the resignation letter and last July publicly stated that he planned to stay on the job “as long as that is appropriate.” Brand, in fact, resigned this month.)

The Trump presidency’s first six months were the most incompetent and least accomplished in modern history. And its very survival was clouded by the gathering storm of the special prosecutor’s probe.

When it came to Mueller’s investigation, Priebus insisted he personally had nothing to worry about. But Bannon warned that the hounds had been loosed. “You’ve got Mueller’s team, which has got 19 killers who are all experts in wire fraud, money-laundering, and tax evasion,” Bannon said. “Doesn’t sound like collusion to me. But they’ve got unlimited budgets and subpoena power. And here’s what we’ve got on our side: two guys who’ve got legal pads and Post-Its.

oval office
Trump, Priebus, Vice President Mike Pence, Bannon, onetime communications director Sean Spicer, and embattled national-security adviser Michael Flynn.

By Jonathan Ernst/Reuters.

“It’s like [certain members of the administration think that] no one took down the Gambino family,” Bannon continued. “Mueller’s doing a roll-up just like he did with the Gambinos. [Former campaign manager Paul] Manafort’s the caporegime, right? And [Rick] Gates [Manafort’s deputy] is a made man! [George] Papadopoulos is equivalent to a wiseguy out in a social club in Brooklyn. This is like a Wagner opera. In the overture you get all the strands of the music you’re going to hear for three hours. Well, Mueller opened with a bang. He totally caught these guys by surprise. So if you’re not going to fight, you’re going to get rolled over.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign to eradicate Obamacare went nowhere. “Repeal and replace” crashed and burned—not once but twice, the second time when John McCain delivered a dramatic 1:30 a.m. thumbs-down on the Senate floor. The debacle proved that Priebus could not count—or deliver—votes. “When McCain voted against it,” Bannon recalled, “I said to myself, Reince is gone. This is going to be so bad. The president is going to get so lit up.”

Priebus soon became a target of Trump’s ritual belittling as the president took to referring to him as “Reincey.” At one point, he summoned Priebus—to swat a fly. Priebus seemed to have been willing to endure almost any indignity to stay in Trump’s favor. There was that scene right out of The Manchurian Candidate when, at a Cabinet meeting, the president’s most powerful advisers virtually competed to see who could be more obsequious; Priebus won hands down, declaring what a “blessing” it was to serve the president.

By the summer, however, Priebus knew that his job hung by a thread. According to insiders, he was already in the crosshairs of “Javanka/Jarvanka”—as Bannon would take to calling the president’s daughter and son-in-law—for refusing to help Kushner in his efforts to oust Bannon. And then came the last straw: the sudden arrival of a new, flamboyant communications director, Anthony Scaramucci. Priebus had opposed his hiring. Scaramucci immediately turned the West Wing into a circular firing squad, calling Trump’s chief of staff a “fucking paranoid schizophrenic” in an interview with The New Yorker. He went on, in a tweet, to all but accuse Priebus of leaking classified information about Scaramucci’s finances (which were publicly available). “When he accused me of a felony,” recalled Priebus, “I thought, What am I doing here? . . . I went in to the president and said, ‘I gotta go.’ ” Trump would say nothing publicly in Priebus’s defense. The president accepted his resignation.

Priebus had hoped to exit gracefully within a week or two, but the next day, as Air Force One sat on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, Trump tweeted, “I am pleased to inform you that I have just named General/Secretary John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff. He is a Great American. . . . ” The sudden shake-up was vintage Trump; the timing blindsided Priebus, who stepped off the plane into a drenching rain and was whisked away by car.

John Kelly, a four-star Marine general who had run the Southern Command, was 22 years Priebus’s senior. At the start, he had the president’s full confidence and wasted no time transforming the West Wing into a tighter ship. All visitors to the Oval Office—including Bannon, Kushner, and even the president’s adviser-daughter, Ivanka—were now vetted by the chief. Kelly also started heaving loose cannons over the side: Scaramucci was fired within 72 hours of Kelly’s appointment; Sebastian Gorka, another overzealous White House staffer, would soon follow; even Bannon himself would be gone within a month. Kelly declared that he was not put on earth to manage the president; instead, he would impose discipline on the staff and streamline the flow of information to the Oval Office.

Still, expectations were high that Kelly would be the “grown-up in the room,” who would smooth over Trump’s authoritarian edges. And yet, week after week—during the president’s fulminations against “fake news,” his sympathetic comments toward white supremacists who marched through Charlottesville, his taunting of “Rocket Man” before the U.N. General Assembly, and his racist slurs against “shithole countries”—Kelly stood at Trump’s side. He not only reinforced the president’s worst instincts; he doubled down on them. He maligned Congresswoman Frederica Wilson from the White House Press Briefing Room with a false story after she criticized Trump’s handling of a Gold Star widow. In early February, the news broke that Kelly’s deputy Rob Porter—accused of beating both of his ex-wives (Porter denied the allegations)—had served in the sensitive post of staff secretary for more than a year without a permanent security clearance. The debacle surrounding his abrupt resignation showed that Kelly could not manage the West Wing, let alone Trump.

Suddenly Kelly’s future looked uncertain. And Priebus looked more effective in hindsight. “Reince was better than his press,” said Bannon. “If Reince had the exact track record that Kelly has, he would be deemed the worst chief of staff in the history of politics—and that’s not a slam on Kelly. . . . Folks felt [Priebus] didn’t have the gravitas. He’s always the little guy from Kenosha, right?”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02 ... al_twitter
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:40 pm

Image

Stormy Daniels Has a ‘Monica Lewinsky Dress’ from Alleged Donald Trump Affair, Will Test It for DNA
Published February 15, 2018 at 12:10 am PST
By
Mike Walters
,
Gary Trock
EXCLUSIVE

TheBlast.com

Stormy Daniels pulled a Monica Lewinsky and held on to the dress she wore to an alleged hotel rendezvous with President Donald Trump, and now we are told she’s going to get it tested for DNA to back up her story.

Sources close to Daniels tell The Blast the shimmering gold mini dress with a plunging neckline was kept in pristine condition after her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump at the Lake Tahoe hotel suite.

We’re told Daniels is planning on having the dress forensically tested to search for any DNA that proves she isn’t lying about her tryst with Trump, including samples of skin, hair or … anything.

As we previously reported, Daniels has notified Trump’s legal team that she believes a 2016 agreement has been breached between her and attorney Michael Cohen and now she is free and clear to spill all the juicy details about the infamous night.


Michael Cohen revealed this week that he had paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket and tried to minimize Trump’s involvement by stating, “Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.”

If the dress story sounds familiar, that’s because it’s very similar to Monica Lewinsky keeping her stained navy-blue GAP cocktail dress after allegedly performing oral sex on President Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. The dress was part of an actual investigation and the FBI later determined to a high percentage of accuracy that Clinton’s bodily fluids were the source of the stain.

Obviously, Stormy and her legal team would need a test sample from POTUS too, but any DNA that may be extracted from her dress that could possibly prove Trump was with her in the hotel room will be a big deal.https://theblast.com/stormy-daniels-dre ... trump-dna/





Stormy Daniels has a ‘Monica Lewinsky dress’ to test for Trump’s DNA, report says

Image
Adult film actress/director Stormy Daniels hosts a Super Bowl party at Sapphire Las Vegas Gentlemen's Club on February 4, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Martha Ross
February 15, 2018 at 11:36 am

As Stormy Daniels gets ready to “tell her story” about a night in July 2006 when she allegedly had sex with Donald Trump, she may have a way to back it up, The Blast reported.

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 14: U.S. President Donald Trump listens during aworking session regarding the Opportunity Zones provided by tax reform in the Oval Office of the White House February 14, 2018 in Washington, DC. President Trump hosted a group of local elected officials, entrepreneurs, and investors to discuss 'how the 'Opportunity Zones' designation in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will spur investment and job growth in distressed communities.' (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The porn star has a “Monica Lewinsky dress,” the site said, citing sources close to Daniels. Daniels’ dress is a gold mini dress she wore during the alleged tryst in a Lake Tahoe hotel with the man who would become president.

She’s kept the dress “in pristine condition” and plans to have it forensically tested for samples of hair, skin or “anything else” that would contain DNA, reported The Blast, which also shared a photo of the dress in its report.

On Wednesday, a manager for Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, told the Associated Press that a non-disclosure agreement the actress signed to keep the president’s secrets is no longer valid.

That’s because Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen violated the agreement himself by disclosing on Tuesday that he personally paid Daniels $130,000 in “a private transaction,” just before Election Day, Gina Rodriguez, a manager for Daniels, told the Associated Press. Cohen’s disclosure to The New York Times was followed by a story in the Daily Beast that reported that the lawyer was shopping a book proposal that would address Daniels’ story.

The fact that Cohen is commenting on the six-figure payout means Daniels is free to tell her side, Rodriguez said to the Associated Press.

The Blast also reported earlier that Daniels’ representatives have contacted Trump’s legal team to inform them that she believes she’s free to spill details of the alleged encounter, which she says took place at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe in July 2006.

“Everything is off now, and Stormy is going to tell her story,” Rodriguez told The Blast.

Following the alleged encounter, which took place four months after Trump’s third wife, Melania Trump, gave birth to their son, Barron, Daniels told friends about it. She also detailed her alleged extramarital relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview that was published on the celebrity website The Dirty. Moreover, she shared her story with In Touch in 2011, but that outlet didn’t publish her story at the time.

A month before the presidential election, the website The Smoking Gun published an account of the relationship, but it went mostly unnoticed by mainstream outlets. Daniels also began sharing details about the alleged year-long affair with Slate’s executive editor Jacob Weisberg, but backed off going on the record just before the election.

The agreement between Daniels and Cohen allegedly called for each party to say nothing about the incident, or to even acknowledge the existence of a nondisclosure agreement.

Daniels apparently honored her side of the agreement. She also allowed Cohen to release a letter signed by her in which she denied an affair took place after the Wall Street Journal first reported on the payout in mid-January.

She also played it coy during a Jan. 30 appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” Slate reported. And before Kimmel’s show, she released another statement, again denying the affair and thereby again contradicting comments she was reported to have given to multiple journalists and others over the years, the Washington Post reported.

A photograph showing former White House intern Monica Lewinsky meeting President Bill Clinton at a White House function submitted as evidence in documents by the Starr investigation and released by the House Judicary committee September 21, 1998.
Former White House intern Monica Lewinsky meeting former President Bill Clinton at a White House function and submitted as evidence by the Starr investigation.
By disclosing this week that he paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket, Cohen was trying to minimize the involvement of Trump or of his campaign in the arrangement.

But Cohen’s efforts may have instead complicated matters, with Daniels now claiming that she’s free to speak up.

As for the dress issue, it has a familiar ring to it, as The Blast noted.

That’s because former White House intern Monica Lewinsky kept the stained navy-blue Gap cocktail dress she wore while allegedly performing oral sex on President Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

The dress became evidence in Special Counsel Ken Starr’s investigation after the FBI determined that Clinton’s bodily fluids were the source of DNA found in the stain on the dress.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/ ... port-says/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:25 am

Donald Trump, a Playboy Model, and a System for Concealing Infidelity

One woman’s account of clandestine meetings, financial transactions, and legal pacts designed to hide an extramarital affair.

Ronan Farrow
February 16, 2018 5:00 AM
Image
At right, from the top, David Pecker, the chairman of American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer; Karen McDougal, a former Playmate of the Year; Donald Trump; and Dylan Howard, A.M.I.’s chief content officer.

Illustration by Oliver Munday; Source Photographs: Jesse Grant / WireImage / Getty (McDougal); Mark Peterson / Redux for The New Yorker (Pecker); Jamie Squire / Getty (Trump); Lucas Jackson / Reuters (Howard)
In June, 2006, Donald Trump taped an episode of his reality-television show, “The Apprentice,” at the Playboy Mansion, in Los Angeles. Hugh Hefner, Playboy’s publisher, threw a pool party for the show’s contestants with dozens of current and former Playmates, including Karen McDougal, a slim brunette who had been named Playmate of the Year, eight years earlier. In 2001, the magazine’s readers voted her runner-up for “Playmate of the ’90s,” behind Pamela Anderson. At the time of the party, Trump had been married to the Slovenian model Melania Knauss for less than two years; their son, Barron, was a few months old. Trump seemed uninhibited by his new family obligations. McDougal later wrote that Trump “immediately took a liking to me, kept talking to me - telling me how beautiful I was, etc. It was so obvious that a Playmate Promotions exec said, ‘Wow, he was all over you - I think you could be his next wife.’ ”


Trump and McDougal began an affair, which McDougal later memorialized in an eight-page, handwritten document provided to The New Yorker by John Crawford, a friend of McDougal’s. When I showed McDougal the document, she expressed surprise that I had obtained it but confirmed that the handwriting was her own.
Image

The interactions that McDougal outlines in the document share striking similarities with the stories of other women who claim to have had sexual relationships with Trump, or who have accused him of propositioning them for sex or sexually harassing them. McDougal describes their affair as entirely consensual. But her account provides a detailed look at how Trump and his allies used clandestine hotel-room meetings, payoffs, and complex legal agreements to keep affairs—sometimes multiple affairs he carried out simultaneously—out of the press.

