The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

What happens when know-nothings and amateurs hold power

Consider the raft of ex-White House officials: Stephen K. Bannon, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, Anthony Scaramucci and Sebastian Gorka. None of them had governing experience, let alone White House experience. They all failed spectacularly, displaying qualities that are inappropriate to governance and lacking expertise, discipline and an appropriate temperament to serve in the White House. Michael Flynn had military experience but no White House or senior civilian service; his ethical lapses (e.g., not disclosing work for foreign governments, lying about contacts with Russians) arguably set in motion events that could lead to President Trump’s downfall.

Trump certainly exploited the notion that one doesn’t need expertise to serve in the West Wing — or any part of government. The experts were “stupid” and didn’t know how to make deals, according to him. Businessmen can show how to run things! Wrong. It turns out that knowing something about policy, understanding how Congress and the bureaucracy operate, maintaining one’s credibility and respecting the constitutional guardrails that make certain our president is not a monarch are essential to success.

In the Cabinet, likewise, arrogance, out-of-touchness and lack of political skill have undermined two of the most important secretaries. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s unwillingness to interact with employees beyond his tight-knit staff, dearth of media skills, lack of a sophisticated worldview (e.g., why we like democracies), slow pace and disdain for Congress render him ineffective and virtually invisible. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, worth nine figures and lacking any government experience, hasn’t a clue about how to deal with Congress. CNN reported:

House Republicans unleashed their fury Friday over President Donald Trump’s deal with the Democrats at Steve Mnuchin, with conservatives calling the treasury secretary’s appeal to them to “vote for it for me” insulting and inappropriate. Mnuchin, along with Trump’s budget chief, Mick Mulvaney went up to Capitol Hill shortly before a vote on the package, which included money for hurricane aid, a continuing resolution to keep the government open and a three-month extension of the debt ceiling.

Multiple House Republicans emerged infuriated and dissatisfied that they addressed their concerns that the deal wasn’t the right strategy to get some of the spending reforms they’ve been pushing.

It turns out — who knew? — that when the president has no idea what he’s doing and his senior advisers don’t either, the president cannot get his agenda through, ricochets from one scandal to another and winds up with historically low approval ratings.

Now consider two consummate professionals with long years of government service in administrations of both parties, who possess a clear understanding of how Congress and the press operate and have an abundance of competence and integrity. Former FBI director James B. Comey took his oath (to the Constitution) so seriously that Trump had to fire him, or tolerate an FBI director who would refuse to succumb to political pressure. Can’t have an independent FBI director! Then there is former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who did her job by alerting the White House as to Flynn’s misrepresentations about his Russia contacts and then refused to defend a de facto Muslim travel ban obviously premised on religious bigotry. She, too, couldn’t survive the Trump administration.

The pattern is not hard to discern. The unqualified riffraff Trump brought with him was/is not capable of doing jobs that are exceptionally demanding even for talented veterans of government. It’s not a good idea, after all, to appoint Tillerson to a post once held by Henry Stimson, George C. Marshall, Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz, to name a few.

Business is business, and government is government. Sometimes public servants go on to illustrious careers in the private sector, but rarely does someone with no government experience nor subject expertise come in at the highest level of government and succeed. The government depends on experienced, knowledgeable and sober-minded public servants. We truly hope the rule of the amateurs and know-nothings is brief, and that the few experienced hands that remain (mostly military or ex-military men) hold things together until a fit president and an administration of qualified and competent people can be found.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Some Trump Lawyers Wanted Kushner Out

#Resist

[Katiebee]

The only amateurs who survive in an environment that requires experience and training are guerillas. But there is a high attrition rate that removes the pure amateurs from those who learn quickly.

[Athos_131]

Trump Still Hasn’t Retracted His False Claim That He Saw Muslims Cheering on 9/11

#Resist

[Katiebee]

As of August 1, Obama during the same period of his first year played golf 11 times.

Trump played 21 times.

The blowhard just likes his fake news.

