Trump, June 2017: From [Covfefe] with Love

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.

Where does "time is of the essence" come from?

LL Cool J w/J-Lo iirc

Odd little ripples

Grassley rebukes Trump for OLC opinion on withholding info requested by members who don't chair a committee. https://t.co/9W0O1zIJnB pic.twitter.com/mFXiOsdVxh

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 9, 2017

why spend it alone xp

Read something that opined that Trump sending (or trying to send) DOJ after Comey for alleged "leak" could actually legally constitute further obstruction of justice.

yeah I'm seeing that rumor too, I'll reserve judgment until Krasnowitz actually files something

Pelosi to Trump: Go to bed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73dPYPqsluQ

I like how she slips into her morning chat that she's looking into Trump and his relationship with Saudi Arabia. New hearings please!

Perfect

Tillerson just an hour ago called on Saudi/Egypt to ease up on Qatar. Trump is just bashing Qatar again. Complete incoherence.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 9, 2017

BREAKING: Pres. Trump: At summit in Saudi Arabia, I decided it was time to call on Qatar to stop funding terrorism. pic.twitter.com/HOjbGFFsKR

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) June 9, 2017

I'm glad our fine president was able to get the Saudi's to stop funding terrorism too. Wait.. hold on.. what?

Hush now, you're giving it away

whoa mind blown how many dimensions are there to this chess

my god, it's full of stars

whoa mind blown how many dimensions are there to this chess

You could say it's going in every dimension at once. Like an explosion.

Well then!

Trump says he would "100 percent" be willing to dispute Comey's testimony under oath.

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) June 9, 2017

Oh and

"I'll tell you about that sometime in the very near future." @realDonaldTrump on whether there are tapes of his convos w/ Comey

— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) June 9, 2017