On November 4, 2016, four days before the election, the Wall Street Journal reported that American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, had paid a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for exclusive rights to McDougal’s story, which it never ran. Purchasing a story in order to bury it is a practice that many in the tabloid industry call “catch and kill.” This is a favorite tactic of the C.E.O. and chairman of A.M.I., David Pecker, who describes the President as “a personal friend.” As part of the agreement, A.M.I. consented to publish a regular aging-and-fitness column by McDougal. After Trump won the Presidency, however, A.M.I.’s promises largely went unfulfilled, according to McDougal. Last month, the Journal reported that Trump’s personal lawyer had negotiated a separate agreement just before the election with an adult-film actress named Stephanie Clifford, whose screen name is Stormy Daniels, which barred her from discussing her own affair with Trump. Since then, A.M.I. has repeatedly approached McDougal about extending her contract.

McDougal, in her first on-the-record comments about A.M.I.’s handling of her story, declined to discuss the details of her relationship with Trump, for fear of violating the agreement she reached with the company. She did say, however, that she regretted signing the contract. “It took my rights away,” McDougal told me. “At this point I feel I can’t talk about anything without getting into trouble, because I don’t know what I’m allowed to talk about. I’m afraid to even mention his name.”

A White House spokesperson said in a statement that Trump denies having had an affair with McDougal: “This is an old story that is just more fake news. The President says he never had a relationship with McDougal.” A.M.I. said that an amendment to McDougal’s contract—signed after Trump won the election—allowed her to “respond to legitimate press inquiries” regarding the affair. The company said that it did not print the story because it did not find it credible.


Six former A.M.I. employees told me that Pecker routinely makes catch-and-kill arrangements like the one reached with McDougal. “We had stories and we bought them knowing full well they were never going to run,” Jerry George, a former A.M.I. senior editor who worked at the company for more than twenty-five years, told me. George said that Pecker protected Trump. “Pecker really considered him a friend,” George told me. “We never printed a word about Trump without his approval.” Maxine Page, who worked at A.M.I. on and off from 2002 to 2012, including as an executive editor at one of the company’s Web sites, said that Pecker also used the unpublished stories as “leverage” over some celebrities in order to pressure them to pose for his magazines or feed him stories. Several former employees said that these celebrities included Arnold Schwarzenegger, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, and Tiger Woods. (Schwarzenegger, through an attorney, denied this claim. Woods did not respond to requests for comment.) “Even though they’re just tabloids, just rags, it’s still a cause of concern,” Page said. “In theory, you would think that Trump has all the power in that relationship, but in fact Pecker has the power—he has the power to run these stories. He knows where the bodies are buried.”

As the pool party at the Playboy Mansion came to an end, Trump asked for McDougal’s telephone number. For McDougal, who grew up in a small town in Michigan and worked as a preschool teacher before beginning her modelling career, such advances were not unusual. John Crawford, McDougal’s friend, who also helped broker her deal with A.M.I., said that Trump was “another powerful guy hitting on her, a gal who’s paid to be at work.” Trump and McDougal began talking frequently on the phone, and soon had what McDougal described as their first date: dinner in a private bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. McDougal wrote that Trump impressed her. “I was so nervous! I was into his intelligence + charm. Such a polite man,” she wrote. “We talked for a couple hours – then, it was “ON”! We got naked + had sex.” As McDougal was getting dressed to leave, Trump did something that surprised her. “He offered me money,” she wrote. “I looked at him (+ felt sad) + said, ‘No thanks - I’m not ‘that girl.’ I slept w/you because I like you - NOT for money’ - He told me ‘you are special.’ ”


Afterward, McDougal wrote, she “went to see him every time he was in LA (which was a lot).” Trump, she said, always stayed in the same bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel and ordered the same meal—steak and mashed potatoes—and never drank. McDougal’s account is consistent with other descriptions of Trump’s behavior. Last month, In Touch Weekly published an interview conducted in 2011 with Stephanie Clifford in which she revealed that during a relationship with Trump she met him for dinner at a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel, where Trump insisted they watch “Shark Week” on the Discovery Channel. Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” alleged that Trump assaulted her at a private dinner meeting, in December of 2007, at a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Trump, Zervos has claimed, kissed her, groped her breast, and suggested that they lie down to “watch some telly-telly.” After Zervos rebuffed Trump’s advances, she said that he “began thrusting his genitals” against her. (Zervos recently sued Trump for defamation after he denied her account.) All three women say that they were escorted to a bungalow at the hotel by a Trump bodyguard, whom two of the women have identified as Keith Schiller. After Trump was elected, Schiller was appointed director of Oval Office Operations and deputy assistant to the President. Last September, John Kelly, acting as the new chief of staff, removed Schiller from the White House posts. (Schiller did not respond to a request for comment.)

Over the course of the affair, Trump flew McDougal to public events across the country but hid the fact that he paid for her travel. “No paper trails for him,” she wrote. “In fact, every time I flew to meet him, I booked/paid for flight + hotel + he reimbursed me.” In July, 2006, McDougal joined Trump at the American Century Celebrity Golf Championship, at the Edgewood Resort, on Lake Tahoe. At a party there, she and Trump sat in a booth with the New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, and Trump told her that Brees had recognized her, remarking, “Baby, you’re popular.” (Brees, through a spokesman, denied meeting Trump or McDougal at the event.) At another California golf event, Trump told McDougal that Tiger Woods had asked who she was. Trump, she recalled, warned her “to stay away from that one, LOL.”

During the Lake Tahoe tournament, McDougal and Trump had sex, she wrote. He also allegedly began a sexual relationship with Clifford at the event. (A representative for Clifford did not respond to requests for comment.) In the 2011 interview with In Touch Weekly, Clifford said that Trump didn’t use a condom and didn’t mention sleeping with anyone else. Another adult-film actress, Dawn Vanguard, whose screen name is Alana Evans, claimed that Trump invited her to join them in his hotel room that weekend. A third adult-film performer, Jessica Drake, alleged that Trump asked her to his hotel room, met her and two women she brought with her in pajamas, and then “grabbed each of us tightly in a hug and kissed each one of us without asking for permission.” He then offered Drake ten thousand dollars in exchange for her company. (Trump denied the incident.) A week after the golf tournament, McDougal joined Trump at the fifty-fifth Miss Universe contest, in Los Angeles. She sat near him, and later attended an after-party where she met celebrities. Trump also set aside tickets for Clifford, as he did at a later vodka launch that both women attended.


During Trump’s relationship with McDougal, she wrote, he introduced her to members of his family and took her to his private residences. At a January, 2007, launch party in Los Angeles for Trump’s now-defunct liquor brand, Trump Vodka, McDougal, who was photographed entering the event, recalled sitting at a table with Kim Kardashian, Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Trump, Jr.,’s wife, Vanessa, who was pregnant. At one point, Trump held a party for “The Apprentice” at the Playboy Mansion, and McDougal worked as a costumed Playboy bunny. “We took pics together, alone + with his family,” McDougal wrote. She recalled that Trump said he had asked his son Eric “who he thought was the most beautiful girl here + Eric pointed me. Mr. T said ‘He has great taste’ + we laughed!” Trump gave McDougal tours of Trump Tower and his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club. In Trump Tower, McDougal wrote, Trump pointed out Melania’s separate bedroom. He “said she liked her space,” McDougal wrote, “to read or be alone.”

Image

McDougal’s account, like those of Clifford and other women who have described Trump’s advances, conveys a man preoccupied with his image. McDougal recalled that Trump would often send her articles about him or his daughter, as well as signed books and sun visors from his golf courses. Clifford recalled Trump remarking that she and Ivanka were similar and proudly showing her a copy of a “money magazine” with his image on the cover.

Trump also promised to buy McDougal an apartment in New York as a Christmas present. Clifford, likewise, said that Trump promised to buy her a condo in Tampa. For Trump, showing off real estate and other branded products was sometimes a prelude to sexual advances. Zervos and a real-estate investor named Rachel Crooks have both claimed that Trump kissed them on the mouth during professional encounters at Trump Tower. Four other women have claimed that Trump forcibly touched or kissed them during tours or events at Mar-a-Lago, his property in Palm Beach, Florida. (Trump has denied any wrongdoing pertaining to the women.)

McDougal ended the relationship in April, 2007, after nine months. According to Crawford, the breakup was prompted in part by McDougal’s feelings of guilt. “She couldn’t look at herself in the mirror anymore,” Crawford said. “And she was concerned about what her mother thought of her.” The decision was reinforced by a series of comments Trump made that McDougal found disrespectful, according to several of her friends. When she raised her concern about her mother’s disapproval to Trump, he replied, “What, that old hag?” (McDougal, hurt, pointed out that Trump and her mother were close in age.) On the night of the Miss Universe pageant McDougal attended, McDougal and a friend rode with Trump in his limousine and the friend mentioned a relationship she had had with an African-American man. According to multiple sources, Trump remarked that the friend liked “the big black dick” and began commenting on her attractiveness and breast size. The interactions angered the friend and deeply offended McDougal.


Speaking carefully for fear of legal reprisal, McDougal responded to questions about whether she felt guilty about the affair, as her friends suggested, by saying that she had found God in the last several years and regretted parts of her past. “This is a new me,” she told me. “If I could go back and do a lot of things differently, I definitely would.”

McDougal readily admitted that she voluntarily sold the rights to her story, but she and sources close to her insisted that the way the sale unfolded was exploitative. Crawford told me that selling McDougal’s story was his idea, and that he first raised it when she was living with him, in 2016. “She and I were sitting at the house, and I’m watching him on television,” Crawford said, referring to Trump. “I said, ‘You know, if you had a physical relationship with him, that could be worth something about now.’ And I looked at her and she had that guilty look on her face.”

McDougal, who says she is a Republican, told me that she was reluctant at first to tell her story, because she feared that other Trump supporters might accuse her of fabricating it, or might even harm her or her family. She also said that she didn’t want to get involved in the heated Presidential contest. “I didn’t want to influence anybody’s election,” she told me. “I didn’t want death threats on my head.” Crawford was only able to persuade her to consider speaking about the relationship after a former friend of McDougal’s began posting about the affair on social media. “I didn’t want someone else telling stories and getting all the details wrong,” McDougal said.

Crawford called a friend who had worked in the adult-film industry who he thought might have media connections, and asked whether a story about Trump having an affair would “be worth something.” That friend, Crawford recalled, was “like a hobo on a ham sandwich” and contacted an attorney named Keith M. Davidson, who also had contacts in the adult-film industry and ties to media companies, including A.M.I. Davidson had developed a track record of selling salacious stories. A slide show on the clients page of his Web site includes Sara Leal, who claimed to have slept with the actor Ashton Kutcher while he was married to Demi Moore. Davidson told Crawford that McDougal’s story would be worth “millions.” (Davidson did not respond to a request for comment.)


Dozens of pages of e-mails, texts, and legal documents obtained by The New Yorker reveal how the transaction evolved. Davidson got in touch with A.M.I., and on June 20, 2016, he and McDougal met Dylan Howard, A.M.I.’s chief content officer. E-mails between Howard and Davidson show that A.M.I. initially had little interest in the story. Crawford said that A.M.I.’s first offer was ten thousand dollars.

After Trump won the Republican nomination, however, A.M.I. increased its offer. In an August, 2016, e-mail exchange, Davidson encouraged McDougal to sign the deal. McDougal, worried that she would be prevented from talking about a Presidential nominee, asked questions about the nuances of the contract. Davidson responded, “If you deny, you are safe.” He added, “We really do need to get this signed and wrapped up...”

Image
McDougal, who has a new lawyer, Carol Heller, told me that she did not understand the scope of the agreement when she signed it. “I knew that I couldn’t talk about any alleged affair with any married man, but I didn’t really understand the whole content of what I gave up,” she told me.