[Lois]

Robert Mueller’s Brilliant Move Against Trump’s Pardon Power
Elizabeth Holtzman on New York State’s investigations of Trump associates.
By Jon Wiener

Story with link to full podcast: https://www.thenation.com/article/robert-muellers-brilliant-move-against-trumps-pardon-power/

Elizabeth Holtzman is a former member of Congress from New York who won national attention for her work on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. She was subsequently elected district attorney of King’s County—the borough of Brooklyn. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jon Wiener: We’ve worried for a long time that Trump could fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or he could pardon everyone being investigated by Mueller, which would end those investigations. But now Mueller has teamed up with the attorney general of New York State, Eric Schneiderman, on their investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions. What is the significance of this cooperation?

Elizabeth Holtzman: Mueller is sending a strong signal to people who are subjects or targets of the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The message is that the president can’t exonerate you just by a pardon, because the president’s power to pardon is limited to federal offenses. It does not cover state offenses. What Mueller is saying is, “Yes, Mr. Manafort, maybe President Trump will pardon you, but that’s not going to get you off the hook, because you can be prosecuted under state laws.”

JW: The feds can prosecute some crimes that state attorney generals can’t, of course—starting with crimes committed outside the State of New York. What else can Mueller investigate that New York State Attorney General Schneiderman cannot investigate?

EH: Mueller can investigate the firing of FBI Director James Comey, for example. That was a firing of a federal official, and an obstruction of justice. potentially. That’s something that Eric Schneiderman wouldn’t have the jurisdiction to investigate. On the other hand, it may be that Eric Schneiderman’s investigations into financial activities by Mr. Manafort could lay the basis for prosecution of Mr. Manafort on state charges, and that might be sufficient to get Mr. Manafort to talk to Mueller’s team about what he knows about the Trump campaign, Trump himself, and collusion with Russia. Even if the state charges, assuming there’s a basis for them, don’t relate to any federal offense, they could become a basis for putting pressure on Trump campaign officials to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities.

JW: Trump’s lawyers have filed papers arguing that the president has the authority to hire and fire, and therefore, it could not be an obstruction of justice for Trump to fire Comey. You’re a former prosecutor, could that be correct?

EH: Trump’s intent is going to be critical in that matter. An obstruction of justice requires a corrupt intent, and if the purpose of the firing is to stop an investigation, then that corrupt intent may well exist and that may be a basis for the prosecution. In addition, and this is very important, even though the president may have the full authority to hire and fire anybody, if he’s doing it for the purpose of obstructing an investigation, that becomes an impeachable offense. Remember, one of the grounds for the impeachment of Richard Nixon, the vote for impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee, was Nixon’s firing—or causing the firing—of the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was closing in on him and wanted White House tapes that could reveal whether Nixon himself was involved in the coverup. So yes, Mr. Nixon may have had full authority, constitutional authority, for that firing—I’m not conceding that, but let’s even assume he did; just note that that firing was nevertheless a basis for the vote for impeachment.

JW: You were a key member of the House Judiciary Committee when it drafted articles of impeachment against Nixon. The articles of Impeachment covered obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of congress. Do you have any advice or wisdom to offer to our current House Judiciary Committee?

EH: The House Judiciary Committee has a major responsibility to protect the country from the destruction of its democratic and constitutional system. The framers of the constitution created an impeachment process to protect our democracy. And that’s really what’s at stake now, when a president takes the law into his own hands and puts himself above the rule of law. We cannot have a president decide who is going to investigate him and whether or not he’s committed a crime. There is a rule of law, whether you’re president of the United States, or a beggar on the streets, there’s a rule of law that applies to everyone equally. The minute we abandon that, we’re on the way to dictatorship, fascism, and loss of our basic freedoms.

With Nixon, in the end the House Judiciary Committee voted articles of impeachment not because Congress said, “We’ve got to remove the president,” but because the American people said, “Enough’s enough. We’re not a Banana Republic, and the president can’t decide who’s going to prosecute him, and the president is not above the law.” That’s what forced Congress to act. You have to have egregious acts by a president. We have some very egregious acts here. And you have to have the American people saying, “This is not tolerable in a democracy.” The minute you have those two things, the House Judiciary Committee needs to act.

JW: What to you are the most important elements that could lead to impeachable offenses Trump has committed? Obviously, firing Comey looks like an obstruction of justice; beyond that, what’s at the top of your list of the most significant things that Trump has done to endanger our democracy?

