Trump, June 2017: From [Covfefe] with Love

Yesterday's activities across the pond give me a lot of hope (tempered with my usual dread and cynicism).

luv2vote for left-wing policies, you guys should try it sometime

If even a few new people get the takeaway "the president lies - he lies like all the time - and maybe that's kind of a problem," I'll take that as a victory (however limited and qualified).

Obviously there are going to be people who think "he lies all the time but it doesn't matter because he's a useful wrecking ball," or "he lies sometimes but the other guys lie WORSE," or even "I trust him, he never lies, it's just FAKE NEWS / media distortion." But you were never going to reach those people anyway.

And there were obviously many millions of people who never liked or trusted him to begin with; they're already on board.

The only possible good outcome is NEW people acquiring new doubts about the Orange Individual.

Meantime, an odd source to get this from but (Manuel's Tavern is indeed a real place)

Manuel's Tavern in Atlanta is offering up a new sandwich: The Donald. Wonder bread, Russian dressing, baloney, cheese, and a small pickle.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 9, 2017

Separately, profiles in courage

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-republicans-consider-keeping-parts-of-obamacare-they-once-promised-to-kill/2017/06/08/9befcd68-4c77-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d674d3e5eed1

Even some less aggressive critics of the law are uncomfortable with bluntly describing what the talks have largely become: a negotiation about how much of Obamacare to leave in place and for how long.

“Ah, well,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) before pausing to consider what to say next. “Depends how you phrase it, I guess. I mean, obviously, it’s there. We have to deal with it. We’re doing the best we can.”

Other Republican senators sought to play down any controversy about the parts of the law they are contemplating keeping in place.

“We think we’re repealing the most obnoxious parts of Obamacare,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who argued that “there are some parts of Obamacare that are completely nonpartisan, almost.”

But that nuanced posture stands in contrast to the way Republicans vilified the law in consecutive elections after it was enacted in 2010. They slammed Democrats who voted for it and campaigned repeatedly on the promise of repealing the law entirely if voters gave them control of Congress and the White House.

“I think we’re all adjusting to the reality of the current debate and what it takes to get across the finish line,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

Ah well

“Depends how you phrase it, I guess. I mean, obviously, it’s there. We have to deal with it. We’re doing the best we can.”

'Sorry. Im sorry. Im trying to remove it'

i thought this was really good. i do think that men suffer tons of abuse - mental and physical - at the hands of their bosses and never ever talk about it. which is just a way of saying that i think they relate to it more than women might think they would relate to it. there is always plenty of abuse of power to go around.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/opinion/james-comey-and-the-predator-in-chief.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

the parallels she brings up to comey's statements and harassment of women...

(also not mentioned in there is the parallel of sen. feinstein's "you're big, you're strong...why didn't you stop and say mr. president this is wrong...")

Trump? Abuse of power? Who would have thought!

If the goal is to further defame Comey, yeah, good luck with that. No one believes you more than him, you piece of shit.

I wish this were true

luv2vote for left-wing policies, you guys should try it sometime

we were gonna, but then a couple dozen Twitter trolls made it IMPOSSIBLE for us to vote for the leftiest candidate in a generation.

That was weird coming from Feinstein but then the Repubs parroting that while not ever once standing up to the President themselves on any goddamn thing is just...well what i'd expected from them now that i think about it. xxxp

If the goal is to further defame Comey, yeah, good luck with that. No one believes you more than him, you piece of shit.
I wish this were true

― frogbs, Friday, June 9, 2017 9:55 AM (three minutes ago)

aside from idiots that will eat a turd if Trump tells them it's a tootsie roll , i think it is true

Listening to NPR on the commute this morning was fucking infuriating! They sounded like Fox News! Apparently the big story from the Comey thing, as far as they're concerned, is whether he's a "leaker" or not. And "Trump camp claims absolute vindication" was practically reported as fact, with no critical response whatsoever. I half thought one of the voices must have been a Republican shill, but no, it was just their morning regulars, Steve Innskeep and someone else. Jesus fucking christ

NPR's desperation to avoid the wingnut picture of them as a lefty mouthpiece = "balanced" regular guest Jonah Goldberg

maybe they should have Chomsky on with him hahaha

Democrats are probably still mad at Comey for "ruining " Hillary's lackluster campaign with his revela of email investigation info before the election

how the fuck do they parser what Jim did as a leak?? this is insane

That's like refusing to take a lie detector test when you're the one whose honesty is up for debate.

Many xposts, but if for some crazy reason your honesty is up for debate, you should definitely refuse to take a lie detector test because they're not reliable. I say this as ILX's premier completely untrained personal attorney, but I at least as reliable as a lie detector test, and that should frighten you

I can see that, from some sort of academic legal standard. But it's a bit like taking the fifth. You have every right to plead the fifth, but you almost never look good doing it.

pleading the fifth, it's a bit like saying, yeah, I did something wrong, I'm just not going to help you find out what it is at all, you have to work harder to get it.

The only way to deal with a liar is ask for proof of their claims. I use this on 5 year olds all the time

Jonah live blogging the Comey hearings:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_845ywsAF1Oc/R14KltELALI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hG8T6VV0uy4/s320/jonah_goldberg_in_car.jpg

feel like Trump is one of those dudes who has been insulated long enough that he doesn't really get the idea of "truth" per se, he seems like one of those "creating my own reality through positive statements" people

first president whose personal philosophy is pretty much "the secret"

xxpost lol when Comey wrote that he pulled out his laptop in the car to make notes of his Trump convo I immediately thought of that Jonah pic

Also not sure Trump has ever been involved in litigation/investigation that literally can't be settled, or waved off by paying a fine.

yeah, that is what I was getting at above. litigation is just part of the cost of doing business when working at that scale, and I doubt he's ever put thought into whether he was being sued as a matter of course or because he was shitty at what he was doing

rules just don't apply to rich people

I also wonder if he even grasps the power of the special prosecutor, basically the legal Terminator.

first president whose personal philosophy is pretty much "the secret"

One of the many most bonkers Trump revelations is that his childhood pastor was literally the guy that wrote The Power of Positive Thinking.