On August 5, 2016, McDougal signed a limited life-story rights agreement granting A.M.I. exclusive ownership of her account of any romantic, personal, or physical relationship she has ever had with any “then-married man.” Her retainer with Davidson makes explicit that the man in question was Donald Trump. In exchange, A.M.I. agreed to pay her a hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The three men involved in the deal—Davidson, Crawford, and their intermediary in the adult-film industry—took forty-five per cent of the payment as fees, leaving McDougal with a total of eighty-two thousand five hundred dollars, billing records from Davidson’s office show. “I feel let down,” McDougal told me. “I’m the one who took it, so it’s my fault, too. But I didn’t understand the full parameters of it.” McDougal terminated her representation by Davidson, but a photograph of McDougal in a bathing suit is still featured prominently on his Web site—according to McDougal, without her permission. The Wall Street Journal reported that, two months after McDougal signed the agreement with A.M.I., Davidson negotiated a nondisclosure agreement between Clifford and Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, for a hundred and thirty thousand dollars. (On Tuesday, Cohen told the Times that he had facilitated the deal with Daniels and paid the money out of his own pocket. Cohen did not respond to a request for comment.)

As voters went to the polls on Election Day, Howard and A.M.I.’s general counsel were on the phone with McDougal and a law firm representing her, promising to boost McDougal’s career and offering to employ a publicist to help her handle interviews. E-mails show that, a year into the contract, the company suggested it might collaborate with McDougal on a skin-care line and a documentary devoted to a medical cause that she cares about, neither of which has come about. The initial contract also called for A.M.I. to publish regular columns by McDougal on aging and wellness, and to “prominently feature” her on two magazine covers. She has appeared on one cover and is in discussions about another, but in the past seventeen months the company has published only nine of the almost a hundred promised columns. “They blew her off for a long time,” Crawford said. A.M.I. said that McDougal had not delivered the promised columns.

A.M.I. responded quickly, however, when journalists tried to interview McDougal. In May, 2017, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin, who was writing a profile of David Pecker, asked McDougal for comment about her relationships with A.M.I. and Trump. Howard, of A.M.I., working with a publicist retained by the company, forwarded McDougal a draft response with the subject line “SEND THIS.” In August, 2017, Pecker flew McDougal to New York and the two had lunch, during which he thanked her for her loyalty. A few days later, Howard followed up by e-mail, summarizing the plans that had been discussed, including the possibility of McDougal hosting A.M.I.’s coverage of awards shows such as the Golden Globes, Grammys, and Oscars. None of that work materialized. (A.M.I. said that those conversations related to future contracts, not her current one.)

A.M.I.’s interest in McDougal seemed to increase after news broke of Trump’s alleged affair with Clifford. Howard sent an e-mail suggesting that McDougal undergo media training, and a few days later suggested that she could host coverage of the Emmys for OK! Magazine. In an e-mail on January 30th, A.M.I.’s general counsel, Cameron Stracher, talked about renewing her contract and putting her on a new magazine cover. The subject line of the e-mail read, “McDougal contract extension.” Crawford told me, “They got worried that she was going to start talking again, and they came running to her.”

Several people close to McDougal argued that such untold stories could be used as leverage against the President. “I’m sixty-two years old,” Crawford said. “I know how the world goes round.” Without commenting on Trump specifically, McDougal conceded that she had a growing awareness of the broader implications of the President’s situation. “Someone in a high position that controls our country, if they can influence him,” she said, “it’s a big deal.” In a statement, A.M.I. denied that it had any leverage over Trump: “The suggestion that AMI holds any influence over the President of the United States, while flattering, is laughable.”

McDougal fears that A.M.I. will retaliate for her public comments by seeking financial damages in a private arbitration process mandated by a clause of her contract. But she said that changes in her life and the emergence of the #MeToo moment had prompted her to speak. In January, 2017, McDougal had her breast implants removed, citing declining health that she believed to be connected to the implants. McDougal said that confronting illness, and embracing a cause she wanted to speak about, made her feel increasingly conflicted about the moral compromises of silence. “As I was sick and feeling like I was dying and bedridden, all I could do was pray to live. But now I pray to live right, and make right with the wrongs that I have done,” she told me. McDougal also cited the actions of women who have come forward in recent months to describe abuses by high-profile men. “I know it’s a different circumstance,” she said, “but I just think I feel braver.” McDougal told me that she hoped speaking out might convince others to wait before signing agreements like hers. “Every girl who speaks,” she said, “is paving the way for another.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ssion=true
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:44 pm

Who is Pesach 'Pace' Lattin? Very dishy tweet here:

Reporters just kicked off Air Force one after Trump invited them after a screaming match between him and his wife.

Reporters were physically blocked from taking photos I am being told


:whisper: :lol:
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:49 pm

hangs around with some good people



Soap Opera, All the Days of Trump’s Lies :lol:



Josh Dawsey‏Verified account
@jdawsey1
Follow Follow @jdawsey1
More
Press was invited to get on Air Force One, then rushed off and hurried back inside as Melania Trump's motorcade pulled up. Some screaming from a White House press aide. No pictures allowed of first lady's arrival.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:12 am

POLITICS 02/19/2018 07:02 pm ET Updated 1 hour ago
Trump White House Finally Confronts A Scandal It Can’t Quash With An ‘Alternative Fact’
#MeToo and photos of an ex-wife’s bruised eye forced Trump’s staff to back away from original explanations – and shredded the president’s credibility even further.

By S.V. Date

JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS

WASHINGTON – From their first full day in office with claims of massive, record-setting inaugural crowds, President Donald Trump and his top aides have been a virtual juggernaut of dishonesties and falsehoods, seemingly immune to normal White House standards of candor and accuracy.

Until this month.

Two weeks’ worth of shifting explanations about a key staffer accused of domestic violence have accomplished what a full year of fact-checking thousands of untruths could not: put the White House on the defensive and shredded its credibility.

“At long last, something Donald Trump couldn’t bullshit his way out of,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida GOP consultant who has been calling Trump a liar since the start of presidential primary campaign in 2015.

But why has the Rob Porter story persisted when all the others did not?

“Attachment to a larger narrative and a provocative visual,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

The larger narrative is the Me Too movement, where women across the country and around the world have spoken out about long-quashed experiences of sexual harassment and abuse. And the provocative visual was the photograph of Colbie Holderness’ bruised eye, which she said was the result of a punch Porter threw during the couple’s vacation to Italy in 2005.

Until that photo of Porter’s first ex-wife surfaced, White House chief of staff John Kelly had been offering testimonials for his trusted aide. With the arrival of Kelly in August and his attempts to bring order to what had been a chaotic White House, Porter as staff secretary had become a key player in limiting access and information to Trump.

His work, under Kelly’s direction, dramatically reduced the unscheduled visits Trump received from random West Wing staffers and the number of unverified “news” articles that wound up on his desk.

To protect his aide and ally, Kelly and other top White House staffers praised Porter, even though the White House had received a full FBI security clearance background investigation into Porter last summer, according to Senate testimony by bureau director Christopher Wray. That report almost certainly included stories of abuse from both of Porter’s ex-wives – allegations that typically doom a security clearance approval.

All of that changed when the photo spread across the internet and cable television, putting a human face on Porter’s alleged actions. That set off a dizzying series of revised statements. At first, the White House claimed that Porter resigned on his own but would stay on through a “transition.” But within a day, that had evolved into Kelly having forced Porter to leave within 40 minutes of seeing the photo.

“I think the photo had a real impact on people,” said Rick Tyler, a Republican political consultant who worked for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2016 GOP primaries. “They went into their normal mode, which is deflect everything, deny everything, fake news everything.”

The problem for the White House was that journalists could see the new explanations contradicting others issued just hours earlier and were quick to point them out. This angered even reporters who in the past year have enjoyed good access to top White House staff.

“Normally reporters don’t know a lie is a lie in real time,” said a Republican official who supports Trump and spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss his party’s leader. “I’m amazed that this is a story that keeps going. They haven’t found a way to put this thing away.”

Subscribe to the Politics email.
How will Trump's administration impact you?


One of the reasons for the story’s durability may have been Trump’s reluctance to speak out in favor of the victims. It took him seven days to do so, and even then he expressed irritation.

“I’m totally opposed to domestic violence of any kind. Everyone knows that, and it almost wouldn’t even have to be said,” he said following a Feb. 14 photo opportunity. “So now you hear it, but you all know it.”

Just a day earlier, Trump had twice refused to answer questions about domestic violence. And two days after Porter’s departure, he had wished his former staff secretary well in his career and had pointed out that Porter denied he had done anything wrong. “As you probably know, he says he’s innocent, and I think you have to remember that,” Trump said.

Why it took so long for Trump to come out with what might seem an obvious and politically easy statement is unclear.

In his year in office, Trump has repeatedly shown great deference to what his base thinks about any given issue. It drove his decision to speak well of the neo-Nazis protesting the removal of a Confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia – protests that led to the killing of a counter-protester.

Recent HuffPost/YouGov polling shows that only 26 percent of male Trump voters believe that domestic violence is a serious problem in the country. In contrast, 78 percent of women who voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 believe it is a serious issue, while 50 percent of female Trump voters think so.

One former Trump aide said the president’s failure to speak about women victims of abuse generally is grounded more in his dislike of being pressured into doing something, particularly when he believes it is the news media doing the pressuring.

“To the president, this is the media playing the fiddle and forcing the White House to dance,” the former aide said. “Donald Trump is absolutely wedded to never dancing to the tune you play for him.”

Ironically, the Porter issue has moved off front pages in recent days, but only because special counsel Robert Mueller released a major grand jury indictment in his probe of Russian influence in the 2016 election and because 17 students and staff were killed in the country’s latest school shooting.

That the Porter scandal will return to the foreground is almost certain, though, given bipartisan congressional interest in how the White House is handling its security clearance process. Several dozen top officials – including Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner – reportedly are still working on interim security clearances.

In the meantime, the White House appears to have fallen back on its old habit of outright falsehoods. Trump personally issued several over the weekend in a series of tweets regarding the Mueller investigation, while deputy press secretary Raj Shah appeared on Fox News and claimed that the new indictment showed that the Russian interference was “about sowing confusion in the electoral process and undermining the next president, not about supporting one candidate over the other.”

In fact, the indictment clearly states that the Russians wanted Trump to win as a way of harming the United States, which matches the Jan. 6, 2017, declassified report by the U.S. intelligence agencies that found the same thing.

Shah declined to discuss his on-air statement to Fox with HuffPost.

Jamieson, the communications professor, said the latest round of untruths will further erode both Trump’s and the White House’s credibility, with journalists as well as the public at large.

“You don’t get the benefit of the doubt, nor should you,” she said, adding that press secretaries and their deputies who told such obvious falsehoods in the past would have been excoriated rather than given a pass. “We’ve basically permitted the White House to redefine the press secretary’s job. You used to expect a press secretary to resign rather than actively deceive.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tr ... 7adf7103ed
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:06 pm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6vfaPuftmE

Trump’s Majoritarian Dream
FEBRUARY 22, 2018JOHN FEFFER
by John Feffer

Washington and New Dehli are having a mutual lovefest these days.

Donald Trump is popular in India — where only 17 percent of the population considers the president “intolerant,” compared to a global average of 65 percent — and he has warmly welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the White House. Both leaders are eager to bump up bilateral security cooperation to the next level.

Even Donald Trump, Jr. is getting in on the act. He’s visiting India this week as part of the Trump organization’s myriad economic connections to the subcontinent. Indians, treating the president’s son as a representative of the White House, are paying a lot of rupees to gain access to his ear.

Who can blame them? It’s virtually impossible to disaggregate the different components of the Trump megaplex.

The U.S.-India love connection, which predates Trump, is based on mutual economic interest and similar concerns about Pakistan and China. But Trump and Modi bring something else to the equation. Both leaders share a personalistic, business-friendly governing style best captured by Modi’s phrase “minimum government, maximum governance.”

But there’s another, underlying similarity. Trump is borrowing a page from Modi’s book on how to advance majoritarian politics in a multiethnic country.

“Majoritarianism insists on different tiers of citizenship,” writes Mukul Kesavan in The New York Review of Books. “Members of the majority faith and culture are viewed as the nation’s true citizens. The rest are courtesy citizens, guests of the majority, expected to behave well and deferentially.”

This kind of majoritarianism is most prominently on display these days in Myanmar — where the government considers the Rohingya minority to be foreigners, not citizens at all, and thus has no problem expelling them (or, in some cases, killing them). Majoritarianism has also been a major feature of political life in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

In India, meanwhile, Modi heads a right-wing nationalist party that believes that the country is essentially Hindu with no particular obligation to guarantee minority rights. Indeed, several disturbing examples of mob rule have taken place during Modi’s tenure, and the government has both explicitly and through various dog whistles appealed to Hindus over (and against) Muslims.