EH: One example: misleading the American people about the nature of his son’s meeting with the Russians. Also, all the attacks on Attorney General Sessions: Were those attacks designed to get Sessions to resign and allow Trump to appoint a new attorney general who could remove Mueller? We don’t know that, but that needs to be looked at, because that could be grounds for a possible obstruction of justice charge in an impeachment. And the attacks on Mueller himself: Trump saying that the Russia investigation is a hoax, it’s fake news. This flies in the face of reality and is an attempt to undermine the investigation, which is not what a president should be doing. Mr. Trump is treading on very dangerous grounds by emulating Richard Nixon.

[Athos_131]

Republican attempt to deflect Trump-Russia probes could backfire: sources

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Which charities have canceled galas at Mar-a-Lago Club? How much money is at stake? Catch up on the story with our Q&A.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin requested government jet for European honeymoon

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Exclusive: Rice told House investigators why she unmasked senior Trump officials

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Taxpayers billed $1,092 for an official’s two-night stay at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club

#Resist

[Lois]

If Mar-a-Lago is a member's only club, when non-members stay at Trump's invitation it should be on Trump's dime.  Likewise I am offended that Trump is charging the taxpayers for his own stays at Mar-a-Lago and his other properties.  It's like being paid to live in your own home.

[Athos_131]

May Complained to Trump About His London Attack Tweets, Official Says

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Still no charity money from leftover Trump inaugural funds

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee raised an unprecedented $107 million for a ceremony that officials promised would be “workmanlike,” and the committee pledged to give leftover funds to charity. Nearly eight months later, the group has helped pay for redecorating at the White House and the vice president’s residence in Washington.

But nothing has yet gone to charity.

What is left from the massive fundraising is a mystery, clouded by messy and, at times, budget-busting management of a private fund that requires little public disclosure. The Associated Press spoke with eight people — vendors, donors and Trump associates — involved in planning and political fundraising for the celebration, an event that provides an early look at the new president’s management style and priorities. The people described a chaotic process marked by last-minute decisions, staffing turnover and little financial oversight.

Among the head-scratching line-items was the pre-inaugural Lincoln Memorial concert, which came with a $25 million price tag, according to four of the people. The price dwarfs a similar event staged eight years earlier for Obama’s first inauguration. One person familiar with the committee’s thinking said the $25 million included broadcasting costs and other events, complicating an apples-to-apples comparison with past inaugural concert expenses.

Other people familiar with the committee’s activities before and after the inauguration said its efforts were hobbled by a shortage of staff with relevant experience.

Tom Barrack, chairman of the private Presidential Inaugural Committee, and other former committee officials said the inauguration was a great success but declined to answer detailed questions from AP about how money was spent. Barrack said that keeping the books closed was no different from any past inauguration.

In a recent statement, Barrack said the committee’s donations to charity “surely will exceed any previous inauguration,” but will have to wait until the end of November, when he said the committee will publicly disclose details about its finances.

Barrack told the AP in June that “a full and clean external audit has been conducted and completed” of the inaugural committee’s finances, though the committee would not share a copy with AP or say who performed it.

Two Trump associates familiar with efforts to sort out the financing said they were unaware of a completed third-party audit. Three people said the delay in doling out leftover money comes amid ongoing confusion about how much is left after the Jan. 20 celebration.

The people spoke only on condition of anonymity in order to reveal details about private conversations.

Leaders of previous inaugurations expressed surprise at the slow timeline. They say they had a general handle on their finances — and had already started giving money away — within three months of Inauguration Day, though formally closing down the committees took many months longer.

“The thing about inaugural expenses, they’re not complicated,” said Steve Kerrigan, head of President Barack Obama’s 2013 inaugural committee. “You take money in, you pay it out, and then you know what you’re left with when it’s done.”

Because inauguration funds are private money, there are few limits on how leftover money can be used. Previous administrations have used it to supplement budgets for work on the White House residence or events like the annual Easter Egg Roll.

