Trump, June 2017: From [Covfefe] with Love

"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

Allegedly he committed to Article 5 too. Timing!

What in the world

"I didn't say that...and there'd be nothing wrong if I did say that" says Trump of Comey claim he pushed for end of Flynn probe

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 9, 2017

"Great, we got him to not tweet yesterday."

"Now he just needs to not say anything in public today!"

*later*

"OH GOD."

well then, so he definitely said it

someone needs to read Comey's exact quotes back to Trump and ask if he said those words (I'm assuming this didn't happen today, wasn't watching). it just seems to easy to ask something like "Did you ask Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation?" or "Did you ask him to pledge loyalty?" and then have Trump weasel out by saying he was just expressing a wish to have the investigation dropped or that his intention was to have Comey pledge loyalty to the country or some such bullshit.

is there a place to read a transcript of the press conference that just concluded? google turning up nothing

well I guess Jon Karl did more or less quote the bit about letting the Flynn thing go and Trump claimed he never said that, though Karl did bungle the second bit by accidentally asking if Comey asked for a pledge of loyalty from Trump (though I'm sure Trump didn't hear it that way)

oh cool

Republicans searching for consensus on how to pay for tax cuts are beginning to weigh attacking spending in potentially sensitive areas of the budget.

Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch told Bloomberg he prefers to find spending cuts to pay for a tax overhaul, though he stopped short of guaranteeing any outcome.

“That’s what should be the solution, I’ll put it that way,” Hatch, a Utah Republican, said Thursday. “And I’m hopeful that the Republicans will work to do that. I’d like to find some spending cuts. We’re spending us into oblivion."

GOP leaders have not moved off their calls for revenue-neutral tax legislation -- that is, a bill that balances tax cuts with other provisions that would raise revenue. Still, a growing number of Republican lawmakers is calling for abandoning that concept.

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a leader of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, called for $400 billion in unspecified cuts to welfare programs to help cover the cost of tax cuts. That’s “the way to unlock the logjam in the House” on setting tax and spending levels in a budget resolution, Jordan said Friday at an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy and advocacy group. Drawing up a budget resolution is a procedural prerequisite for Congress to tackle a tax overhaul.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-09/key-republicans-eye-spending-cuts-to-help-pay-for-tax-overhaul

it's been an Infrastructure Week to remember, that's for sure

Omg Romanian president just called out Trump for lying

— Ishaan Tharoor (@ishaantharoor) June 9, 2017

Trump said there was no discussion of visa waivers... Romanian counterpart looks at him, says there was https://t.co/am4vbT5xLT

— Ishaan Tharoor (@ishaantharoor) June 9, 2017

Lying might be the charitable explanation.

Cannot wait for the release of the Comey Tapes

Trump: Jim, hi, come in and sit down.
Trump, in a high-pitched and annoying voice: Oh, hi, Mr. President. You are looking great today, bigly. It makes me look very, very much like a loser, which I am. It's true.

Oh BTW

Romney reveals in Park City that HILLARY encouraged him to consider Sec State job

— Alex Isenstadt (@politicoalex) June 9, 2017

Cannot wait for the release of the Comey Tapes

Trump: Jim, hi, come in and sit down. Gosh you're so big, so strong

Whoops!

Poll: View of the American Health Care Act. pic.twitter.com/CZqCGrJfsE

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 9, 2017

yeah. surprisingly even republicans seem to know what's up with this issue. it would be catastrophically dumb for the republicans to proceed further.