As Kesavan points out, majoritarianism is not simply Islamophobia — in India or Myanmar or anywhere else.

Majoritarian politics results from the patiently constructed self-image of an aggrieved, besieged majority that believes itself to be long-suffering and refuses to suffer in silence anymore. The cultivation of this sense of injury is the necessary precondition for the lynchings, pogroms, and ethnic cleansing that invariably follow.
The besieged majority: What better way of capturing the appeal of Trumpism in the United States? In the looking-glass world of 2018, Donald Trump, too, has a dream: to make white people, regardless of the contents of their character, once again supreme.

Of course, majoritarianism looks a little different in the United States than in South Asia. But this malign philosophy helps explain not only some political dynamics in America, but also the pattern of friendships that Trump has developed around the world.

Deplorables vs. Dreamers?

The underlying message of “Make America Great Again” is to return the country to an age of majoritarian politics, when white people controlled everything on behalf of white people and when everyone else was accorded second-class citizenship.

After the victories of the civil rights movement and other social movements, some white people have acquired the mentality of a besieged majority: They fear that they will lose their remaining privileges, like members of an elite frequent flyer program forced to sit back in economy class. Perhaps only a minority of white people — mostly white men — feel like a besieged majority. But for the next decade or so, before demographics decisively downgrade white status, this group will continue to flex its political muscle.

Trump’s appeals to this group follow in a sordid American tradition of racist and anti-immigrant movements such as the Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan. The conflicts that swept through the United States in the 19th and early 20th century resembled, avant la lettre, the communal strife that accompanied the consolidation of modern nations in South Asia. America narrowly avoided partition in the 1860s, but not the “lynchings, pogroms, and ethnic cleansing” of majoritarian politics that followed. Even the mass population transfers that took place between India and Pakistan could be detected in the Great Migration of African Africans to the North beginning in the Jim Crow period.

Today, Trump has cleverly given the “besieged majority” a platform on immigration, economic policy, and the “history” question. On the economy, Trump promised to revive sunset industries that have traditionally been white bastions, such as coal in Appalachia and manufacturing in the Midwest. On history, Trump has argued that by removing the statues of Confederate heroes, “they’re trying to take away our culture.” The “our” is a telling touch, since it could refer equally to the U.S. or to white people.

The immigration question in particular continues to bedevil the administration and Congress. To get a deal that would allow the Dreamers — young people brought to the United States as children who remain undocumented — liberals have even been willing to approve funding for Trump’s famous wall along the border with Mexico. Basically, the Democratic Party was poised to pay a ransom of almost $14,000 a head to save the Dreamers (that’s $25 billion for the wall in exchange for 1.8 million Dreamers staying in the United States).

Trump, however, said no, despite all sorts of assurances that he cares very deeply about the Dreamers. You’d think that the president would be concerned about the public opinion polls that show a large majority of Americans — around 70 percent — in favor of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

But that’s the problem with a president who has such low favorability ratings. He doesn’t need to compromise to maintain his base of support because that base is so narrow in the first place. Only 18 percent of Americans support Trump unconditionally, according to a recent CBS poll, and another 23 percent do so only when he delivers what they want.

Here, then, is the most dangerous consequence of a president embracing majoritarian views held by only a minority of the majority. Trump sees no reason to reach beyond his base. As The Washington Post put it:

The president, along with Mr. McConnell, is intent on a blame game, not a solution. He suggested no compromises and engaged in no negotiations, preferring to stick with maximalist demands. Despite barely mentioning it as a candidate, Mr. Trump has not budged from insisting on a plan to reduce annual legal immigrants to the United States by hundreds of thousands, to the lowest level in decades.
The last line contains the kicker — the population transfer that Trump yearns to orchestrate.

In addition to deporting the Dreamers, the undocumented, and those with temporary protected status like Salvadorans and Haitians, Trump wants to keep out as many folks from “shithole” countries as he can. If he gets his way, the administration is looking to “transfer” several million people out of the country, nearly comparable to the population transfer out of India at the time of partition in 1947. Going the other way in Trump’s dream world would be a trickle of Norwegians and other racially acceptable immigrants.

Majoritarians of a Feather

Trump and Modi are only two of the new global leaders who have come to the forefront championing the interests of the “besieged majority.”

Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia by going after the Chechens, whom he blamed for a series of suspicious apartment building bombings. Putin has since taken aim at all manner of minorities, from the LGBTQ community to the liberals that oppose his concentration of power. He’s emphasized that traditional values serve as a bulwark against what he’s called “aggressive minorities.”

Benjamin Netanyahu has driven Israel into a corner by rejecting Palestinian (and international) demands for a two-state solution. The Jewish majority is fast on its way to becoming a minority within Israel. Once constituting 87 percent of the population in 1950, Jews are now close to parity with Arabs if you count everyone in the Occupied Territories and Gaza (6.1 million Jews and 5.8 million Arabs). Yet Netanyahu continues to advocate on behalf of the “besieged majority” by supporting illegal settlements, rejoicing in the Trump administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and kowtowing to the country’s religious right.

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni majority country, is also home to a large Shiite minority of about 10 percent of the population. Riyadh has systematically discriminated against this minority — in part because of fears of its links to Iran. The Saudi government has imprisoned and executedleading members of the community and has even effectively waged war against Shi’ites in the city of Awamiya.

I’ve chosen these three countries because Donald Trump has formed strong bonds with Putin, Netanyahu, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. But there’s no shortage of other leaders that fall into this category — Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. They all aspire to follow the South Asian example.

Majoritarianism has morphed into one of the 21st century’s greatest threats. The “tyranny of the majority” that America’s founding fathers warned about has become a reality thanks to the failure of left liberalism to sell multiculturalism more effectively.

Majoritarianism has evolved into a knee-jerk response to what globalization offers, for better or worse — from increased trade and greater flows of immigrants and refugees to the freer exchange of information behind both rapid technological transformation and the demands of transnational human rights movements. Nationalism, a disguise that the majority dons to make their demands somehow more palatable, is a bunker that a country can crawl into to survive the high winds of change.

The institutions that stand against the majoritarians are old and in need of some serious overhaul.

The United Nations was formed in the aftermath of World War II. The European Union and other regional organizations were in part responses to the Cold War. The international financial institutions were likewise forged in a different era. Meanwhile, the institutions that form the nervous system of our brave new world, like Facebook and Twitter and Google and Amazon, view multiculturalism as a way to maximize profit, like those old “United Colors of Benetton” ads that featured a multicultural array of models that made the clothes seem chic and edgy. At least Benetton was willing to ruffle some feathers with its campaign.

Combatting majoritarianism requires a new campaign and new institutions. That’s my dream: a world that recognizes that multiculturalism isn’t just cool but essential to democratic politics, strong economies, and healthy societies that don’t tear themselves apart from the inside.

Where, oh where has this internationalism gone?
http://lobelog.com/trumps-majoritarian-dream/


Donald Trump’s Presidency Is the Libertarian Moment
By
Jonathan Chait


David Koch, Donald Trump, Charles Koch. Photo-Illustration: Daily Intelligencer; Photos: Getty Images
When Donald Trump first emerged as a genuine threat to seize the Republican nomination, Charles and David Koch represented the epitome of elite right-wing opposition to the populist interloper. They fretted his discriminatory agenda would “destroy free society” and froze Trump out of their confabs. In return, Trump mocked their allied politicians as “puppets.”

The evolution of the Koch brothers’ disposition toward Trump can be traced in headlines measuring their gradual warming. See February 2016: “Can the Koch Brothers Stop Trump?”; January 31, 2017: “The Koch Brothers Are Worried About President Trump”; May 18, 2017: “The Koch Brothers Found One Thing They Hate More Than President Trump”; and, now, to the present: “How the Koch Network Learned to Thrive in the Trump Era.”

The latest development in the relationship between the Kochs (right-wing heirs to a business fortune) and Trump (also the right-wing heir to a business fortune) is that the former have thrown the weight of their massive organization unhesitatingly behind the latter. Largely satisfied with Trump’s conservative judicial appointments, lax regulation of business, and regressive tax cutting, the Kochs are spending several hundred millions of dollars to protect the Republican majority. Whatever points of contention remain between the two have been reduced to squabbles between friends.


The Koch rapprochement mirrors a broader trend: Among the conservative intelligentsia — where resistance to Trump has always run far deeper than it has among the Republican rank and file — libertarians have displayed some of the greatest levels of friendliness to the Trump administration. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a bastion of pro-Trump conspiracy-theorizing about nefarious deep-state plots, in addition to celebrations of the administration’s economic record. Grover Norquist, Stephen Moore, and Ron and Rand Paul, among others, have all staunchly defended the president.

To be sure, some libertarians have dissented fiercely. The Niskanen Center has nurtured a cell of moderate libertarians that has lobbed attacks on the administration and its allies. But Niskanen’s rejection of Trump has come alongside a broader rejection of the priorities of the politically dominant wing of libertarian politics; they have criticized Trump for the same reasons most libertarians have supported him.

Four years ago, a New York Times Magazine story predicted the onset of a “libertarian moment” in American politics. There was never any such movement among voters; indeed, the support Trump generated from his promise of terrific health care for all — plus closed borders, protectionism, and the maintenance of racial and gender hierarchies — reveals that the true unsatisfied demand in American politics was the opposite of libertarianism. Instead, libertarian influence has come in the form of deeply partisan Republican financial and political elites.

The now-close working partnership is not as surprising as it might appear. Before the election, I argued that the Republican party was evolving into a synthesis of libertarian ends and authoritarian means. The party’s core elites were motivated by an economic agenda that bore little support among the voting public. Indeed, libertarians have understood this problem for decades; many of them see democracy as a process that enables the majority to gang up on the rich minority and carry out legalized theft through redistribution. Their highest notion of liberty entails the protection of property rights from the democratic process, and they have historically been open to authoritarian leaders who will protect their policy agenda.

“The key is the libertarian idea, woven into the right’s ideological DNA, that redistribution is the exploitation of the ‘makers’ by the ‘takers.’ It immediately follows that democracy, which enables and legitimizes this exploitation, is itself an engine of injustice,” wrote Will Wilkinson, one of the dissident libertarians working at the Niskanen Center, last month. “The outsize stakes seem to justify dubious tactics — bunking down with racists, aggressive gerrymandering, inventing paper-thin pretexts for voting rules that disproportionately hurt Democrats — to prevent majorities from voting themselves a bigger slice of the pie.” The Kochs are emblematic of the sorts of libertarians Wilkinson identifies.

The Post notes that Koch officials “now tread carefully” on trade and immigration, policies where they maintain some doctrinal differences with the administration. On these issues — which split the GOP generally — the administration has itself vacillated almost daily, so that neither faction within the party feels alienated. This has enabled them to concentrate on their points of unanimity, especially their broad defense of business and inherited wealth.

You would think a libertarian might have some deep-seated qualms about leaving untrammeled executive power in the hands of an obviously ruthless and autocratic leader like Trump. The only practical way to restrain Trump’s efforts to carry out massive personal corruption and turn federal law enforcement into a political weapon under his control would be to help Democrats regain one or more chambers of Congress, so they could conduct oversight and act as a check on the executive branch. But the Kochs are committed to doing just the opposite: The highest priority of their political action this year is maintaining Republican control of Congress, which will enable Trump to escape meaningful oversight.

The Kochs have presented this choice as a kind of nonpartisan idealism. “We have now increasingly followed the philosophy that made Frederick Douglass such an effective social-change entrepreneur,” Charles Koch announced. “And that is, as he put it, ‘Unite with anybody to do right, and no one to do wrong.’ ” But that isn’t quite accurate. They could still work with Republicans without spending hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain their hammerlock on power. They could, indeed, support Democrats while still working with both parties issue by issue. Their priority is aiding the party that shares their view of the primacy of protecting the makers from the takers.

This is a perfectly predictable outgrowth of an Ayn Rand–inflected movement. The alliance between the Kochs and Trump exists not despite their libertarian ideology, but because of it.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:36 pm

Lawyer Files Complaint With ICC Charging Trump With Crimes Against Humanity


A lawyer from the United States and a political group, the Resistance Committee Action Fund, filed a complaint on Monday with the International Criminal Court charging President Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt, the Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, with crimes against humanity.

The complaint, filed with the Court in The Hague, accuses Trump and Pruitt of “causing global environmental destruction by issuing orders, enacting policies, and advancing regulations that are resulting in enormous fossil fuel emissions.” It alleges that, “[h]undreds of millions of people will be killed or displaced this century as a result of Trump’s energy policies, which are needlessly adding to greenhouse gas emissions and are making climate change more severe.”