Stephanie Grisham, a spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump, confirmed Trump has continued the practice of using some leftover inauguration funds for renovations to the White House and Naval Observatory, home of the vice president. She declined to disclose the amounts spent on those projects.

Trump has a history of making bold charitable promises — with slow follow through.

In January 2016, he held a high-profile fundraiser for veterans’ causes, but it took him four months — and pressure from the media — to follow through on his pledge to donate $1 million of his own money. During the campaign, Trump’s longtime personal foundation came under fire for its use of other people’s money to fund his charitable pledge.

Trump’s inaugural committee was aggressive in its fundraising.

While both Obama and President George W. Bush both limited the size of individual and corporate donations. Trump’s committee allowed unlimited individual donations and corporate donations of up to $1 million. The group took $5 million from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, and millions more from business giants including Boeing, AT&T and Reynolds American.

The committee’s total haul of $107 million was nearly twice that of Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

“Our ability to raise more private funding than any inaugural committee before is a tribute to the generosity of the American people and their excitement to “make America great again,” Barrack told the AP in a statement this month.

Even as Trump’s inaugural committee ramped up fundraising, however, its planning goals remained modest. On Dec. 29, spokesman Boris Epshteyn told Breitbart News the planners would avoid pomp and circumstance.

“This is not a coronation,” he said, noting Trump would have only three inaugural balls — unlike the eight to 14 at the inaugurations of Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama.

But the spending got out of hand, according to vendors and others involved with the planning.

“They blew out their budgets on so many things,” said one person in the events industry who requested anonymity in order to preserve professional relationships.

The committee got a late start, according to people in the events industry and Trump associates. That guaranteed the work would be rushed and done at higher cost.

A second major problem, according to people involved in the work, was that the committee failed to hire employees with past inauguration planning experience. Among the lead figures overseeing inaugural events, these people said, was Stephanie Wiston Wolkoff, a longtime friend of Melania Trump and high-end events planner in New York. Wolkoff referred questions from the AP to Barrack and the inaugural committee.

A final factor in the events’ high costs, said people who worked on the inauguration, was planners’ relentless focus on ensuring TV quality production for nearly every detail — even ones that were unlikely to be televised. Broadcasting is “what threw the budgets out the window,” said one person who worked on the inauguration.

Perhaps nowhere did the spending mount as quickly as for Trump’s “Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration.”

The opening concert featuring Toby Keith and Three Doors Down was broadly similar to concerts put on for Obama in 2009 and Bush in 2005 — except for the cost and size.

Bush’s inaugural committee spent $2.5 million on its concert on the National Mall. Obama’s concert had 10,000 ticketed seats — twice the size of Trump’s — and cost less than $5 million, said Kerrigan, and was produced at a high enough level that HBO paid for the rights to telecast it.

“I couldn’t tell you how we possibly could have spent $25 million on a concert,” said Kerrigan.

Greg Jenkins, the executive director of Bush’s second inauguration, reviewed the Bush committee’s budget to see how much it had spent on an opening event and concert. He said he’d received a clear directive from the president-elect: “Don’t raise a lot more than you need. Don’t go crazy.”

“President Trump’s inaugural committee was an unparalleled success,” Alex Stroman, a former spokesman for the inaugural committee, wrote to the AP in June, saying it would be irresponsible to rely on “uninformed anonymous sources” for information about the inaugural committee’s finances.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

As of August 1, Obama during the same period of his first year played golf 11 times.

Trump played 21 times.

The blowhard just likes his fake news.

#Resist

[_priapism]

As of August 1, Obama during the same period of his first year played golf 11 times.

Trump played 21 times.

The blowhard just likes his fake news.

#Resist

Donald Trump visited the golf course for the 61st time as President

He's spent 32.5%, roughly one third, of his presidency at Trump properties.

[Lois]

And charged taxpayers for it too.

[Katiebee]

Doesn't that meet the criteria for corruption?

[staci]

Doesn't that meet the criteria for corruption?

It does for approx. 75% of the populace.  He has backed himself up with spineless lemmings and shyster lawyers.

[Lois]

Yup!

And he's got the nerve to demand an apology for being called a white supremacist on ESPN. Maybe when he apologizes for saying Obama was not born in the USA he might be due an apology, but not until then.