Reince Priebus Out as Chief of Staff

Reince Priebus is out as Donald Trump's Chief of Staff. John Kelly, currently the head of Homeland Security, will replace him.

Donald Trump seems to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. He and his inexperienced family members, masquerading as policy makers, are the problem, not his underlings.

Every thing he does is a fail.

< Media Coverage of Republican Health Care Fail | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Another general in charge. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 06:52:28 PM EST
    Tr*mp seems to long for a military government.

    John Harwood (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 07:02:17 PM EST
    is reporting that now total and complete war is going to break out between congress and Trump.

    Not surprised (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 07:33:55 PM EST
    Norm Ornstein (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 08:14:19 PM EST
    and David Jolly just said pretty the same.  That the Trump right was going to go after Ryan and McConnell as failed rinos and blaming everything on them.

    So I think that will pretty much do it for what ever tiny dreams for any legislation for the foreseeable future.

    Works for me!


    Apparently (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    the rumors about Bannon going were just that because blaming McConnell and Ryan and calling them rinos is right out of bannon's playbook.

    They were saying (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 09:21:15 PM EST
    Just the opposite.  Not mentioning him personally but saying all Trump has left is to surround himself with his "crew".  I doubt Bannon goes anywhere.  

    Then again who knows.


    I don't think Kelly is going to be (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    Able to stand Bannon

    i would think (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    Mooch would be just as much of a problem

    As (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    far as I can tell, Mooch remains outside the chain of command and still reports directly to tRump. IMO Mooch is the primary worm tongue to him for now.

    I'm not sure Priebus had any control over Bannon, Kushner, Miller, Gorka or any other sycophant that was able to grab tRump's ear with their particular brand of snake oil.

    Historically one of the most important jobs of the CoS is to regulate and screen the people who get through to the president. So far this WH has not been structured that way, with Priebus being expected to play nanny to the players rather their boss. I don't think tRump
    ever will let anyone get between him and his current favorite toadies.

    In a way, by hiring a general to  knock some heads is a throw back to him being sent to Military School by his dad. Kelley will still not be the boss of these people, merely a stricter headmaster coming down on this animal house.


    I agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    Probably not (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    Salty talk, emasculating others who aren't only testosterone based, and self fellation references are fine until you get in trouble for it.

    I can't imagine what sort of chief of staff (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 07:33:08 PM EST
    Kelly will make.

    Who will become the new Homeland (none / 0) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    Security Secretary? Lot of law enforcement power in that department. Kelly is anti-immmigrant, but there are other who could be so much worse. One name I heard tossed around today was Kris Kobach. That is a frightening thought.

    As of today, the acting DHS Secretary ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 08:48:11 PM EST
    ... is likely to be Elaine C. Duke, who is the current No. 2 in the department, having been confirmed and swron in on April 10 of this year. As far as I can tell is a career civil servant, with over 30 years' experience in the federal government. She previously served at DHS as Under Secretary for Management for President Obama, a position she held from 2008-2010.

    All told, Ms. Duke has a sterling resume, and appears to be exactly the sort of person who'd be passed over by Trump for the permanent position of Homeland Security Secretary, in favor of some d*ck-swinging right-wing No. 2 for brains. We'll have to see what happens.



    This is what one of our new friends at DHS said (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 08:51:28 PM EST
    He didn't even know his boss had changed out until my husband texted him asking who would be taking over.

    How would that confirmation go? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 07:44:27 PM EST
    Generally (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    getting rid of Preibus and replacing him with Kelly is seen as nothing short of a disaster for the white house. Kelly has zero political instincts and there's no way he's going to be able to handle Trump. The only thing I can figure is I guess since he considers himself "going to war" with congress he wants a general to help him do it. Trump does not have the sense to recognize the difference between a political war and a military operation I guess.

    More total chaos in Washington. My head hurts. I guess the good news is the GOP agenda is dead and the GOP has finally given up on their fantasy of controlling Trump and letting him be there as long as he signs their stuff.

    Kelly is in over his head IMO (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 09:52:10 PM EST
    But good luck telling a Marine general that. Obama ended up with a very loyal staff but he earned that loyalty. In my experience almost every general believes they earned referent power. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge that most of the power they experience is coercive power. They believe they onboarded people through respect but it was fear, and they don't know the difference or even read people and be able to tell the difference.