The complaint lists multiple actions taken by Trump and Pruitt to reverse limits on fossil fuel emissions that were put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama administration. The complaint particularly highlights Trump’s June announcement that he will not implement the Paris Climate Agreement and that he intends to withdraw the United States, alone in the world, from the agreement.

In the filing, attorney J. Whitfield Larrabee accuses Trump and Pruitt of “creating an environmental time bomb that is designed to kill people throughout the Earth in huge numbers…Like arsonists pouring gasoline onto a raging fire, [Trump and Pruitt] are participating in killing millions of people by accelerating climate change with unnecessary fossil fuel emissions.” Larrabee warns that sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, mass extinction and other effects of global warming are “leading civilization to ecological, economic and social collapse.”

He charges Trump and Pruitt with “engaging in course of criminal conduct that is killing and will kill millions of children.” In support of this claim, Larrabee refers to a statement by the World Health Organization predicting that climate change will cause an additional 250,000 deaths per year from malaria, diarrhea, heat stress and under-nutrition between 2030 and 2050. He also references other studies showing that the majority of deaths from malaria and diarrhea occur in children from undeveloped countries.

Larrabee accuses Trump and Pruitt of “maliciously causing global environmental destruction for their own political gain in concert with other members of The Republican Party and individuals in the fossil fuel industry.” Referencing a New York Times report, he states: “On March 1, 2017, Robert Murray, the owner of the largest coal mining company in the United States, presented an ‘Action Plan’ for the Trump administration to Vice President Mike Pence with 16 detailed requests for rolling back environmental protections affecting coal mining. Shortly thereafter, Murray met with Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to discuss implementing the plan. Most of the requests in the Action Plan, that are designed to cause unnecessary and damaging greenhouse gas emissions, have been carried out by [Trump and Pruitt] or are on track to being carried out.”

The complaint sets forth at least three crimes against humanity that Trump and Pruitt are accused of committing. It describes crimes of extermination, deportation or forcible transfer of population, and other inhumane acts of a similar character causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, as are codified in the Rome Statute — the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court.

In support of his claim that Trump and Pruitt are guilty of forcible transfer of population, Larrabee highlights scientific reports showing that hundreds of millions of people in low lying countries, such as Bangladesh, will be forcibly displaced from their homes with as little as 1 meter of sea level rise. Larrabee cites a recent study, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluding that 1 to 2 meters of sea level rise may occur this century under “business-as-usual” emissions.
Although the United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, Larrabee argues in the complaint that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over Trump and Pruitt because “their attacks occurred in the territories of State Parties and the effects of the attacks occurred in territories of State Parties.” In support of his claim that the Court has jurisdiction over Trump and Pruitt, Larrabee cites a case recently decided by the ICC in which it found that it had jurisdiction over U.S. citizens accused of committing war crimes in Afghanistan.

“I filed this complaint against Trump and Pruitt because I want to bring attention to the many millions of children and the other victims of their crimes. By accelerating climate change, Trump and Pruitt are participating in crimes that will kill far more people than were killed in Nazi concentration camps in World War II. In addition to killing many people, their crimes will cause hundreds of millions of people to suffer from disease, starvation, heat stress and forcible displacement as global temperatures increase, droughts grow more severe and sea level rises,” Larrabee explained.

“As part of our global campaign, we are working with concerned citizens from around the world to persuade their governments to report these crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court. If a government that is a State Party to the Rome Statute were to make a referral, it would help our effort to hold Trump and Pruitt criminally responsible, Larrabee said. He added, “while our complaint may be the first, we hope it will not be the last.”
https://medium.com/@whitfieldlarrabee/l ... b7ae9c6689
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby 82_28 » Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:24 am

Trump: If North Korea Doesn’t Obey Me, I Might Punish the Whole World

On Friday, president Trump announced that his administration would be hitting North Korea with the “heaviest sanctions ever imposed on a country before.” The new penalties target dozens of ships and shipping companies that have (allegedly) been helping Pyongyang sustain its economy — and thus, its nuclear program. Specifically, these firms have allegedly enabled Kim Jong Un’s regime to evade previous sanctions by helping it trade illicitly with other countries while at sea, as opposed to on land, where such verboten commerce would be more easily detected.

The move represents an escalation of the White House’s latest strategy for combating the North Korean nuclear program: Pursue direct talks with Pyongyang — while imposing maximum economic pain on the regime — in hopes of forcing Kim Jong Un to denuclearize without unleashing “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

There are a couple of flaws with this gambit. First, it does little to prevent the Chinese from continuing to keep their eccentric allies afloat; and second, it does nothing to stop the irrational actor in the Oval Office from poisoning the prospects of a diplomatic agreement with homicidal bluster.

The latter liability became abundantly clear Friday afternoon, when a reporter asked the president about his North Korea policy.

“If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2,” Trump replied. “Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.”

In other words: If North Korea does not meet my demands, I will deliberately inflict something “very, very unfortunate” on the entire world.

This might sound like a maniacal threat fit for a Bond villain. But if launching a globally devastating war is the only way to preempt the possibility of a globally devastating war, then what choice do we really have? How could we possibly trust that crackpot dictator with the nuclear weapon? I mean, have you heard the things he says?


https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2 ... -sins.html
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:15 pm

Could Donald Trump Cancel the Midterm Elections?

In his 2017 New York Times bestselling book "On Tyranny," Yale historian Timothy Snyder warned that the American people only had one year to stop Donald Trump from causing serious and perhaps irreversible harm to our democracy, as well as other social and political institutions.

Snyder's concerns were centered on how the rule of law, reality and truth, civil and human rights, and the ways Americans interact with each other as members of a shared community would come under assault by Trump and his allies' agenda. He also sounded the alarm about the possibility that the Trump administration could stage its own version of Nazi Germany's "Reichstag fire" as a way of declaring a national emergency in order to consolidate power.

In many ways, Snyder's "On Tyranny" has proven eerily prescient. How has America endured under Trump's rule? Is there a way to bring Trump's voters and the Republican Party back to normal politics? What does their reaction to Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election reveal about the health of American democracy? Can our be saved, and eventually redeemed?

I recently spoke with Timothy Snyder in an effort to answer these questions. This is our third conversation since the election of Donald Trump.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

A longer version of this conversation can also be heard on my podcast, which is available on Salon’s Featured Audio page.

I am deeply troubled by how the American people have become numb to Donald Trump and this dangerous and abnormal situation. What is your assessment of America under Trump and the first year of his rule?

I think what people have done in the last year has made a tremendous difference. Things are bad and they're going to get worse before they get better, but if it weren't for the marches, local activists, lawyers defending people's civil rights, citizens calling their representatives and investigative journalists doing their jobs. things could be a lot worse than they are. As a whole, America has not done a great job of reacting to Trump, but some Americans have done a great job. If we all get tired and say we can't do it anymore, then things will go south very quickly. So yes, things are bad, but we have stopped them from being much worse.

How does an authoritarian such as Trump try to counter the people's resistance against him?

You need to see how they think without mirroring it yourself or being seduced by it. If you are an authoritarian or one of that type, the first thing you do is constantly claim to have a majority -- even if you do not. You talk about "the people" as though they are supposedly on your side. The second thing that you do is question the legal foundations of the system. Trump is doing this by attacking the Mueller investigation, packing the courts and undermining the FBI.

If you're a Trump-style authoritarian you are not trying to make a big powerful state. What you're trying to do is make the state dysfunctional and then at the end of the crumbling, you and your friends are at the top. What you also do is discredit the resistance actively both by calling people names, whether that's African Americans or Native Americans or women or any other group. You say that protesters are paid, and journalism is all fake news. Insofar as Mr. Trump has a domestic policy it involves shaking people's belief in reality and the facts, because if you do that then everybody just has their own opinion. Money will be the only thing that matters in terms of "the truth." In the end the Trump-style authoritarian who creates the greatest spectacle is going to win.

What impact does Trump's strategy of spectacle and distraction have on America's role in the world?

"America First" is not a policy that advances American interests. "America First" is a big con. When you look at "America First" from the point of view of Europe it means that we say that we need special rules, but we don't know what those rules are. So meanwhile the Europeans are taking up the mission that we used to have, such as supporting some sense of universal values. If you're China and you look at America, "America First" just means that we pushed the pause button on our own power. They did not expect to have such a free hand in Asia, but they do, and they're taking advantage of it.

Mr. Trump has publicly said that it might be a good thing to have a "major event," meaning a terrorist attack, because that will "bring us all together." Along the same lines is this idea of a military parade. The Soviets had military parades not because they were winning but because they were losing and they were trying to show their defiance. This kind of feels like that: We're going to spend a huge amount of money to bring the military to a Washington for no particular purpose except for the spectacle of greatness. It actually demonstrates the opposite. We've got one American military veteran committing suicide on average every hour in this country. Every hour. If we're going to care about the military and the people in it, let's first think about health care for those folks. Once we attend to those veterans in some kind of civilized way then maybe the country can celebrate having done that.

When democracies are in crisis how do the establishment political parties behave? For example, most of the "principled Republicans" and "never-Trumpers" have rolled over and support almost all of Trump's policies while publicly complaining about him.

If the Democrats had allowed Russia to win an election for them the Republicans would not be quiet about it. Yet most Republicans seem to have no problem with just shrugging off Russia's interference in the 2016 election in favor of Trump and their party. I am also really surprised about the lack of any realization that the Republicans are a mainstream party that is allowing something extraordinary to happen in America. But after a while there will not be mainstream parties anymore. The analogies are clearly there.

One of the ways that Hitler came to power is that the conventional conservatives thought, "You know, with this guy we can have a majority, we can get our stuff done. Of course we will get rid of him in the end." But there was enough of a base in Germany for Hitler to stay in power. This is roughly the same size of the base that Trump has in the United States, roughly a third of the population. I'm surprised by how few Republicans care about how they will be described in the history books.

What percentage of a given population must support an authoritarian for that country's democracy to die?

For American democracy? Our country's system has not survived because we have had radically different demographics or preferences than other places. We've gotten lucky with leadership at certain moments. We've got pretty good institutional design, at least by comparison with other countries through about the middle of the 20th century. American democracy has not survived because of public opinion. For example, during the 1920s and 1930s there was significant hostility to immigrants and a not insignificant extreme right-wing movement in the country.

What's changing is that the United States has not had a leader like Trump before. Another thing that has changed is how economic inequality hasn't been this bad for 90 years, since 1929. Those things make the whole system shudder. Then there's the information environment which has radically changed so that it's very hard to have a sensible conversation, which makes it harder to hold up the system as a whole. So, it's not a situation where if Donald Trump has 25 percent of the public, we are safe, and if he has 35 percent, we are doomed. There are other structural factors to be concerned about as well.

There are also tens of millions of Americans who enjoy Trump's cruelty to nonwhites and immigrants -- his racism, misogyny and violence. He is a hero to them.

Trump is not a populist. He does not actually deliver anything of an economic or socially positive nature. But he is delivering something psychological to his base. It's the sense that "maybe we're hurting, but other people are hurting worse, and that's what we like." The design of Trump is to change politics from a positive-sum game where the idea is that everybody's going to do a little bit better because we're going to have better policies, to a negative-sum game where you're not doing anything for people in Virginia or Pennsylvania or Ohio. However, Trump is going to offer them a spectacle in which other people doing worse. The public gets caught up in the spectacle and that is what people then begin to expect from politics.

For example, Americans on average are leading shorter lives -- which is completely anomalous in the developed world -- and that's going to keep happening. But meanwhile, some of the people who are suffering the most are immigrants or blacks or Muslims. The psychological pleasure and joy for Trump's public from this horrible situation means they feel like they are on the right side of things. It's about pain. Trump's public may feel like they are hurting, but their leader is hurting other people worse and that feels good.

Is there a way to break out of this bubble of political sadism?

I am just not convinced that Americans are less enlightened now than they were in, say, 1924 or 1938. With the help of reasonable public policy and non-governmental organizations -- unions for example -- you can get people to see the future as a positive-sum game. It also requires that some of us keep up the standards of decency and try to maintain a public language which isn't as negative as what it occurring at present. Getting out of this bubble of political sadism also necessitates that people win elections who actually carry out decent public policy.

How do you reconcile Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the election and related matters with your concerns about Trump and American democracy?

Start with the rule of law. It should be an issue which has much broader sway than it does, because when the rule of law breaks down then what you end up with is oligarchy. In that system there is a whole lot less national wealth, but concentrated at the top even more. This means that almost all of the people who voted for Mr. Trump will be losers. Almost all Republicans will be losers out of this. If you break the rule of law at the top by doing something like firing Mueller, then the rule of law is going to collapse elsewhere as well.