"Democrats are probably still mad at Comey for "ruining " Hillary's lackluster campaign"

Ace analysis lol

gonna be some HIllary face sitting on Comey IRL

“We think we’re repealing the most obnoxious parts of Obamacare,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who argued that “there are some parts of Obamacare that are completely nonpartisan, almost.”

I think what this means is that they'll achieve some kind of "compromise" which fucks poor people grievously in order to pay for huge tax cut, but leave in place some of the Obamacare features that help middle-class people who have the free time to show up at town halls (barring lifetime caps, control of premium hikes for people with pre-existing conditions.) This is really the only play they have: promise to screw almost everyone, walk it back to screwing only the most powerless, characterize themselves as "statesmen" and "moderates", characterize Dems as hysterics for suggesting they were going to do what they promised to do. It's not a bad play!

please don't

post

NRO tries for laffs:

Despite all this, Thursday wasn’t a good day for President Trump. Comey painted an ugly portrait of the president as flagrantly and shamelessly dishonest, oblivious to traditional limits on presidential power, obsessed with personal loyalty to him, having no regard for the independence of law enforcement and the justice system, petty, micro-managing, erratic, mercurial and vindictive. This description of Trump is undoubtedly shocking to all of the Americans who were in comas for the entirety of the 2016 election.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

"there are some parts of Obamacare that are completely nonpartisan, almost.”

hey he read Dole's 1996 platform

I don't think old Chuck can say two sentences without extensively hedging his phrases

Meantime...

New: Mueller enlists Michael Dreeben, top criminal law expert in SG’s office, for Russia probe https://t.co/HHQGuUdcr9 from @Tonymauro

— Michael A. Scarcella (@MikeScarcella) June 9, 2017

'SG' being solicitor general, he's the current deputy and has been in the department for some time. He's also getting some heavy praise in general for the new role.

Dreeben is 1 of the top legal & appellate minds at DOJ in modern times (My admiration goes far beyond his 8-0 insider trading win in Salman) https://t.co/o1sGMwoZEQ

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 9, 2017

More importantly, Michael Dreeben is careful, meticulous, non-partisan, and fair-minded. His loyalty is to the Constitution alone. https://t.co/9a7jwHVH1K

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 9, 2017

Bob Mueller has brought on Michael Dreeben, part-time. As I've said before, Mueller is assembling the "A Team." https://t.co/LIoy7SRXEh

— Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) June 9, 2017

the scathing Bill Kristol wit:

Where does "time is of the essence" come from? Has a vaguely existential feel, though I suppose then it should be, Time is of the existence. https://t.co/RVs8CTnFqw

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) June 9, 2017

In 2005, Dreeben argued and lost a case for the government involving obstruction-of-justice charges against the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in the wake of the Enron scandal.

I would note that one of the reasons they lost this is because another member of Mueller's A-team, Andrew Weissman, provided the garbage ass jury instructions that resulted in this loss.

Then they can knock back cocktails together while thinking of the old times.

Question. Anything involving a special prosecutor and the president is by definition about as big of a legal deal possible. Would Mueller assemble an "A Team" no matter what, given the nature of the job, or does the nature of the case (which he is clearly aware of) necessitate it? That is, does he assemble the A Team because he wants to be thorough when searching for criminally or cyberintelligence issues, or does he assemble the A Team because he knows something is up and wants to make sure his findings are as valid as possible?

That's sort of what I don't understand about these investigations. You'd think it'd only take an hour to look over the findings so far, or to read various summaries, a see the broad strokes. That is, the classified IC confirmation of Russian meddling, for example, has got to be pretty clear. Same with the info that drew suspicion to people like Manafort, Sessions, Page, et al. in the first place. I guess my legal question is, do you start with what you think they did wrong and work your way backward to bolster your case? Or do you start with vague suspicions and work your way around that to see if there was any illegality? Because there has to be some sort of real basis for suspicion before you proceed anyway, right? Because otherwise it really is a witch hunt, but even us armchair sleuths can point to strange stuff that's in the public record.

Ha, some hilarity

Big win for CREW! Dan Scavino reprimanded for Hatch Act violation! pic.twitter.com/noOXeUGOIk

— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) June 9, 2017

Because there has to be some sort of real basis for suspicion before you proceed anyway, right?

The basis of suspicion is the appointment of Mueller in the first place.

lol oh yeah, america exists

One problem with treating this as a straightforward case of collusion or not, based on classified intercepts from the USA IC, is that the Russian intelligence services are quite expert at disinformation, misdirection, concealment, and manipulation, because these are among their primary tools. Getting direct testimony from the principals is going to be key to building a case, because people like Flynn and Manafort have many fewer resources for covering their tracks than the IC has for uncovering them, so there shoould be a means to exert pressure on them to spill the beans or pay the price.

Next-level pressure: call your Senator's office and ask for these staffers who deal with health care: pic.twitter.com/RMWUnOvsT5

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) June 9, 2017

And now we're back to this

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Tillerson calls on Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to ease blockade on Qatar.

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 9, 2017

Too late, Trump already convinced me Qatar is evil.

Al Thani of Qatar is off to Moscow tomorrow.