Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[drogulus]

MCCONNELL: This is full-bore socialism on the march from the House.

Nothing he's mentioned so far is socialism.

     No, I think he's right. Voting is socialist, democracy is socialist. Not all statists are democrats but all democrats are statists.

     Mitch hates socialism because it leads to democracy, or the other way, either way. Whatever, he's connected the right dots.

[SimonNZ]

Hope Hicks refuses to answer questions about Trump White House, lawmakers say

"Hope Hick, a former aide to President Donald Trump, refused to answer questions Wednesday about her time working in the White House as she testified behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee, lawmakers said.

Hicks, 30, testified before the panel for about seven hours. A transcript of the session was expected to be released within 48 hours.

Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, a member of the panel and of Democratic leadership, told reporters Wednesday as the hearing continued that Hicks was not answering questions about working in the White House, which he said was preventing Congress from doing its oversight work.

"She has answered some, and mostly she is hiding behind the facetious claim of complete immunity about anything to do with her service in the White House," he said.

"The president's lawyers are directing her not to answer any questions even as we are recounting stuff she told to the special counsel," Cicilline added. "This will be the beginning of what I presume will be litigation."

Heading into his office amid Hicks's testimony in the afternoon, Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told reporters his committee could "destroy" the White House doctrine of absolute immunity in court, but said he hadn't decided yet if they will make Hicks the "test case."

"Hope Hicks answered some questions. She gave us a lot of good information. The White House asserted so-called absolute immunity, which is ridiculous and which we'll destroy in court," he said.

From inside the hearing room earlier in the day, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., another member of the committee, tweeted: "I am watching Obstruction of Justice in action, as @TheJusticeDept is objecting to everything that Hope Hicks wants to say during her tenure in the White House. The Administration's position is absurd & they will lose in court. What is the @realDonaldTrump Administration hiding?""

[SimonNZ]

Trump administration threatens furloughs, layoffs if Congress doesn't let it kill personnel agency

"The Trump administration is threatening to furlough — and possibly lay off — 150 employees at the federal personnel agency if Congress blocks its plan to eliminate the department.

The Office of Personnel Management is preparing to send the career employees home without pay starting on Oct. 1, according to an internal briefing document obtained by The Washington Post. The employees could formally be laid off after 30 days, administration officials confirmed.

The warning of staff cuts is the administration's most dramatic move yet in an escalating jujitsu between Trump officials and Congress over the fate of the agency that manages the civilian federal workforce of 2.1 million.

Even as House Democrats and some Republicans signal that Congress is not going to break up the 5,565-employee department, the administration is moving forward in defiance. Trump appointees paint a dire picture of a corner of the government in financial free fall and failing to carry out its mission. They want a commitment from Congress by June 30 to agree to disband the agency — or they say they'll be forced to trim staff.
[...]

The proposed breakup would pull apart OPM and divide it among three other departments.

Most of its functions would move into the General Services Administration, the government's real estate and procurement arm. OPM's backlogged security clearance system already is shifting to the Defense Department, through legislation previously passed by Congress.

OPM's leadership would shift from an agency director to a Senate-confirmed deputy in the GSA and a position within the White House budget office responsible for federal workforce policy that the president would appoint.

The plan to dismantle the agency was the brainchild of a senior career official at the budget office. Weichert, a private-sector executive focused on improving business operations before she joined the Trump administration, has committed to it with a vengeance.

She's told her staff that she is "planning to play chicken with Congress," according to three officials familiar with the comments.

Critics say she is deliberately starving the agency in order to kill it.

"This is not a proposal that says, 'How do we prop up OPM so it carries out its mission?' " said Jeffrey Neal, former personnel chief at the Department of Homeland Security and now a senior vice president at ICF, a consulting firm. "It's more like pushing it over the edge so it fails."

Dozens of employees have quit or retired in recent months amid the uncertainty.

The administration has been laying the groundwork for more than a year to kill the department and merge its functions, and it has asked Congress to approve the transfer.

But the bold plan, the first time in modern history that a large federal department would disappear, has no buy-in from Democrats on Capitol Hill and their allies in the labor movement, who are smarting from more than two years of confrontation with President Trump's get-tough, anti-union policies.

"After realizing they were not going to prevail on the merits of the proposal," Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee's panel on government operations, said in an email, "the Trump Administration is taking 150 federal employees hostage unless we consent to a plan that has no rationale and is nothing more than a political gambit to give the White House control of our long-standing merit-based civil service system."
[...]

But House Democrats are moving quickly to block Weichert. The House Appropriations Committee passed legislation last week that would forbid the administration from spending any money to "reorganize or transfer any function" from OPM or enter into any agreements to shift work currently done by the agency. The legislation also provides $43 million for the next fiscal year to make up for lost revenue from the security clearances.

That legislation has yet to clear Congress."

[SimonNZ]

Trump's UN pick under fire for spending 300 days away from current post

"The Trump administration's nominee to be the next US envoy to the United Nations has come under congressional scrutiny for absenteeism after spending more than half her time as ambassador to Canada away from her post.

Kelly Craft was asked why she spent more than 300 days outside Canada since she took the position in Ottawa in October 2017. In one two-month period between March and May in 2018, Craft was absent from her post 45 out of 54 days, according to Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee.

"I find this staggering amount of time away from her post very troubling and an abdication of leadership," he said.

Craft insisted that all her trips were taken according to state department regulations and argued much of the time was spent negotiating a trade deal with Canada and Mexico in Washington.

However, an investigation by Politico showed that a private jet registered to Craft's husband, a US coal magnate, and used by the ambassador, made 128 flights between the US and Canada during a 15-month span of her tenure in Ottawa.

Seventy of those trip started or ended in Lexington, Kentucky, Craft's home state. Some of those visits coincided with events there, including the Kentucky Derby and an interview at a basketball stadium named after her husband.

Menendez said that there were discrepancies in her account and suggested some of her social media posts suggested she was away from post at times not officially recorded. But he said that the committee could not make a judgment without a full report from the state department."

[Karl Henning]

Trump's UN pick under fire for spending 300 days away from current post

"The Trump administration's nominee to be the next US envoy to the United Nations has come under congressional scrutiny for absenteeism after spending more than half her time as ambassador to Canada away from her post.

Kelly Craft was asked why she spent more than 300 days outside Canada since she took the position in Ottawa in October 2017. In one two-month period between March and May in 2018, Craft was absent from her post 45 out of 54 days, according to Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee.

"I find this staggering amount of time away from her post very troubling and an abdication of leadership," he said.

Craft insisted that all her trips were taken according to state department regulations and argued much of the time was spent negotiating a trade deal with Canada and Mexico in Washington.

However, an investigation by Politico showed that a private jet registered to Craft's husband, a US coal magnate, and used by the ambassador, made 128 flights between the US and Canada during a 15-month span of her tenure in Ottawa.

Seventy of those trip started or ended in Lexington, Kentucky, Craft's home state. Some of those visits coincided with events there, including the Kentucky Derby and an interview at a basketball stadium named after her husband.

Menendez said that there were discrepancies in her account and suggested some of her social media posts suggested she was away from post at times not officially recorded. But he said that the committee could not make a judgment without a full report from the state department."

Right up Trump's street.

[BasilValentine]

Right up Trump's street.

As is another cabinet secretary, Elaine Chao (transportation), using her office to enrich herself and her family. The most corrupt administration in history.

[drogulus]

     The truth about Chernobyl? I saw it with my own eyes...

Even as radiation spewed out of the plant from the burning reactor core, local people told John and me how they had seen Communist apparatchiks in the area spirit their families to safety in Moscow while the residents were being urged to carry on as if nothing had happened.

    What would Trump have said about "such fine reactors"? Would the radiation be good for us, something not to be prejudiced about?

    The thing is, why would Trump not lie about a nuclear crisis when he lies about everything? If he opens a crevice in the "Fake News" propaganda to allow that news of a catastrophe isn't fake, what then? When all the Foxists have to watch real news on CNN and monitor what the Times and wire services report because they need to know what's true, what then then?

    For an administration founded on lies from before it took power, telling the truth is not an easy option. The administration doesn't even know how much truth they've denied with their lies. Who would be in charge of keeping track?

[SimonNZ]

The Atlantic:

The White House Is Nowhere Near Ready for Impeachment

"Trump's advisers believe that impeachment is inevitable: Though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent weeks rebuffing House Democrats who want to open proceedings, the party's base will force her to eventually relent, they reckon.

Yet Trump's White House seems wholly unprepared for the legal and political whirlwind that could be coming its way. Inside the building, there are no signs that aides are girding for a fight. There's no war room in place, and no meetings under way to prepare for the possibility. The in-house lawyer who was most steeped in the nuances of the Russia investigation, Emmet Flood, recently left. One of the only people stewing over impeachment may be the president himself—even as his reelection-minded advisers want him focused on anything else.

Impeachment troubles the president's team on several levels. For one, it would divert Trump from the core economic message that Republican operatives want him to deliver as his reelection bid intensifies. If cable news is covering it, Trump will be watching, tweeting, and talking about it. What's more, some of the president's outside advisers worry that a motivated corps of Democratic investigators, armed with subpoena power, might unearth disturbing new material. In his nearly two-year-long probe, Special Counsel Robert Mueller stayed within a distinct set of guardrails: sticking to contacts between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign and possible obstruction of justice on Trump's part. A Democratic-led impeachment probe could be more wide-ranging, venturing into private business dealings that Trump deems off-limits.
[...]

Impeachment is nothing Trump wants, in any event, people close to him say, believing that even a failed attempt would be an indelible stain. "I don't think any reasonable person wants to be impeached," said Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana in an interview. But if it is that serious a concern for the president, he hasn't mobilized his White House to counter the possibility with any gusto. (One White House official said it'd be a mistake to draw conclusions from the lack of proactive planning. It's more a sign of chronic disorganization in the West Wing than anything else, said this person, who like others I talked to for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk more freely about internal dynamics.)

Should the Democrats open impeachment proceedings, Republicans insist they won't be flat-footed. They would try to undermine the case by flagging what they see as hypocritical behavior on the part of Democratic lawmakers leading the fight. One Trump campaign adviser cited House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who according to a recent Politico report has tried to persuade Pelosi that impeachment is necessary."

[drogulus]

     Impeachment won't fail. Trump won't have a response to the charges that will be brought on obstruction. If he had a response he could prevent impeachment by refuting Mueller.

     Mueller unmistakably made an impeachment referral wrapped in a report to the AG. No wonder Barr is pissed. He's been outflanked and all he could do is offer his pathetic exoneration. He beshitted his reputation for a MAGA hat?

[SimonNZ]

The New York Times Asked the Democratic Presidential Candidates the Same 18 Questions. Here Are the Boldest Answers.

"On Wednesday, the New York Times published a collection of interviews with 22 of the 23 Democratic presidential candidates (Joe Biden declined to participate). Each candidate was asked the same 18 questions, and while most of their answers simply restated previous positions or avoided any real substance, some ventured away from boring politician speak and offered new or at least interesting answers.

Here is our pick for the boldest answer to each question.[...]


Biden cites old southern segregationist senators as examples of civility


Biden Is Now Demanding That Cory Booker Apologize for Saying That Segregation Was Bad

[SimonNZ]

The 'Wife Guys' of the 2020 presidential race

"When asked recently to name his personal hero, Beto O'Rourke responded with "my wife" — and he probably thought he'd nailed it. A noncontroversial answer, endearingly personal, good for the women's vote. Plus, since O'Rourke got in hot water this spring for shirking his parenting responsibilities while pursuing higher office (his spouse, Amy, raises the kids "sometimes with my help," he clumsily said), here was a chance to show how much he appreciated her, and he also cited his kids and parents.

Former congressman John Delaney must have had a similar thought process, because he, too, told the New York Times that his wife was his hero when he answered the same questionnaire, which was distributed to all Democratic presidential candidates. And so did Seth Moulton. And so did Jay Inslee. And so did Steve Bullock.

All of them: "Personal hero: My wife."

No names. No description of who she is or why he finds her heroic, just my wife. (In videos that accompany the text, some candidates do elaborate on their admiration.)

If you've knocked around the Internet enough recently, you might have stumbled on a "Wife Guy," one of the many savvy gentlemen whose personal brand is defined and propelled by his heart-on-sleeve proclamations of love for his wife. Behold how much he loves her curves, as evidenced by his many Instagram posts about loving her curves. Behold how he helps with housework, and then publicly announces he has helped with housework. Behold all of his wifely love, and then behold him, loving her.

There's a refreshing element to this: Who doesn't like seeing spouses love each other? There's also an element that is, eeeugh, just a little bit much. Does anyone really need so much credit for upholding basic marriage vows?

At any rate. Who knew the Democratic primaries would turn into a bunch of Wife Guys, trying to stand out in field packed with female candidates by assuring everyone that they, too, support women. Or, one woman, at least. Wife!
It would be mean-spirited to poke at these men who surely do admire their wives. But all the responses, en masse, start to make you think.

Being a candidate's spouse can be a thankless job, defined by either holding down the fort at home or vamping as the warm-up act on the trail. It's a supporting, subservient role. It's a role defined by putting your own plans on hold: Michelle Obama had a thing or two to say about this in her 2018 memoir, and Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi, once recalled her young daughter warning her that Cruz's campaign was "a bad deal for you."

No female candidates who completed the questionnaire named their husbands as their heroes, by the way. (And Pete Buttigieg did not mention his husband.) Make of that what you will. What I make of it is that the women worried that doing so would make them look too retro and potentially weak — which is a whole other column. The men, however, hoped that wife-adoration would help package them as sensitive feminists.

Did it? I don't know! I keep thinking of this scene in "The Wife," in which Glenn Close begs her novelist husband, who is about to accept his latest big literary prize, not to thank her, as he usually does, for being so supportive. It doesn't elevate her, she insists. It panders to her and to his audience. It only reinforces the perception that she's the laundry-doing helpmate and he's the benevolent genius.

A candidate declaring that his wife is his hero has the unintended consequence of making it look like the person he admires most is the person who makes his own life easier, by handling the drudgery that his important dream requires.

A candidate insisting that his wife is more heroic than him has the unintended consequence of making one wonder why he never suggested that she should be on the ticket instead.
[...]

As a matter of fact, not a single male candidate — not Bernie Sanders, not Julián Castro, not Pete Buttigieg — mentioned a single female political hero. Some female candidates did: They mentioned Shirley Chisholm and Harriet Tubman. But none of the male candidates had anything to say about women they admired for their leadership, intelligence or political acumen."

[JBS]

Trump's UN pick under fire for spending 300 days away from current post

"The Trump administration's nominee to be the next US envoy to the United Nations has come under congressional scrutiny for absenteeism after spending more than half her time as ambassador to Canada away from her post.

Kelly Craft was asked why she spent more than 300 days outside Canada since she took the position in Ottawa in October 2017. In one two-month period between March and May in 2018, Craft was absent from her post 45 out of 54 days, according to Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee.

"I find this staggering amount of time away from her post very troubling and an abdication of leadership," he said.

Craft insisted that all her trips were taken according to state department regulations and argued much of the time was spent negotiating a trade deal with Canada and Mexico in Washington.

However, an investigation by Politico showed that a private jet registered to Craft's husband, a US coal magnate, and used by the ambassador, made 128 flights between the US and Canada during a 15-month span of her tenure in Ottawa.

Seventy of those trip started or ended in Lexington, Kentucky, Craft's home state. Some of those visits coincided with events there, including the Kentucky Derby and an interview at a basketball stadium named after her husband.

Menendez said that there were discrepancies in her account and suggested some of her social media posts suggested she was away from post at times not officially recorded. But he said that the committee could not make a judgment without a full report from the state department."

Given the caliber of Trump appointees, perhaps we should want them to stay away from their jobs.

[JBS]

     Impeachment won't fail. Trump won't have a response to the charges that will be brought on obstruction. If he had a response he could prevent impeachment by refuting Mueller.

     Mueller unmistakably made an impeachment referral wrapped in a report to the AG. No wonder Barr is pissed. He's been outflanked and all he could do is offer his pathetic exoneration. He beshitted his reputation for a MAGA hat?

Trump has no need to respond to the charges. He has the GOP Senate caucus.

[drogulus]

Trump has no need to respond to the charges. He has the GOP Senate caucus.

     The Senate can remove an impeached President, they can't unimpeach him by not removing him. In the eyes of the country the disease has spread to them, they are accomplices.

[drogulus]

     Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back

As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president's top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.

Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.

[amw]

Some news from the Pacific Northwest:



What exactly has provoked Oregon's Republican state senators to flee across state lines and recruit the assistance of the Oregon III%ers (which at least according to people I know of from Portland Antifa consists of approximately 20 middle aged men, weighing an average of 300 lbs, who have never taken a shower in their life)? A climate change bill, apparently. Republicans continue to be the party of not doing anything about climate change in the hope that it kills off all the poor people first, I guess. But I definitely believe State Sen. Boquist will follow through on his threat to shoot any Oregon state trooper he comes across—I mean look at him:



Truly the face of a modern-day John Brown.

[drogulus]

     A new study showed one of the Trump administration's biggest healthcare changes failed at its main goal

Thousands of working-age adults in Arkansas lost their Medicaid coverage as a result of new work requirements that failed to boost employment, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

     By what strange logic is it determined that an increase in employment is a main goal?

     Why isn't it the main goal the same as the main effect, to cut people off from health care?

     Yes, this is another instance where the cruelty is the point. 

     

[Karl Henning]

"He beshitted his reputation for a MAGA hat?"

He's joined a long line.

[Karl Henning]

Trump has no need to respond to the charges. He has the GOP Senate caucus.

Rem acu tetigisti

[SimonNZ]

though done in Wonkette's irreverent style, this is a good long overview of the Hope Hicks non-testimony:

Hope Hicks Can't Answer That, But Holy Crap, The Stuff She DID Answer! A Liveblog!

"The transcript from Hope Hicks's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee is out, and golly, it seems like a fun time was had by all. In a statement accompanying the release, Chairman Jerry Nadler notes that Hicks refused to answer 155 questions in total, because the White House is claiming that Hicks has "absolute immunity" from testifying as to anything that occurred while she worked at the White House. ANYTHING. You will see how ridiculous that is in a moment.

However, despite her refusal to answer all those questions, she definitely answered some stuff! Like, for instance, she said she thinks Trump was pretty serious recently when he announced his intention to commit election crimes in 2020 by taking dirt from foreign adversaries. She also dropped some VERY CURIOUS knowledge about the pee tape! Aren't you excited that the pee tape simply will not go away? Because it's probably real?

Nadler notes that Hicks brought SIX lawyers with her: two private lawyers, three White House lawyers, and a ... Department of Justice lawyer? We guess Bill Barr had to have his guy in the room, in order that he may be the best cover-up artist he can possibly be for Donald Trump. Nadler called the stable of lawyers a "traveling law firm."

Hicks's SIX LAWYERS repeatedly asserted that she had "absolute immunity," and Nadler is here to assert early and often that he is confident their claims will be absolutely destroyed in court. From his statement:

The Trump Administration's claim of "absolute immunity" has no basis in law. The courts have already decided that "absolute immunity" is "entirely unsupported by existing case law" and "virtually foreclosed" by the Supreme Court.
He notes that they haven't invoked executive privilege, because even those idiots know all this stuff is in the publicly released, redacted Mueller Report. Can't invoke executive privilege over stuff that's already out there!

Shall we read this dang thing together, and laugh at it, and learn stuff about the pee tape, which is apparently not covered under "absolute immunity"? Yes!"[...]