I wish that folks on the right who are concerned about the economy and big business would think more about this dynamic. In the type of oligarchy that Trump is trying to create, unless you're friends with the right oligarchical clan -- which you won't be -- you are going to be in real trouble. Regarding Mueller's investigation, it has to go through judges and juries. If you believe in the rule of law, you shouldn't be concerned about this investigation. You should want it to go forward. This investigation is also about whether the president is above the law or below the law. We know where this president's instincts are. He believes that he is above the law. The law is going to need some defenders. If Mueller is fired, those people are going to have to protest because such an outcome will just hasten a larger breakdown in the rule of law.

When Trump was elected you said America had roughly one year before the country's democracy was irrevocably damaged. You were also concerned that Trump and his allies would stage some type of "Reichstag fire," a staged event that would permit them to expand their control. Where are we with those predictions?

My allusion to the Reichstag fire was meant to be a self-defeating prophecy. I was trying from the very beginning to get that idea out there in order to make it less likely. I think that conversation has now gone well beyond me. I am happy that plenty of other folks have now raised it. My new concern is that there will be something that happens around the time of the midterms. This will allow Trump and his allies to say that the midterms don't really count or that we have to have the midterms under exceptional conditions. Take note of how Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said that the Russians are going to hack the 2018 election and we really can't do anything about it.

I'm starting to wonder whether the idea might be to discredit the election and use Russian interference as a pretext to say that the elections aren't real and therefore we must not have any turnover. It is odd otherwise for Tillerson to say, "Yes, there is Russian interference, but no, we can't do anything about it." It's one thing to say it's not real. It's another thing to say it's real, but hey, you know, what the hell? That is basically Tillerson's position, as I understood him.

As for the one-year prediction?

There were a couple of things I couldn't anticipate. I was not sure if Trump's administration was going to try true national socialism, which would be a welfare state for white people, or whether it was going to be an effort to increase inequality and blame other people for it. It's now clear that the second option is Trump's preferred strategy. Many Americans have reacted better than the Germans did in 1933. This would include physicians, lawyers and journalists. We are still in the early stages of an authoritarian regime change. We still have an aspiring authoritarian leader. Many people have gotten to the point where I was a year ago, which is recognizing that this situation is uncertain and the outcome depends upon us. Matters are not hopeless but they are dire. The stakes are very high.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-polit ... -elections
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:10 am

Trump wants to name his personal pilot as head of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has a budget in the billions and oversees all civil aviation

In CNN's new poll:
Trump's approval:
22% - people under 35
27%- people under 45
29% - among women
Trump's presidency is imploding.


Witnesses told the AP they saw Trump’s executives carrying files to a room for shredding.
https://apnews.com/ce4dbdd4446c4862bb9c483425554c67



Trump just got terrible news about his most profitable international hotel
BY GRANT STERN
PUBLISHED ON FEBRUARY 25, 2018

The new owners of the Trump International Hotel Panama are at war with the Trump Organization and matters came to a head this weekend as they try to evict the President’s managers from the property where he earns $4 million annually.

The troubled Trump Panama-branded hotel made international headlines last November after the President’s association with international drug traffickers and money launderers came to light. But the majority of the tower’s condominium units and the entire hotel were purchased by a Miami-based investment fund last August, and the new owners’ efforts to kick out Trump’s overpriced managers beginning October resulted in this weekend’s hotly contested action for eviction.

Ithaca Capital Partners acquired 202 of the 369 units in the 70-story waterfront hotel in a “fire sale” and shortly afterward discovered that Trump’s managers are incompetent and took them to court. The AP reports:

Relations quickly soured amid abysmal hotel occupancy numbers and allegations by Ithaca and other hotel unit owners of financial mismanagement or misconduct. Trump’s company — which he still owns but does not directly control — refused to hand over control of the property, arguing that the vote to fire Trump Hotels was invalid.

A Panamanian court declined to support that claim in December, and the parties have since been fighting in court. The AP reported that the Trump management team ran off a group of Marriott executives who had been invited to tour the property amid a search for a replacement hotel operator.

On Thursday, Fintiklis arrived at the property with management staff and lawyers intending to take over the hotel immediately. The Trump management team again refused to yield control of the property, and according to the legal complaint filed by Ithaca’s lawyers, refused to allow Fintiklis to check into any of his company’s 202 hotel rooms.
Yesterday, Ithaca Capital Partners filed suit again against four of Trump’s managers in Panama for ‘usurpation’ because they refused to allow Fintiklis, the rightful owner of most of the building, to check in to stay at his own property. Reuters reports:

It was not clear why the four staff members had denied Fintiklis access, but Ithaca’s lawyer Sarai Blaisdell told reporters they had said they were acting upon orders from “superiors.”

The four staff belonged to the previous administration of the hotel, Blaisdell said.
But that’s not all that happened. Trump’s Panamanian management team began destroying records in plain sight of the condominium owners trying to fire them. Then, Trump’s security team intervened, assaulting unit owners and fighting an astonishing room by room for control of the property. The AP reports:

Trump’s managers retreated behind the glass walls of an office where they were seen carrying files to an area where the sounds of a shredding machine could be heard, according to two witnesses aligned with the owners.

Elsewhere in the building, the hotel owners’ team and its allies were barred by Trump Hotel staff from entering the room containing the building’s closed-circuit TV system as well as key computer servers for the hotel and apartments that share the property. In response, they shut off power to the room — temporarily bringing down phone lines and internet connections within the building.

According to the legal complaint, Trump’s chief of security and six security guards “pushed and shouted at” Fintiklis when he came to deliver the termination notices.
The new owners of Trump Panama are also seeking to change the name of the iconic sail-shaped hotel [sic] to remove the stigma of the Trump-brand, following in the footsteps of high profile towers in Toronto and lower Manhattan.

Donald Trump’s first and most profitable international branding deal is going down in flames and facing the unusual prospect of a management company being involuntarily evicted.

This weekend’s reports about his management team’s hardball tactics will make anyone with sense think twice about hiring the kind of company that will forcibly lock out legitimate property owners in a desperate attempt to avoid eviction.
http://washingtonpress.com/2018/02/25/t ... nal-hotel/



2/22/2018

What Did That Dumb Orange Motherfucker Say Now? (Guns, Guns, and More Guns Edition)

It's been 24 hours of our dumb orange motherfucker of a president, Donald Trump, saying things that only a dumb motherfucker would say about guns and the solution to mass shootings at schools in the United States. It started with his "listening session" with parents, teachers, and students who had lost someone in a school shooting or had survived one. Of course, it was a "listening session" only if you consider as "listening" the way in which Trump sat sullenly in his chair, hunched over like a particularly brain damaged bonobo wondering when boring blah-blah time will be over so he can throw some of the poo he's been saving up.

I mean, really, the man needed a goddamn note to tell him to ask things that even a barely literate child would have known to ask.

But, finally, after being forced to hear stories about human beings with feelings that aren't just "Trump good. Me love Trump. He have big hands and penis," the mad president got to say his piece, and, obviously, it was utterly inhuman nonsense crossed with the kind of idiocy that only a rich fuck who's never been told he's full of shit can provide. Seriously, my favorite thing Trump does when he speaks is to act like he's fuckin' Magellan, discovering shit that other people have always known about.

"You know, years ago, we had mental hospitals — mental institutions," he informed the gathered people, as if they were all aliens who had just come to earth. "We had a lot of them, and a lot of them have closed. They’ve closed. Some people thought it was a stigma. Some people thought, frankly, it was a — the legislators thought it was too expensive." Okay, first, asshole, whose fuckin' party thought it was too expensive to keep people institutionalized? And then a whole bunch of 'em were fuckin' hellholes and dumping grounds. Besides, who the fuck is gonna pay for the treatment, since someone thinks it's a goddamn crime to provide health care.

Trump continued on this point: "Today, if you catch somebody, they don’t know what to do with them. He hasn’t committed the crime, but he may, very well. And there’s no mental institution, there’s no place to bring them." What the fuck is he talking about? Your guess is as good as anyone else's. But you can bet that his kids and his lackeys told him he's brilliant. The National Alliance on Mental Illness released a statement calling "bullshit" on this.

Twice Trump told us that carrying guns in a concealed way is "called concealed carry," as if he's letting us all in on some secret lingo. His idea, that 20% of teachers would have "special training" and they would be armed with guns and ready to go fuckin' Statham on any active shooters in their school, is so fucking ridiculously dumb that it's not even deserving of discussion. Not only did the Broward County sheriff dismiss it last night, but Senator Marco Rubio, one of the NRA's spoogebuckets, also thought it was worthless (this was in-between being totally owned by Parkland high school students).

Our fucking worthless piece of garbage president went even nutsier today while meeting with members of law enforcement, elfen scourge Jeff Sessions, and bejeweled viper Betsy DeVos. He shit all over every president that came before him: "We will take action, unlike, for many years, where people sitting in my position did not take action. They didn’t take proper action. They took no action at all. We’re going to take action." You mean all those laws that were filibustered or voted down by the GOP? Fuck you, man.

There was bizarro torture porn featuring MS-13, the Latino gang that gives Trump semi-wood whenever he mentions their swarthy violence: "They’re killing people, not necessarily with guns — because that’s not painful enough. This is what they think. They want to do it more painfully and they want to do it slowly. So they cut them up with knives. They don’t use guns; they use knives, because they want it to be a long, painful death to people that had no idea this was coming." I honestly never thought I'd live to see a president who loved describing graphic pain.

Again, Trump's brain is stuck in the 1980s, when the Crips and the Bloods were the big deal, when violence in video games and movies were the subject of congressional hearings and White House action. Said our old man president, "I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts. And then you go the further step, and that’s the movies. You see these movies, they’re so violent. And yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn’t involved, but killing is involved, and maybe they have to put a rating system for that." No, we've never discussed this before. We'd never put a rating system onto video games, TV, and movies.

But the piece-de-fucked-up-tance was the repetition of "hardened" schools. Talking about "gun-free zones," as if they are just areas where everyone is wearing a "shoot me" sign, Trump said, "We have to harden our schools, not soften them up." And that means arming and training the teacher commandos. "You have now made the school into a hardened target...You want a hardened school, and I want a hardened school, too," he repeated.

"Surely," you're thinking, "it couldn't get any more fucking weird." Oh, how about this: "I think we need hardened sites. We need to let people know: You come into our schools, you’re going to be dead, and it’s going to be fast...So we have to harden our sites... if you harden the sites, you’re not going to have this problem...We need a hardened school. But we want to harden it without having everybody standing there with a rifle...Everybody agrees on a hard...we have to harden our schools, we have to make sure — in a way that doesn’t look like they’re hardened. But we have to let the bad guy know that they are hardened...I’d much rather have a hardened school."

Feel free to make your own "harden" jokes. I'll just say that it's fucking disturbing how he locks onto a word he heard and repeats it like a skipping record that no one dares to turn off.

At the end of the day, our cruel dunderheaded president won't do shit, nor will the filthy whores in the GOP, not with all that NRA cash sticking out of their assholes and Wayne LaPierre, standing there with a shovel, ready to shove more into any orifice that presents itself.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com


Exclusive: Trump privately talks up executing all big drug dealers


In Singapore, the death penalty is mandatory for drug trafficking offenses. And President Trump loves it. He’s been telling friends for months that the country’s policy to execute drug traffickers is the reason its drug consumption rates are so low.

"He says that a lot," said a source who's spoken to Trump at length about the subject. "He says, 'When I ask the prime minister of Singapore do they have a drug problem [the prime minister replies,] 'No. Death penalty'."

He often jokes about killing drug dealers... He’ll say, 'You know the Chinese and Filipinos don’t have a drug problem. They just kill them.'
— A senior administration official to Axios
But the president doesn't just joke about it. According to five sources who've spoken with Trump about the subject, he often leaps into a passionate speech about how drug dealers are as bad as serial killers and should all get the death penalty.
Trump tells confidants a softer approach to drug reform — the kind where you show sympathy to the offenders and give them more lenient sentences — will never work.
He tells friends and associates the government has got to teach children that they'll die if they take drugs and they've got to make drug dealers fear for their lives.
Trump has said he would love to have a law to execute all drug dealers here in America, though he's privately admitted it would probably be impossible to get a law this harsh passed under the American system.
Kellyanne Conway, who leads the White House's anti-drug efforts, argues Trump's position is more nuanced, saying the president is talking about high-volume dealers who are killing thousands of people. The point he's making, she says, is that some states execute criminals for killing one person but a dealer who brings a tiny quantity of fentanyl into a community can cause mass death in just one weekend, often with impunity.
The substance: Trump may back legislation requiring a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for traffickers who deal as little as two grams of fentanyl. Currently, you have to deal forty grams to trigger the mandatory five-year sentence. (The DEA estimates that as little as two milligrams is enough to kill people.)