    Kelly has been able to use coercive power at DHS, but coercive power as White House Chief of Staff? Understanding the nuance of politics when coercive power works poorly? I am not seeing it


    Generals probably see every group as (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 07:27:32 AM EST
    an army, so we may eventually be seeing war with the staff.  Sure, he can fire those who won't obey, but to those looking from the outside, it's not going to look like a place where they want to work. It may end up as a "company" of true believers, but that won't mean they're competent.

    Besides, we all know the real problem isn't communication, it's Trump.

    Have to say, I am filled with dread at how this president and those around him will handle the inevitable crisis...


    There were morale issues being (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    Reported at DHS. And Kelly's response was more righteous indignation and the beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Kelly is known for tamping down on leaks coming out of Gitmo. That is IMO the only reason he has been made CofS. So the White House is going into Gitmo mode.

    A White House and those it governs isn't a war enterprise.

    I am not filled with dread about how they will handle a crisis as in they are going to empower Trump to nuke someone. I just have a knowing that this isn't going to work well.

    Kelly doesn't know it, but he has signed up for real hell now. At least McMaster saw that he was destroying himself and he stepped off the podium in defending Trump. He just shows up for work every day in his little group. Kelly has to manage this guy.

    I have learned that all these military brains are wired different from say most at Talkleft. They aren't bad people, they are just different, they protect the tribe, they usually can't interpret poetry or artwork well. They are very good at perceiving some kinds of threat.

    They can all pat themselves on the back and giggle about how they managed to serve and survive the guy in mom jeans, but they've convinced themselves that guy was a little crazy. They don't understand that no...Trump is what crazy looks like. And they don't understand that Reagan wore mom jeans too. They don't understand that Reagan and Obama and Clinton are the three things that belong together and are kinda the same. Yes, these are the kids that had a hard time in kindergarten.

    McMaster learned the HARD WAY, this basta is NUTS! Kelly thinks he can handle this guy. He can't. They will show up to work everyday though. They will hide from cameras, they will not approach podiums, just like how they all eventually made it out of Fallujah.


    Boston Globe, not a fan (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    of "unhinged" Kelly.

    And that's a lifer Marine mentality (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    He probably thinks McMaster is a little weak too...Army you know :)?

    The generals who did have the chops to serve this administration stayed far away. Did not take Trump jobs, were not willing to stroke him. He made them nauseous. We are left mostly with the generals who lack enough common sense to not ride this hurricane and are willing to stroke it.

    Mattis stays as far away as he can safely get.

    It has almost always taken a sound President to hold firmly onto the pitbulls. We no longer have a sound President and the pitbulls are not used to self control. They prefer a President who tells them no, then in the cloak room they whine about the mom jeans running things. Poor pittbulls. This President needs them to police him. It's not going to work well. Kelly grew into a man getting slapped down and then whining about tight reins. A functional President is always responsible for the failure of the general.


    im opposed to (none / 0) (#38)
    by linea on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    the entire structure of militarais as maintaining a vestage of an archaic social structure with the peasants as 'enlisted' and the high-born as 'officers' and a clear demarcation between the two. that's wrong. also, the most senior officers use their positions to live like modern versions of british officers in colonial india - they use soldiers as personal servants and personal cooks and to pour wine during dinner like a scene from game of thrones. all that needs to end.

    That clear demarcation between the classes (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 08:14:33 PM EST
    Isn't as prevalent as it used to be. And you can't be a millionaire and be active duty in the US military. For example, if my husband obtained enough wealth that he could pay for the destruction of a helicopter he would be removed from service because the military believes that the hardship of paying for negligent destruction of equipment prevents "joy riding". If it wouldn't be a hardship for you they neither want you or trust you.

    And you can enlist, go to school while also working, have the military usually cover most of your tuition, and once you've obtained a bachelors degree you can transition to a commissioned officer. There are plenty of serving who come in enlisted and stay enlisted even though they have a parent who has obtained senior commissioned officer rank too. Just depends on what they are happy doing for a job.

    We have a general in our family. He came right our of West Virginia poverty. Is it harder that way? Sure, probably. But the military playing field has become much more level.

    People who do well in the military don't usually have a very flexible mindset and they aren't empaths when they are young. Some do develop those skills though as they age. I would not consider Mr Kelly to be cut of that cloth though.


    As someone who grew up (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jul 30, 2017 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    on military bases overseas and whose father rose through the ranks from enlisted to commissioned officer, I can say you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

    i also want to say (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by linea on Sun Jul 30, 2017 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    militarytracy responded with a nice reply, i 5-star'd her post, and i had no inclination to elaborate.

    but because i do not apreciate your "you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about" comment, i'll add these additional notes on the issue:

    A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million -- per general. That's not even including their own salaries -- which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation -- and the free housing, which has been described as "palatial."

    The Washington Post has an interesting article today about the lifestyles of the rich and famous within the upper ranks of the US military.  For those who don't follow this world, it's an eye-opening story....
    Flashy motorcades? Check. Personal chefs? Check. Yard workers? Check. Personal valet? Check. Private jets? Check.

    You have to realize (none / 0) (#49)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:30:09 AM EST
    that the place the "top generals and admirals" work and live (the Pentagon and northern VA/DC) and where and how the rest of the military (my first hand experience is with the Navy) are two different worlds. In the fleet, on board most sea-going vessels, the highest ranking officer is a commander or captain. A ship's skipper works hard and has the lives of their entire crew in their hands. They are no pampered, high-livin', high falutin' (sp?) officers with motorcades and personal chefs. There are way more of them, than top Admirals. A shore duty base is often commanded by no higher than a Captain (eqv. to full-bird Col.). The CO is generally provided with on-base housing, but then so are lot of his men. Granted, the size of the digs will vary by rank, but there have to be divisions amongst ranks. That's how you maintain discipline. Non-fraternization is not only a tradition, but is necessary for good order and discipline. Like it or not, but military command structure is not a democracy.

    The command structure in a corporation (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    factory or a convenience store chain also isn't anything like a democracy.

    Hence the invention of labor unions.


    I hope you are not advocating (none / 0) (#51)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    for unionization of the enlisted ranks of the military. I am pro-union. But that is not a workable way to run a military. You have to have discipline and command.

    I wasn't, but come to think of it.. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    First things first though.

    We have trouble enough getting the talk-radio-educated yahoos here to accept teachers and factory workers being unionized.


    Coincidentally (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    I'm currently reading The World As I See It by Einstein, and came across this quote just the other day:

    "This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his outsized brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilisation ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how I hate them!"


    i never (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 11:50:30 PM EST
    I hope you are not advocating for unionization of the enlisted ranks of the military. I am pro-union. But that i s not a workable way to run a military. You have to have discipline and command.

    i never thought of this. but yes, unionization would be wonderful in the current peasant v. royal structure.

    but i was actually thinking of a flat structure where all 'leaders' rose from the lower ranks. maybe the military could be 'privates' and 'corporals' and 'sargeants" with no officers.


    but (none / 0) (#57)
    by linea on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    there have to be divisions amongst ranks. That's how you maintain discipline

    i dont agree this needs to be.


    i have my opinion (none / 0) (#44)
    by linea on Sun Jul 30, 2017 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    on the military caste system (broadly, across the militarais of most nations) and im opposed to it and feel it should be reformed. i am simply more liberal and reform-minded on this issue than you are.

    a quick google search showes that this is an issue that others have also noted:


    The military restricts nearly all operational leadership positions to the 18 percent of service members who begin their career as commissioned officers. Service members can only begin their careers as officers if they receive a seat at one of the three military academies or have already completed college. The enlisted ranks make up the other four-fifths of the force. That's four-fifths of the force who cannot become operational leaders, no matter how educated or experienced they may become. The only opportunity to lead is to join the bottom of the officer ranks and restart at the entry level again with 22-year-old peers. Even this opportunity is rare, with former enlisted officers making up only 1.5 percent of the force. The caste system rewards those with better access to education over individuals who must begin working after high school, limits leadership to a small aristocracy, and weakens the force by promoting tradition and privilege over talent and experience.

    The current system is discriminatory: it reinforces structural inequalities in American society and results in the exclusion of minorities from military command. If you are unable to enroll in a service academy or a college with a military program directly out of high school, then it is unlikely that you will have an opportunity to become an officer and therefore an operational leader. This structural exclusion has made the population of commissioned officers significantly whiter than the overall American population and than the enlisted ranks. In 2014, only 9 percent of active duty officers were black or African American. By comparison, 18 percent of the enlisted service members were black or African American.

    One article does not a complete argument make (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 06:33:38 AM EST
    And this article is in my opinion not very well researched. The military itself seeks to remedy the lack of diversity in the officer ranks, at least Obama's military did. My spouse took part in deliberately recruiting enlisted minority individuals into the officer ranks. It hasn't been the military preventing minorities from joining the officer corp, it has been the difficulty that a marginalized person has in grasping that their society would really train them to be a pilot. It's a lack of believing themselves worthy that starts in childhood in this country.

    As for Captains and Lieutenants outranking  a Master Sargeant, this article fails to clarify how this lead us to our difficulties in Iraq in Afghanistan. No case studies. Everyone military affiliated knows that Captains and Lieutenants are short on knowledge and experience, but if Master Sargeants commanded them would we have been victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan? How exactly would that victory have been different from what we ended up with?


    It would (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:00:14 AM EST
    seem to me that anyone who thinks rank has anything to do with anything that happened in the middle east has not a clue about the military. I would think a Master Sergeant would be carrying out the same orders that any other officer would.

    I'm interested in hearing (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    Actual study of the issue.

    But not open to simple numbers reflection and then biased extrapolations.


    50 years ago, my father wrote an article ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    ... for the Marine Corps Gazette, in which he argued that the competent line officer should always seriously heed the considered advice of his ranking junior officers and noncoms. But at the end of the day, it's still the officer's call and if things go awry, it's the officer who takes the heat and if necessary, the fall.

    In Terrence Malick's 1998 magnum opus about the Battle of Guadalcanal, "The Thin Red Line," an ambitious Lt. Col. Gordon Tall (Nick Nolte) orders two of his company commanders, Capt. James Staros (Elias Kotras) and Capt. John Gaff (John Cusack), to take a heavily fortified Japanese bunker on top of a ridgeline by frontal assault, regardless of the cost to their units.

    Given the already heavy losses incurred by his own men up to that point, Stavros refuses to budge from his position midway up the hill, considering Tall's order to be akin to suicide. This apparent insubordination prompts the angry and impatient Tall to move forward to Stavros's position and reconnoiter the situation for himself. Satisfied that he's right and his company commander had failed him, he re-orders the assault and accompanies the company himself.

    Ironically, while Capt. Stavros's concern for the welfare of the men under his command was indeed heartfelt and genuine, his repeated hesitancy under fire at the moment of decision and his unwillingness to carry out his orders had instead left those men dangerously exposed to flanking Japanese machine gun and artillery fire.

    And as heartless and demented as Lt. Col. Tall sounded throughout the film as he berated his company commanders, his decision to order those companies to move forward and take that ridgeline was the correct one, and likely saved more lives than it lost. A few days after the conclusion of the action, a much more composed and sympathetic Tall sat down with Capt. Stavros and relieved him of company command, urging the trained attorney to seek reassignment to JAG, where his skills would be put to much better use.



    There are moments when young officers (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    Make poor choices and you can point to unnecessary deaths being on their shoulders. There are moments when old gnarly martyring Sargeant Majors argue to get everyone killed in the name of sacrifice to the nation. There are no angels on the battlefield and sometimes experience has led to numbness.

    this is a very good point (none / 0) (#59)
    by linea on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:13:53 AM EST
    There are moments when old gnarly martyring Sargeant Majors argue to get everyone killed in the name of sacrifice to the nation.

    i expect there are times when a young graduate from the army-academy steeped (i used the word here to mean, 'surround or filled with a quality') in theoretical martial arts may certainly make a combat decision that is a better choice than the Sargeant Major at his right hand.

    but that's not my point. a Sargeant Major (or something) should BE the 'officer' or 'leader' and should move up from the ranks and receive the 'theoretical martial arts' training herself. i feel the entire command structure is a remnant from the middle ages and needs to be reformed.

    also, i just now read an article on the UCMJ and that needs to go. that whole thing is ridiculous. citizens are citizens; not persons in indentured servitude.

    this is my opinion!

    i can have a different opinion.


    I don't understand this response at all (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:39:55 AM EST
    What do you mean by martial arts?

    red wine, sorry!! (none / 0) (#61)
    by linea on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 10:14:05 PM EST
    that was really bad!!

    i was thinking 'martial' as in 'martial training and stategy' to mean 'associated with war and the armed forces' (like 'martial music') but i wrote it in a way that made it sound like the competitive sports of karate and ju-jitsu.

    my original idea wasnt very thought over. after thinking about it, the command-structure model that i think would better describe my thoughts would be large police forces. per an internet search, the new york police department has 35,000 police officers. that's huge. im not an expert on the nypd, but clearly they do not need 'drumhead courts' and oppressive command structures to function effectively nor do they need a separate archaic body of laws and punishments. i believe modern democracies can have all-volunteer armies (like police departments) and abandon the 'napoleonic' command structure and separate legal system of punishment.

    no, i really dont have this very worked-out in my head. but i do believe serious reform is needed. in my opinion.


    I think comparing police departments (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 07, 2017 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    with the military is a mistake. It's a huge mistake made by police. They like to consider themselves a military like organization. But I think that is one of the roots of the problems of police violence towards the citizenry. If they believe they are 'at war' with the people they supposed to serve and protect, we are all doomed to unfettered police violence. Rules for police are different than soldiers and sailors (as they should be). In fact, I think military members are held to higher standards and tougher rules and sanctions than police. If police want to act like military, they should be held to the same higher standards and be held accountable to the degree that a solider is.

    Yup, a soldier targets and shoots a child (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 07, 2017 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    That turns out to be unarmed...that soldier is probably going to Leavenworth.

    I cannot say that the military command structure (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 06:54:51 AM EST
    Is as oppressive as you imagine it is. NCOs are always consulted in mission planning unless you have a dysfunctional commander. Commissioned officers are schooled from the cradle now to consult with their experts and NCOs are considered experts in certain areas.

    Enlisted aren't always under someone's thumb either. A clear for instance here is take SEAL team 6. Mostly enlisted. They are as much a part of mission planning as their commanders. They will also devise plan B, plan C, plan D before they even preform an operation. Once an operation is underway their command is committed to giving them no commands unless it's absolutely necessary because they must be focused on the mission and staying alive, not what "the boss" thinks. They may receive a command calling the operation off and they immediately fall back and are extracted, but that's about it.


    Probably using (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 07:12:33 AM EST
    coercive power is going to do nothing but make more people in the white house quit. One thing is for sure it is going to do nothing for the Trump or the GOP agenda.

    More quitting, more leaks (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    Here's some sheer speculation (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:16:20 PM EST
    If Congress has finally turned against Trump and is serious about putting the brakes on Russia/US coziness, will Russia "meddle" some more and let some serious smoking gun type leaks out to "help" us get rid of Trump? (Have they already?)

    They threw our people out (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:52:31 PM EST
    A bit of tit for tat. I think in their minds Trump is better than almost anyone else. Certainly better than that holding Putin accountable evil hawkish witch Clinton.

    I'm certain they believe Trump still has a few more moves left in him. Once he's obviously spent, they will expose him and/or cut him off if replacing him works in their favor. Would having a Pence presidency take some focus off them? How deep is Pence in Russian collusion? The oligarchs need to launder their ill got gains. I haven't dug into the new legislation yet. Too focused on the healthcare crisis that McConnell and Ryan keep throwing my son in front of. And we don't know how much the oligarchs have been bailing Trump and Jared out. I suspect they've been bailing them out like hell.


    Personally (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    I think if Trump is able to stop the leaks it is going to be a bad thing because the leaks are more or less letting the public know what is going on with regards to Russia and a lot of other stuff. Can you imagine if there are no leaks and Mueller drops an atomic bomb on the white house what is going to happen? I'm not sure the Trumpers wouldn't be marching up to DC with their guns and start shooting.

    So I hope you are right and leaking gets worse.


    It's going to be Big Leaks (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    Book writing leaks.

    It's been petty leaks so far as the jockeys keep fighting for position. Trump isn't running a race though. He has no real goals or vision outside of self aggrandizement.


    General Kelly seems to (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    have the political instincts that count in this WH. At DHS he picked up on Trump's anti-immigrant crusade with fervor.  Moreover, Kelly is likely to have those good right-wing qualities that will endear him to the Republicans.  He may have all the success of General Haig, if he pulls the "I'm in charge here" bit.

     The next step is a replacement for Kelly at DHS. There is scuttlebutt that Trump would like to put Sessions over at DHS and move on his plan for DOJ.  But, that has hit a brick wall, so far.


    Putting Sessions (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 11:05:58 AM EST
    over at DHS would be way too obvious. Everybody would see that since he apparently cannot get his way with firing Sessions that getting him out of the way at DHS would be the next best thing for Trump and then Trump would attempt to put a toady in as AG. At this point though I'm not even sure there would be enough Republicans that would vote for replacement for Sessions. Might just have to leave the position open.

    I was a child during the Nixon administration (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 11:03:02 AM EST
    Was Haig a success, or did he just enable a President to get so close to the sun that he burnt himself?

    I admit to not reading much other than the bullet points of the Nixon administration. It seems like it was such a painful time for the nation that a person is allowed to get away with that too.

    I know much more about Kennedy, LBJ, and their administrations. It's almost as if being knowledgeable about Nixon is discouraged. Because nobody wants to really remember well what happened and why.


    General Haig (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    was Secretary of State when John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan. He, wrongly, asserted in quivering voice, that he was in charge, since VP Daddy Bush was in Texas at the time.  Haig was Chief of Staff during the final days of the Nixon Administration, and he was credited by some, as keeping it together as everything can tumbling down.

    I wouldn't want the country upended (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    If Trump goes down for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is something to be said for that. I don't think that Kelly is a Haig though in that you will see him in Republican leadership roles in other administrations. Too much is known now about agencies and administrations in this age. The one dimensional development and vision of our military leaders leads to few who can govern in the civilian government and their failings are easily known and exposed now. Clarks and Hertlings are few.

    Apparentely, Priebus... (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 28, 2017 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    Not surprising (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 07:13:21 AM EST
    I would feel sorry for Priebus if he hadn't enabled this BS for a long time and told lie after lie about Hillary.

    The guy walked into that clusterf*ck last November with his eyes wide open. If he had any self-respect, he would've quit much earlier than he did, rather than continue to be subjected to such personal abuse, all the while enabling the appalling incompetence we've all watched unfold inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    The profane terms by which incoming Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci described Priebus in Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article were certainly cringeworthy. The fact that Trump did nothing to rebuke Tony the Mooch was enough writing on the wall for Priebus to finally take a hint and tender his resignation.

    So, there's no reason to feel sorry for Priebus. Undoubtedly, his Republican friends in Washington will take care of him with a very decent if not overly lucrative gig. Operatives and functionaries like him -- on both sides of the aisle -- Have long been a dime a dozen inside the Beltway, and they always somehow land on their feet eventually.



    I think those who came into the West Wing (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    from the establishment sector are/were like the spouses or children of alcoholics, who believe that if they can make everything "just so," it will keep the alcoholic either on the wagon, or stable enough that they can pretend that everything is okay.

    As the establishment folks are being cleared out, I'd look for things to get worse, not better, because Scaramucci is going to be the guy who tells them all to "relax...one drink won't hurt," just before Trump goes on a political bender.

    I read/heard - maybe it was John Harwood - who said Trump's been asking Kelly to take the job since May, and up to now, Kelly has declined.  Don't know what possessed him to say "yes" now, but I can't imagine he'll last too long.  

    Maybe everyone thinks they are the one who can finally bring order to the chaos, but anyone who grew up in a dysfunctional household knows that is a fool's errand.  The person at the root of the chaos likes it that way, and all that happens when people try to bring order to it is that it escalates the chaos exponentially.

    Not only is he mentally unfit for office, but there is no one who will be able to do anything about it.


    ... we get the government we truly deserve. And quite frankly, we've nonchalantly taken our country's relative political stability for granted for far too long.

    We've been so overly focused on perceived future threats to our national security from outside our borders, we failed to account for the much greater and very real threat that already existed within -- our own political complacency.

    Given the recklessly detached and irresponsible manner with which far too many of our fellow citizens have treated our nation's politics at almost every level of government, it's not at all a stretch to suggest that the United States likely deserved the national comeuppance which we're now finally receiving, highlighted as it is by the rank incompetence of a GOP-led Congress and equally dysfunctional Trump administration.

    Let's hope that if and when we finally climb out from the bottom of this self-detonated political bomb crater, we will have learned a very hard lesson and further, we will take great pains to instill that lesson in our own children and grandchildren.



    Yes, I don't think (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 29, 2017 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    there is anyone who can do anything about the problem, called Trump. Kelly seems to be a toady, or as Trump calls him, "a star."  At a recent Coast Guard ceremony, when Trump was presented with a ceremonial sword, Kelly turned to Trump as he sat down and said, "use that on the press, sir."

    Any Surprises in This Map? (none / 0) (#43)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jul 30, 2017 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    Link  The fascinating question is where the lightening of the deep green will begin.                                                                                    

    According (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 30, 2017 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    to Gallup he's down to 43% in GA. So even those lighter green colors don't tell the whole story.