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid, and much of it is manufactured in Chinese labs. It can be lethal in extremely small doses. Of the 64,000 people who died of drug overdoses in 2016, more than 20,000 overdosed on synthetic opioids like fentanyl, according to the National Institute for Drug Abuse.
Between the lines: Conway told me this kind of policy would have widespread support. “There is an appetite among many law enforcement, health professionals and grieving families that we must toughen up our criminal and sentencing statutes to match the new reality of drugs like fentanyl, which are so lethal in such small doses,” she said.

"The president makes a distinction between those that are languishing in prison for low-level drug offenses and the kingpins hauling thousands of lethal doses of fentanyl into communities, that are responsible for many casualties in a single weekend."
What's next: Trump wants to get tough on drug traffickers and pharmaceutical companies. Stay tuned for policy announcements in the not-too-distant future.

Trump and some of his advisers are discussing whether they might adopt other aspects of Singapore's "zero tolerance" drug policies, like bringing more anti-drug education into schools.
Both Conway and the First Lady Melania Trump, who has taken a strong interest in the administration's anti-drug policies, support getting better drug education and prevention into schools.
https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-p ... gn=organic
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:16 pm

The kleptocracy never ends. trump’s Organization has ordered tee markers for his golf courses featuring the presidential seal. Deeply unethical abuse of public office for private gain—and it is likely illegal.

Image


‘Trump, Inc.’ Podcast Extra: The Trump Organization Ordered Golf Course Markers With the Presidential Seal. That May Be Illegal.

The president’s company has ordered a set of Presidential Seal replicas for its golf course tee markers, raising more ethics questions.

by Katherine Sullivan, special to ProPublicaMarch 5, 4 a.m. EST

A White House staff member adjusts the presidential seal before a White House event. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Subscribe to “Trump, Inc.” here or wherever you get your podcasts.

President Donald Trump loves putting his name on everything from ties to steaks to water — and, of course, his buildings. But now the Trump Organization appears to be borrowing a brand even more powerful than the gilded Trump moniker: the presidential seal.

In recent weeks, the Trump Organization has ordered the manufacture of new tee markers for golf courses that are emblazoned with the seal of the President of the United States. Under federal law, the seal’s use is permitted only for official government business. Misuse can be a crime.

Past administrations have policed usage vigilantly. In 2005 the Bush administration ordered the satirical news website The Onion to remove a replica of the seal. Grant M. Dixton, associate White House counsel, wrote in a letter to The Onion that the seal “is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement.”

Listen to the Podcast
After listening to the new ProPublica/WNYC podcast “Trump, Inc.,” a listener brought the signs to our attention.

Eagle Sign and Design, a metalworking and sign company with offices in New Albany, Indiana, and Louisville, Kentucky, said it had received an order to manufacture dozens of round, 12-inch replicas of the presidential seal to be placed next to the tee boxes at Trump golf course holes. Two tee markers are placed on the ground at the start of a hole on golf courses to indicate where golfers should stand to take their first swing.

“We made the design, and the client confirmed the design,” said Joseph E. Bates, who owns Eagle Sign, declining to say who the client was.


A table of presidential seal tee markers at Eagle Sign. This photo was provided to ProPublica by a source.
An order form for the tee markers reviewed by ProPublica and WNYC says the customer was “Trump International.” The Facebook page for Eagle Sign and Design shows a photo of the markers in an album with the caption “Trump International Golf Course.”

It is unclear how many Trump International golf courses will feature the markers. The Trump Organization owns four courses with the “International” name in the U.S. and abroad, with a fifth course in Bali, Indonesia, in the works.

Eagle Sign makes a wide array of tee markers out of bronze and aluminum, and has made other signs for Trump’s courses, according to its website. At some of Trump’s golf courses, tee markers have sported the Trump family crest, which he took from the family that originally owned Mar-a-Lago without permission and then altered by adding his own name.

Ethics experts have long been on the lookout for signs that the Trump Organization would exploit the office of the presidency for commercial gain. Several said that using the presidential seal on the company’s golf courses would fall into this category.

A law governs the manufacture or use of the seal, its likeness, “or any facsimile thereof” for anything other than official U.S. government business. It can be a criminal offense punishable by up to six months in prison.

The “law is an expression of the idea that the government and government authority should not be used for private purpose,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University specializing in government and legal ethics said. “It would be a misuse of government authority.”

The Department of Justice declined to comment on whether it was aware the seal had been used by entities outside the government. The White House and the Trump Organization did not respond to request for comment.

The presidential seal was first sketched out by President Millard Fillmore in 1850 and the current design — which shows a bald eagle with an olive branch in its right talon, a bundle of 13 arrows in the left, and a scroll bearing the words “E pluribus unum” in its beak — was chosen by President Truman and made official in a 1945 executive order.

The seal that adorns the president’s speaking lecterns is handmade by the Institute of Heraldry, a department of the Army located at Fort Belvoir in Virginia that designs and provides guidance related to military and governmental symbols.

Versions of the seal have occasionally been put to personal use by past presidents. George W. Bush and Barack Obama had custom sets of golf balls made with the seal. Ronald and Nancy Reagan had a set of presidential china bearing the seal, and there have even been M&M’s and jelly beans that featured the seal.

In this case, the difference is that a private company is using the seal, said Richard Painter, vice chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government accountability group. Painter also served as an associate White House counsel during the George W. Bush administration.

“If we had heard of a private company using it for commercial purposes, we would have sent them a nasty letter,” he said.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trum ... 1520249935
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:01 pm

Is The Stormy Story More Damaging Than We Thought?
By Josh Marshall | March 12, 2018 3:20 pm

Adult film star Stormy Daniels appeared at a news conference to tout the success of Restricted to Adults (RTA) website and other efforts by the adult film industry to protect children from inappropriate material held at the National Press Club, May 29, 2008.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Group
We just finished recording this week’s episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast. We had a special guest, Joan Walsh. We talked about the Stormy Daniels’ story among other topics, including the 2016 election. But I wanted to flag one point we discussed in this episode that I’ve learned over recent days. What Daniels told 60 Minutes is more damaging than people may realize.

In many ways, having sex with a porn star is on-brand for Donald Trump. He spent decades playing up a reputation as a billionaire playboy. These stories seem to have stirred discord in Trump’s marriage. They’re hard to square with his current role as the darling of conservative evangelicals. But they play to the tough guy, dominant and hyper-masculine image he likes to portray. He’s boasted for years about his purported sexual prowess and the Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent string of accusations of various kinds of sexual misconduct confirmed his role as a sexual predator.

But Daniels apparently says something different. I’m told that in her 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper Daniels suggests that Trump, how to say this, likes it when women aren’t nice to him, treat him in perhaps denigrating ways.

I think that would be very much off brand for Trump. It also puts in sharper relief why he and his lawyer seem to be fighting so hard to keep Daniels’ story under wraps. It also deepens my curiosity about whether CBS will have the stomach to air that part of the story.

The interview did not run this weekend and it is not clear when it will run. CBS says they want to take their time reporting out Daniels’ claims. That is of course laudable and appropriate. But I’m not sure how they’d report out claims like that. In any case, as I noted Friday, I think we should be very skeptical whether 60 Minutes is really going to broadcast Daniels’ full story. It’s hard to imagine this isn’t playing into the apparent delay.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is ... re-1116086
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:29 am

only hours after Tillerson blamed Russia for nerve agent attack on spy in the UK.....

Rex Tillerson has been fired ...replaced by Pompeo

Trump got the call from Putin on Terrorist Chemical Attack In UK. Get rid of Tillerson. Trump: Yass Boss!

Rex Tillerson, awarded the Order of Friendship by a grateful Russia, and now axed by Trump for the one time he "mistakenly" criticized Putin.

Olga_Lautman NYC ..


I’m so confused why the Kremlin feels the need to prove that they sent an invitation for Lavrov to meet w Tillerson in Africa..

Day 2 of this strange story appearing in the Russian newsOlga_Lautman NYC ..

Посольство России готово доказать, что запрашивало встречу с Тиллерсоном
https://ria.ru/world/20180309/151603393 ... dex_main_2

I have never seen anything like this. With all the important news around the world this need to intimidate the State Dept is really something. Why this need to prove that the Lavrov invitation was sent? Why the need for the State Dept to deny ever receiving an invitation?
https://twitter.com/olgaNYC1211/status/ ... 7121627136



Haspel who is replacing Pompeo is the one that ordered torture tapes destroyed

CIA Cables Detail Its New Deputy Director’s Role in Torture

Gina Haspel, President Trump’s choice for the CIA’s number two position, was more deeply involved in the torture of Abu Zubaydah than has been publicly understood, according to newly available records and accounts by participants.

by Raymond Bonner, special to ProPublicaFeb. 22, 2017, 6 p.m. EST

Government employees gather around a seal inside the CIA in McLean, Virginia. (Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images)
Update, March 13, 2018: President Donald Trump has reportedly picked CIA deputy director Gina Haspel as the agency’s new chief. We published the story below on Feb. 22, 2017.

In August of 2002, interrogators at a secret CIA-run prison in Thailand set out to break a Palestinian man they believed was one of al-Qaida’s top leaders.

As the CIA’s video cameras rolled, security guards shackled Abu Zubaydah to a gurney and interrogators poured water over his mouth and nose until he began to suffocate. They slammed him against a wall, confined him for hours in a coffin-like box, and deprived him of sleep.

The 31-year-old Zubaydah begged for mercy, saying that he knew nothing about the terror group’s future plans. The CIA official in charge, known in agency lingo as the “chief of base,” mocked his complaints, accusing Zubaydah of faking symptoms of psychological breakdown. The torture continued.

When questions began to swirl about the Bush administration’s use of the “black sites,” and program of “enhanced interrogation,” the chief of base began pushing to have the tapes destroyed. She accomplished her mission years later when she rose to a senior position at CIA headquarters and drafted an order to destroy the evidence, which was still locked in a CIA safe at the American embassy in Thailand. Her boss, the head of the agency’s counterterrorism center, signed the order to feed the 92 tapes into a giant shredder.

By then, it was clear that CIA analysts were wrong when they had identified Zubaydah as the number three or four in al-Qaida after Osama bin Laden. The waterboarding failed to elicit valuable intelligence not because he was holding back, but because he was not a member of al-Qaida, and had no knowledge of any plots against the United States.

The chief of base’s role in this tale of pointless brutality and evidence destruction was a footnote to history — until earlier this month, when President Trump named her deputy director of the CIA.

The choice of Gina Haspel for the second-highest position in the agency has been praised by colleagues but sharply criticized by two senators who have seen the still-classified records of her time in Thailand.

“Her background makes her unsuitable for the position,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., wrote in a letter to Trump. “We are sending a classified letter explaining our position and urge that the information be immediately declassified.”

That’s not likely to happen. ProPublica has combed through recently declassified documents, including CIA cables and Zubaydah’s own account of what he endured, and books by officials involved in the CIA’s interrogation program to assemble the fullest public account of Haspel’s role in the questioning of Zubaydah. The material we reviewed shows she played a far more direct role than has been understood.

Asked to respond to the specific allegations about Haspel, a CIA spokesperson said only that, “Nearly every piece of the reporting that you are seeking comment on is incorrect in whole or in part.” We reminded the spokesperson that many of the specifics came from books written by former CIA officials and cleared before publication by the agency. He declined to say which aspects of the reporting, or those books, were incorrect but did provide a long list of testimonials to Haspel’s skills from present and former intelligence officials.

Critics of Haspel’s appointment argue that her past is particularly relevant in light of Trump’s shifting statements on the value of torturing terror suspects. During the campaign, former director of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden said in response to Trump’s endorsement of torture that “if any future president wants (the) CIA to waterboard anybody, he’d better bring his own bucket.” After he won the election, Trump said he was persuaded by his secretary of defense, James Mattis, that torture is not effective. The Trump administration recently drafted and then withdrew a draft executive order asking American intelligence agencies to consider resuming “enhanced interrogation” of terror suspects.

Much of the material we reviewed for this story referred to Haspel only by her title, chief of base, or “COB.” Three former government officials, however, said the person described by that title in books and declassified documents was Haspel. As chief of base, these officials said, Haspel signed many of the cables sent from Thailand to CIA headquarters recounting Zubaydah’s questioning. The declassified versions of those documents redact the name of the official who sent them.

One declassified cable, among scores obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit against the architects of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques, says that chief of base and another senior counterterrorism official on scene had the sole authority power to halt the questioning.

She never did so, records show, watching as Zubaydah vomited, passed out and urinated on himself while shackled. During one waterboarding session, Zubaydah lost consciousness and bubbles began gurgling from his mouth. Medical personnel on the scene had to revive him. Haspel allowed the most brutal interrogations by the CIA to continue for nearly three weeks even though, as the cables sent from Thailand to the agency’s headquarters repeatedly stated, “subject has not provided any new threat information or elaborated on any old threat information.”

At one point, Haspel spoke directly with Zubaydah, accusing him of faking symptoms of physical distress and psychological breakdown. In a scene described in a book written by one of the interrogators, the chief of base came to his cell and “congratulated him on the fine quality of his acting.” According to the book, the chief of base, who was identified only by title, said: “Good job! I like the way you’re drooling; it adds realism. I’m almost buying it. You wouldn’t think a grown man would do that.”

Haspel was sent by the chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism section, Jose Rodriquez, the “handpicked warden of the first secret prison the CIA created to handle al-Qaida detainees,” according to a little-noticed recent article in Reader Supported News by John Kiriakou, a former CIA counterterrorism officer. In his memoir, “Hard Measures,” Rodriquez refers to a “female chief of base” in Thailand but does not name her.

Kirakou provided more details about her central role. “It was Haspel who oversaw the staff,” at the Thai prison, including James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, the two psychologists who “designed the torture techniques and who actually carried out torture on the prisoners,” he wrote.

Kiriakou pleaded guilty in 2012 to releasing classified information about waterboarding and the torture of detainees, and served 23 months in prison.

The CIA officials in Thailand understood that the methods they were using could kill Zubaydah and said that should that happen, they would cremate his body. If he survived questioning, Haspel sought assurances that “the subject will remain in isolation and incommunicado for the remainder of his life.”

So far, that promise has been kept. Zubaydah is currently incarcerated at Guantanamo. His lawyers filed a court action in 2008 seeking his release, but the federal judges overseeing the case have failed to issue any substantive rulings.

Zubaydah was seized in a raid in Pakistan in late March 2002, during which he suffered life-threatening bullet wounds in his leg and groin. The CIA had long been hunting for Zubaydah, who had worked as what one former government official described as “administrator” at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. The camp was started by the CIA during the Soviet occupation, was not under the control of al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden, the official said, but Zubaydah had on occasion supplied false passports and money to al-Qaida operatives.

American doctors saved Zubaydah’s life, and after he was stable enough he was drugged, gagged, trussed and blindfolded, and put on a CIA charter flight. In order to avoid being traced, the plane flew around the world, stopping in several places, including Morocco and Brazil, before landing in Thailand.

While still hospitalized, Zubaydah was interrogated by the FBI, led by Ali Soufan, an Arabic speaker. According to Soufan, Zubaydah, who was generally cooperative, provided the FBI interrogators with valuable intelligence on the overall structure of al-Qaida.

His information also confirmed what the CIA already believed, that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. A talkative sort who expressed a willingness to cooperate, Zubaydah gave the FBI information that led to the arrest of Jose Padilla for plotting to detonate bombs in the United States. Zubaydah, who was born in Palestine, said that while he believed in jihad, the 9/11 attacks were not justified because they killed innocent civilians.

CIA officials were convinced that he knew about plots in America, and with the horror of 9/11 still fresh, the agency was determined to prevent another attack. A month after Zubaydah was captured, Haspel drafted a cable titled “Turning Up the Heat in AZ Interrogations.”

Soon after, he was put into isolation for 45 days, kept awake with loud music and doused with cold water. During this time, the ALEC team at CIA headquarters, which was assigned to find Osama bin Laden, sent questions to Thailand for the team to ask Zubaydah; they went unasked, and unanswered, because he was in isolation.

The FBI and CIA clashed over whether or not Zubaydah was fully cooperating on the subject of possible future attacks. The agency’s view prevailed, and counterterrorism officials sought permission for harsher measures.

In late July, the CIA team conducted a “dress rehearsal … which choreographed moving Abu Zubaydah (Subject) in and out of the large and small confinement boxes, as well as use of the water board,” Haspel notified Washington.

A few days later, she wrote, “Team is ready to move to the next phase of interrogations immediately upon receipt of approvals/authorization from ALEC/Headquarters. It is our understanding that DOJ/Attorney General approvals for all portions of the next phase, including the water board, have been secured, but that final approval is in the hands of the policy makers.”

By this time, the source on whom the CIA had based its assessment that Zubaydah was number three or four in the al-Qaida organization had recanted his testimony, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture released in 2014. The agency would ultimately conclude that Zubaydah was not even a member of al-Qaida.

“So it begins,” a medical officer on Haspel’s team wrote on the morning of Aug. 4, 2002.

Later that year, when journalists began asking the CIA and the White House about a “black site,” in Thailand, the CIA rushed to close it. Zubaydah was again drugged, trussed, blindfolded, and put on another secret CIA flight to another black site, this time in Poland.

Haspel moved to cover up the agency’s operations at the Thai base. The chief of base told the security officer “to burn everything that he could in preparation for sanitizing the black site,” Mitchell wrote in his book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America,” which was published late last year.

According to Mitchell’s account, the security officer asked the chief of base whether he should include the tapes; he was told to hold off until “she” could check with Washington.

She was told to retain them. A few years later when she was back in Washington and chief of staff to the director of operations for counterterrorism, Jose Rodriquez, the man who had sent her to Thailand, she continued to lobby for destruction of the tapes.

“My chief of staff drafted a cable approving the action we had been trying to accomplish for so long,” Rodriquez writes in his memoir. “The cable left nothing to chance. It even told them how to get rid of the tapes. They were to use an industrial-strength shredder to do the deed.”

Without approval from the White House or Justice Department, Rodriquez gave the order.

In a twist of fate, destroying the tapes drew more outside scrutiny of the program. Disclosure of the shredding prompted the Senate Intelligence Committee to begin its long-running examination of the torture program. The result was a 7,000-page report that drew on thousands of highly classified cables relating to the Bush administration’s rendition and detention program and concluded torture was not effective.
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia- ... in-torture


WELCOME TO THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, MR. POMPEO — THE LATEST COMMITTEE TO HAVE REASON TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIA!

March 13, 2018/3 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe, Torture /by empty wheel

Yesterday, Rex Tillerson committed the one unforgivable sin on the Trump Administration: holding Russia accountable for its actions. While Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders equivocated, Tillerston strongly stated that the poison used in the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter obviously came from Russia.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal in Britain “clearly came from Russia” and “certainly will trigger a response.”

Tillerson says he doesn’t know whether Russia’s government had knowledge of the poisoning. But he is arguing the poison couldn’t have originated anywhere else. He says the substance is known to the U.S. and doesn’t exist widely. He says it’s “only in the hands of a very, very limited number of parties.”

Tillerson calls the poisoning “a really egregious act” and says it’s “almost beyond comprehension” that a state actor would use such a dangerous substance in a public place.


Today, Tillerson’s counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, drew the unenviable task of denying Russia’s involvement, even while the Russian Embassy and Putin himself barely hid their glee about the attack.

“Russia is not responsible,” Sergei Lavrov said during a televised press conference that marked an escalation of the standoff with the UK over the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.

Lavrov also suggested Moscow would not comply with a Tuesday midnight deadline set by Theresa May to deliver an explanation or face retaliation. He said Moscow’s requests to see samples of the nerve agent had been turned down, which he called a violation of the chemical weapons convention outlawing the production of chemical weapons.

“We have already made our statement on this case,” he said. “Russia is ready to cooperate in accordance with the convention to ban chemical weapons if the United Kingdom will deign to fulfil its obligations according to the same convention.”


Trump did the predictable thing: Fired Tillerson by tweet, naming Mike Pompeo his successor and torturer Gina Haspel America’s first female CIA Director.

Image

Of course, both those nominations require confirmation. And while it would probably be easy for Haspel to work as Acting Director for the foreseeable future, it may be far, far harder for Pompeo to make the move.

Admittedly, Pompeo was confirmed CIA Director with a 66-32 vote (this was before Democrats got bolder about opposing Trump’s more horrible nominees, and Pompeo was, after all, a member of Congress). But Pompeo likely faces a harder time even getting through committee. While Senate Foreign Relations Committee Dems Jeanne Shaheen and Tim Kaine are among the idiotic who voted for Pompeo for CIA Director, SFRC Republican Rand Paul was the sole Republican voting against Pompeo. So even if just Shaheen and Kaine flip their votes, Pompeo will be bottled up in SFRC. But SFRC also includes several of the other Republicans who’ve been most skeptical of Trump and/or his dalliances with Russia: Bob Corker (who is retiring and has been chilly about Pompeo’s confirmation in the past), Jeff Flake (who is retiring), and Marco Rubio (who was hacked by Russia himself; though he has already said he would support Pompeo).

Since Pompeo’s last confirmation, he has done several things to coddle Trump’s Russia dalliance, as I laid out here.

Already, Pompeo’s cheerleading of Wikileaks during the election should have been disqualifying for the position of CIA Director.

That’s even more true now that Pompeo himself has deemed them a non-state hostile intelligence service.

Add in the fact that Pompeo met with Bill Binney to hear the skeptics’ version of the DNC hack, and the fact that Pompeo falsely suggested that the Intelligence Community had determined Russia hadn’t affected the election. Finally, add in the evidence that Pompeo has helped Trump obstruct the investigation and his role spying on CIA’s own investigation into it, and there’s just far too much smoke tying Pompeo to the Russian operation.


Remember, too, that in his last confirmation process, Pompeo refused to rule out using hacked intelligence from Russia, something Rubio should be particularly concerned about.

Pompeo can also expect to be grilled about why he ignored the sanctions against Russia’s top intelligence officers so they could all come for a meet and greet earlier this year.

I’m not saying it won’t happen. But it will be tough for Pompeo to get through the narrowly divided SFRC, much less confirmation in the full senate.

House Intelligence Republicans yesterday made asses of themselves in an attempt to get Russian investigations off the front page. But by nominating Pompeo to be Secretary of State, Trump just gave an entirely different committee, one far more hawkish on Russia issues, reason to start a new investigation into Trump — and Pompeo’s — Russia dalliances.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/03/13/w ... committee/



emptywheel

Yes. And I'd be willing to bet a lot of $$ that the FBI has found some interesting SIGINT abt Pompeo.



ICE spokesman quits after saying he 'couldn't bear the burden' of lying for the Trump administration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman James Schwab on Monday resigned from his role with the San Francisco division, citing the “burden” of spreading falsehoods from Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

As CNN reports, Schwab accused Sessions and Acting Director Tom Homan of deliberately spreading misleading information after ICE slammed Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s decision to warn the public about upcoming ICE raids.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco and Oakland shield dangerous criminal aliens from federal law enforcement at the expense of public safety,” Homan said of Schaaf’s warning. ”Because these jurisdictions prevent ICE from arresting criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail, they also force ICE officers to make more arrests out in the community, which poses increased risks for law enforcement and the public.”

“864 criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor’s irresponsible decision,” Homan said.

“Director Homan and the Attorney General said there were 800 people at large and free to roam because of the actions of the Oakland Mayor,” Schwab told CNN. “Personally I think her actions were misguided and not responsible. I think she could have had other options. But to blame her for 800 dangerous people out there is just false.”

Schwab told SFGate, “I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts.”

“I asked them to change the information,” he said. “I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn’t agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit.” Schwab told CNN he’d “never” been in a situation “where someone asked me to deflect when we absolutely knew something was awry.”

“I just couldn’t bear the burden—continuing on as a representative of the agency and charged with upholding integrity, knowing that information was false,” Schwab said.

“It’s the job of a public affairs officer to offer transparency for the agency you work for.” he argued. “I felt like we weren’t doing that. I’ve never been in a situation when I’ve been asked to ignore the facts because it was more convenient. It was my first time being asked to do that.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/ice-sp ... z8.twitter



Another long-time Trump aide is out: John McEntee, an original Trumper among w Hope Hicks and Dan Scavino, was escorted out of the White House on Monday
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby 0_0 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:53 pm

only hours after Tillerson blamed Russia for nerve agent attack on spy in the UK.....

Rex Tillerson has been fired ...replaced by Pompeo

Trump got the call from Putin on Terrorist Chemical Attack In UK. Get rid of Tillerson. Trump: Yass Boss!


slad, do you believe that trump is literally taking orders from putin? or is it a hyperbole to express that seemingly trump and putin are on the same side on this, namely that it would be bad policy to blame a nuclear power for a chemical terrorist attack in the uk without a thorough criminal investigation? do you think the us president should not be free to make such a judgement call? i'm genuinely curious as to your line of thinking on this.
playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests