Scaramucci: Don't Let the Door Hit You....

Anthony Scaramucci is out as Trump's Communications Director. He lasted 9 days. Reports are it was at the best of the newly installed John Kelly.

The New York Times reports Page 6 is having a field day with the reports that his wife filed for divorce and gave birth to their second child just last week while he was in D.C.

They ought to install revolving doors at the White House.

Over at Yahoo News, Robert Reich has a column, Donald Trump: The Biggest Loser. [More...]

Donald Trump has never been committed to the rule of law. For him, it’s all about winning. If he can’t win through established democratic processes, he’ll mobilize his base to change them.

Everything he does is intended to shore up his marginalized, under-informed base. He cares about no one but himself and his children (and that's being generous.) He wants to be able to claim to be a winner, but he is perceived by me and millions of others as the biggest loser of a human being to ever have a desk in the oval office.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Donald Trump Condones Police Misconduct >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bring back Spicer! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    I miss him.

    Yes, and so does (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    Melissa McCarthy.  But, he may still be in the WH somewhere behind some bushes ready to report for duty.  

    In fairness to The Mooch, he was quite effective. In less than ten days, he got Spicey fired, Reince fired, and he was able to "resign" to pursue other interests.  Too bad Putin, or whomever, did not appreciate his work; if he could have stayed another half-day, he would have been able to can Bannon. Although, he was not so good at getting all those WH leakers, as promised, since his departure was determined by the NYTimes based on leaks.


    The Mooch (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    hiring was, reportedly, cheered by Jared and Ivanka. Another good recommendation after their apparent cheering for the firing Comey.  Hopefully, now Jared can get back to his areas of real expertise such as solving MIddle East problems and Ivanka can focus on women's issues, such as her new shoe line.

    Wonder what (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    will happen if Kelly tells Trump he has to fire Jared? I mean seriously both Jared and Ivanka need to be sent back to NY never to be seen from again. Still won't solve the biggest problem which is Trump himself.

    Reports that Bannon and Kelly are allied (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    Right now.

    How repulsive

    The mooch was vulgar. Bannon is also an embodiment of vulgar.


    Repulsive is (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    putting it mild. That is the worst possible news you could get out of this whole episode that Bannon has become more powerful.

    Bahahaha, John Kelly was very upset (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    At the disrepectful way Comey was fired and then promptly fired Anthony Scaramucci in an almost identical ridiculing don't let the door hit you in the arse kinda way. Situational ethics :)

    This is definitely not The Mooch's best week. (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    First the wife divorces him, now he loses his job.  He's going to have to go and Bannon himself.

    And we find out that Trump dictated Jr's (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    Response to the discovery of the first Russia meeting. Then tweeted that his son was authentic and honest mouthing daddy's words. We discover that daddy's advisors advised honesty about the meeting and daddy chose to ignore that.

    What a using abusive parent Trump is!

    Is this really why Priebus is gone? Because he advised honesty? Trump really did use the Mooch to whack Priebus and then used Kelly to whack the Mooch?

    Mr. Kelly, what are you going to do now? If you were upset about the Comey firing and contemplated resigning then, I expect your resignation in the morning.

    What? (none / 0) (#10)
    by leap on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    You expect a Republican to be honorable and consistent? Sheesh.

    Kelly must resign now (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:27:36 PM EST
    Trump is using him for cover. McMaster is still active duty and the National Security Advisor. Kelly is a civilian, he has been chosen this exact moment to give Trump cover. Resign now or go down in infamy.

    Yeah, Kelly turned down (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    the job previously and I wonder why on earth he decided to take it now. Anyway, you are right. Now apparently the people who were there when Trump was writing his lies are afraid they are now going to be implicated in obstruction of justice or something when this all goes down.

    However you were right about there being MORE leaking.


    More leaking because there are (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    more people pulling knives out of their backs and looking to provide a little "what goes around comes around."

    Trump just has no idea how things work in DC - he must still think the WH is just the newest Trump Organization franchise.

    I have no idea how this presidency makes it a full year.


    I really couldn't imagine getting rid of (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:03 PM EST
    Trump quickly.

    I hoped, but hope doesn't always get us there.

    My God though, this is terrible. Kelly must resign or he ends up destroying the nation's belief and the underlings in the military belief about all this honesty and integrity they are supposed to be able to expect out of military leaders.


    Even those of us looking at this (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    goat rodeo from the outside know that Donald Trump is a hollow, weak man whose concept of "truth" is "whatever helps me win;" what does it say about Kelly that he can't or couldn't see this?  What does it say if he did know, and stuck around anyway?

    I had my doubts about Kelly when he defended Michael Flynn and tried to trivialize it.  My doubts have only grown since.

    I don't see this ending well for Kelly, but I don't feel sorry for him in any way.


    I don't feel sorry for Kelly either (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:34:59 PM EST
    If he had a Twitter account I would Tweet to him the ethics and values he's sworn to uphold. He's pretty hard to contact unlike anyone in the Trump family or even the Mooch. I suppose that will enable him to more easily lie to himself.

    Well, every (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:31:35 PM EST
    month it's like can this last yet another month and it does. We have to rely on the GOP to do something and relying on them is a fool's errand. Maybe they are waiting on Mueller and we don't know how long that can take.

    ... the least of the collateral damage inflicted upon our country will be that the rest of us will have aged at least five.

    Because he was granted the highest rank (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    He is expected to live out the Marine Corp values and ethics for the rest of his life:

    Honor This is the bedrock of our character. It is the quality that empowers Marines to exemplify the ultimate in ethical and moral behavior: to never lie, cheat, or steal; to abide by an uncompromising code of integrity; to respect human dignity; and to have respect and concern for each other. It represents the maturity, dedication, trust, and dependability that commit Marines to act responsibly, be accountable for their actions, fulfill their obligations, and hold others accountable for their actions.

    Courage The heart of our Core Values, courage is the mental, moral, and physical strength ingrained in Marines that sees them through the challenges of combat and the mastery of fear, and to do what is right, to adhere to a higher standard of personal conduct, to lead by example, and to make tough decisions under stress and pressure. It is the inner strength that enables a Marine to take that extra step.

    Commitment This is the spirit of determination and dedication within members of a force of arms that leads to professionalism and mastery of the art of war. It promotes the highest order of discipline for unit and self and is the ingredient that instills dedication to Corps and country 24 hours a day, pride, concern for others, and an unrelenting determination to achieve a standard of excellence in every endeavor. Commitment is the value that establishes the Marine as the warrior and citizen others strive to emulate.

    The extra step he needs to courageously take is the one where he does not enable lies and treason. It is the step out the door. It is to end the protection of an unethical liar.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:11 PM EST
    if he doesn't resign it is going to make us all think there is something seriously wrong in the military and maybe there is. I really don't know the culture like you do.

    Yes, and most senior military (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    Would be very concerned about that

    I guess he would (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:06:09 PM EST
    never take their concern into consideration due to the fact that he would have never taken the job with Trump if he actually cared about what the brass thought.

    It's only been one day. (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    Let's hope it truly is honor and commitment that's driving him. It won't take long to see which way it's going to come down. In my opinion, it will be a duel to the finish. Either Trump conforms to Kelly's way, or, horribly, Kelly goes all-in Trump corrupt.

    That would be the worst result possible.

    Don't forget, its been all Washington D.C. political intrigues up till now that's been getting all the air time.

    But, more importantly, Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un are doing some pretty dangerous public nuclear sabre rattling daily. Trump is threatening to "handle it." N.K's "Un" is responding in kind. The lunatic Trump is also publicly humiliating China's leadership for not doing "nearly enough." And, guess who are drawing closer together as a result? Russia & China, yup, President Vladimir Putin & President Xi Jinping, new best buds.

    It's times like these when you've got to decide who's who. China & Russia probably feel a whole lot safer being friends now that we've got a loose cannon in Washington.

    I believe General Kelly understands the geopolitical danger a whole lot better than Trump. The question is, does he push Trump towards peace, or, as some of the neocons wet dreams hunger for.....War.....now, before it's too late? (meaning before Russia & China get stronger)

    Serious stuff.


    People I'm around (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:37:10 AM EST
    Saying the reason China won't defang North Korea is because of our South Korea footprint. If they remove Kim both Russia and China share a border heavily protected by the US because either South Korea overtakes North Korea or China moves down to the DMZ. So no buffer state anymore.

    Do Your Experts (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    discuss the pros and cons of unification of North and South Korea with the US then getting its troops off the peninsula entirely?  Does it even come up in discussions between the US, China and Russia?

    My husband was with 2ID in Uijeongbu (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    2 yrs ago. Our mission in Korea has greatly changed. South Korea is now projected to win a fight with North Korea because they have manditory service and training for all its citizens and each community has an armory where the weapons are stored. If something kicked off, everyone reports to the armory and collects their weapons they are all trained to use. Our mission in South Korea is now only to secure any nuclear weapons North Korea may have when it falls.

    South Korea also eats while North Korea starves. The South Koreans are now taller, more physically fit, and better armed.

    The South Korean military would mostly like for us to leave. My husband says if we could get Japan to agree we could probably pull our forces back to Japan but still remain near enough to discourage China from arguing with South Korea. He says the most important thing is that Kim falls and his nuclear ambitions are halted and seccured.


    Yup, I saw on the T.V. (none / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    the other night some pretty big demonstrations taking place in South Korea. They were demonstrating for the U.S. to "get out." Some of the demonstrators were saying the only reason there's now a real possibility of nuclear war is because of the U.S. policy of "War First," Diplomacy later."

    They were grateful for our support/protection 50-60 years ago, but, would prefer a diplomatic solution now, which they believe is attainable.


    My husband says they are ready for us to leave (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    They have taken back portions of bases. They have to, they are land locked. They need their property. My husband was involved in negotiating for UAV landing strips from Air Force held properties. Already a fight there between Army and Air Force, but then the South Korean military would become agitated listening to the Americans argue over their land so they'd approach the subject of "So when do you think you can both leave?"

    South Koreans are taller, etc. (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    The Korean-Americans here are pretty tall.  I have met more than a few that are 6 feet or so.

    My Dad served in Korea during the original war and then again on the DMZ in the late 1960s.  He was convinced the North Koreans, more than the Soviets or the Chinese, were our most committed adversaries.  

     When I was doing some research on the requirements for a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge), I read that in addition to standard conventional combat for those with an infantry or Special Forces MOS, five firefights in the Korean DMZ would qualify iirc.  As if firefights in the DMZ were something that occurred fairly frequently.  My Dad got in one brief one in the late 1960s.  Apparently it is like the old Berlin Wall.


    Wildlife conservationists (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    Would like the DMZ preserved even after the fall of the North. The two Koreas are responsible for feeding and housing dense population, particularly South Korea. The DMZ is a sort of untouched space where types of flora and fauna extinct elsewhere now in the Koreas still lives and thrives.

    Like Camp Pendleton (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    It is the only undeveloped coastline in Southern California south of Ventura.

    Funny how preparing for potential devastating  destruction has preserved a lot of land.


    My spouse spent a lot of time in Korea (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:35:17 PM EST
    He loves the people, he loves the food. Career managers send everyone to Korea when they are trying to force numbers at the top out. That was just giving my husband something he wanted to do.

    It has changed a lot since 1989. In 1989 and in 1993 he was on the DMZ and they were still shooting across it. I don't think they are now. Kim knows he's doomed now. It's just the clock ticking down now.

    The only way he can exert influence or power now is through the use of a nuke.


    Pops (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    was serving in a battalion on the DMZ that had baby nukes in 1966 or so.  His favorite story was that he had among his responsibilities a platoon (squad?) of guard dogs to patrol their perimeter.  He loved the dogs.  My parents got a big St. Bernard when I was a kid that became my big brother.

    I was researching the CIB requirements for my Dad because, before he retired, he only had one row of fruit salad.  But he was qualified for more.  He has since applied for and received Korean service ribbons.  But he always said he was never in combat.  But over time I have learned he has been in firefights, etc. He was on TDY to Vietnam for a few weeks and was ambushed outside of Ton San Nuht airbase.  He halted his column of jeeps etc. and led everyone to get cover.  His driver was hit and bleeding pretty bad.  So, Pops saved a soldier's life while under fire.  But no fruit salad.  He doesn't care. He said the kid was pretty scared, and the odd thing about the whole incident is that they had dinner at a fancy restaurant in Saigon later that day.  But it bothers me.  He deserved  more credit for what he did.

    My great uncle was a sergeant with an armored division under Patton during the Battle of the Bulge.  He had received a purple heart but no other medals.  I did some research and learned that all combat units in Europe automatically qualified for a Bronze Star--I think Ike or Bradley did that.  I told my uncle about it and he applied and received his Bronze Star in his 80s.

    I see this cowardly charlatan cheeto, and his childish and deceitful bragging, and then look at my dad who would never try to suggest he ever faced combat (but he did) or take credit for something he did not do, and my blood boils.  Pops is in his late 80s now, and fading from Parkinson's related dementia.  I am going to get him some more fruit salad.  I would love to get him a CIB.  I have told my dad about this and he thinks it is mildly amusing foolishness.  For him, combat means a year on the line, not an isolated firefight or two.  But that generally qualifies, and it could have gotten him killed.


    im the last person to applaud (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    a first strike.  that said, if there is anyone and any place where one could be done with little condemnation from the world, its Kim.

    THAT said, if i was Kim, with this psycho president desperate to change the subject, i would most definitely STFU and behave.

    sadly i do not expect that.  i will be surprised if there is not some action there in the not to distant future.


    I am not so sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    he is as cuckoo as people say.  His actions look rational--an attempt to boost his country's standing and deter action by the U.S. or South Korea against him.  No real crazy actions with his military against foreign powers.

    So, if that is true, we could live with MAD with him as we did with the Soviets.  Or, it really would not be MAD because a nuke or two would not totally wipe us out.

    But LA looks to be in range.  For the first time in decades I have wondered what to do in the event of a nuclear hit.  Should we hug the coast, and hope the radioactive fallout flows inland?


    they are sying now (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    Chicago and possible even the east coast is in range.


    like i said.  duck and cover Kimmy.


    Lindsey (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    "There is a military option to destroy North Korea's (missile) program and North Korea itself," Graham said on NBC's "Today" show. "If there's going to be a war to stop them, it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there, they're not going to die here and (President Donald Trump) told me that to my face."
    He continued: "I'm saying (military options are) inevitable if North Korea continues."

    That would mean (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 07:37:55 PM EST
    hundreds of thousands in Korea, including U.S. soldiers, would die.

    Now tell me (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    You have any confidence TRump would not do that just to change the subject.

    Clearly he's got Lindsey onboard.  No doubt he would have plenty of others.

    Like Lindsey said,  'they would be dying "over there"'


    I really think (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 07:49:57 PM EST
    The ICBM thing changes everything.  We just went to the next level.

    Never mind the fact they can't guide it and it's  not clear it would even reenter the atmosphere.  

    They now have the excuse they need.


    I hope I'm wrong (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 07:50:40 PM EST

    At this point (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    I choose to be in complete denial....

    The mountain in Uijeongbu has become (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 07:18:09 AM EST
    A Cheyenne Mtn in South Korea. The command and likely many US forces that would secure nuke materials after the fall would be locked in the mountain and conduct the fight from there. Only problem is, if North Korea wins, when do you get out of the mountain?

    Hardship tour? (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    You guys stayed stateside?

    We do (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    This last tour though we should have gone over. South Korea is so advanced now.

    My grandmother left me a small sum in 2001 and I took the kids over for the summer, but my husband said I wouldn't recognize it now. Seoul was already very metropolitan but I guess it all is now.


    I would guess not (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    You forgot the largest participant in your hypothetical ... North Korea.  No doubt Kim Jong Un would be happy to become dictator/ "Dear Leader" of a unified Korea, but that's the only way such a unification happens while he's in power.

    Diplomatic Talent Certainly Needed (none / 0) (#38)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    But it is hard for me to believe that Kim could resist if China, Russia and the US all thought they would be better off with him gone and replaced with a unified Korea without foreign troops and missiles.    

    You seem to be completely (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    unaware of the degree of brain washing that takes place in North Korea. As well as the cult of personality that exists there for Dear Leader. Just replacing Kim won't accomplish much.

    South Korea is prepared as much as they can (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    For it. They have therapists and counselors already trained to help North Koreans attempt the transition. The closer to the DMZ, the better a North Korean's chance of survival.

    If the dictatorship collapses, the food supply is so limited millions will begin starving immediately. South Korea has prepared as much as they can for that and we have as well. It could be our last big mission on the peninsula, trying to prevent the deaths of millions of starving and terrified. The projected death toll is still pretty horrific though.


    I should really study more (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    regarding diplomatic possibilities which have been suggested to the U.S. by other "players" in the area. I hesitate to say much more because of my skimpy knowledge on this subject, but, I do recall reading (and, being rather surprised) that there are diplomatic steps that can/should be taken before automatically assuming only a military option is available. The diplomatic suggestions, if I recall correctly, came from some very solid regional countries, and, it seemed to me they had a much deeper, and, more comprehensive understanding of what makes No. Korea "tick" than it being just the backward, dirt poor, militaristic entity (run by a lunatic dictator) that our media informs us of. In other words, North Korea is more complex, and, possibly more open to varied solutions than simply, "Nuke'm.")

    But, I guess, since our military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc. turned out so successfully diplomacy will just have to wait a while longer.

    Yeah, I know, sarcasm sucks.


    Sarcasm aside, do we have any idea (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    how prepared the State Department and the diplomatic corps are to conduct even rudimentary diplomacy - has there even been a Tillerson sighting anytime recently?

    And let's say - just for the crazy fun of it - that there are diplomatic efforts on numerous fronts: do we have any confidence that Dear Leader won't somehow get wind of it and start poking people in the eye?

    How do we avoid war when our State Department seems to be MIA?


    All great questions, Anne. (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    But, please note my opening sentence above:

    "I should really study more regarding diplomatic possibilities which have been suggested to the U.S. by other "players" in the area."

    My point was to find out if more options exist regarding the "North Korean Problem" than, simply, the military one. It seems to be the only one available, that is, if you get your information only from our Media, and/or our Government.

    What I do remember from my brief reading a while ago is that other countries are much more hopeful that a diplomatic solution exists than, apparently, the U.S. does. There were offers from
    North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, that I didn't know even existed.

    The point is, Kim may be more complex (and, maybe more reasonable) than we've been led to believe.

    Like I said, I'm going to study up on this problem, specifically looking for potential, realistic, non-military solutions.

    I will report back when I've got something tangible to say.


    They were under Obama (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    In fact Obama started all that planning. Where is it now? I don't know, but we made those plans in conjunction with South Korea. Just because we're now effing imbeciles doesn't mean South Korea is now too.

    There is no such talent (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    ... in this administration.  The State Department is barely functioning.  Even if it was, it is hard for me to believe that Kim Jong Un walks away simply because that's what Russia, China and the US want, even IF we were firmly in agreement - particularly now that he has nuclear weapons and ICBMs.

    No one in the Trumpire (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lora on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    No one in the Trumpire does what they should or follow any established rules of decorum or even law.

    It's the Wild West.


    Where did (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    "we find out" this?

    Google "don trump jr statement" and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    see what "you" can find...

    While it is true that each reader of TL (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:22:08 PM EST
    could go Googling to check out each and every post of interest, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone posting something s/he finds interesting (which implies that s/he thinks it will also be of interest to others) could also mention the source where the info was obtained, if not actually providing a link.

    Peter, I think there's a high level of (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 06:56:50 AM EST
    sourcing here, for the most part, which means we don't usually have to do a whole lot of poking around to find where info came from.

    On the somewhat-rare occasion when information doesn't carry a link, I don't think it's terribly burdensome for people to use the time it would take to post a comment asking for the source to just go and find it themselves.


    I read it first (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    From Armando on the Twitter, tonight.

    Thanks, I just read it. (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 09:53:02 PM EST
    Too lawyerly for me to figure out if it rises to legal obstruction.

    Stupid? Of course. Criminal? We'll see.


    Stupidity is not a defense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:23:40 PM EST
    to a criminal charge. As we defense lawyers are repeatedly reminded in most of our cases.

    aw, c'mon Peter (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 31, 2017 at 10:40:55 PM EST
    You know what I meant.

    A criminal act is a criminal act. Period.

    A stupid act may, or, may not be criminal.

    Isn't that what courts are for?


    In general (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 08:11:15 AM EST
    Isn't that what courts are for?

    But probably not in the case of a POTUS.  He would be judged in the court of public opinion and (if the Congress had integrity) by impeachment.


    It's a miracle! (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    I completely agree.

    it does not have to (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    be criminal to support an ostruction of justice charge.  

    The "corrupt intent" to obstruct (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    an official investigation or proceeding is what makes a statement or action criminal.

    Is there a type of intent to obstruct (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    that isn't corrupt?

    An intent to obstruct based on an innocent misunderstanding of the law?


    Not really. That's why I put (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    "corrupt intent" in quotation marks. It just means an improper attempt to influence the investigation or proceeding for the benefit of yourself or another person. "Improper" in the sense of "other than by participating in the process according to its rules."

    Trump sr. dictated (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    the first misleading/lying draft for Trump jr. Something a good father would do, says Sarah Huckabee S.   Yes, something that you would do if you were thinking of witness tampering or obstruction of justice.  

    If I was lying about where I was on the night of the murder, it would be one circumstance.  If I tell you to say, falsely, that I was at your house on the night of the murder..it would be obstruction of justice or witness tampering.


    IANAL (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 01:05:19 AM EST
    Stupid? Of course. Criminal? We'll see.

    The effort here was to obstruct justice by providing false testimony.  The president is a law enforcement officer, and here he is lying to investigators who had a legitimate right to this information.  DJTJr. lied to the FBI, that's a crime.

    Is obstruction of justice a criminal offense?  It's what brought down Nixon.


    So now we see (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 10:56:36 AM EST
    that Ivanka has named herself Co-Chief of Staff with Kelly. I wonder how this is going to work out. I'm guessing she is going to override any decisions Kelly makes that might include sending her and Jared back to NY.

    Where are you seeing that reported? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 11:36:33 AM EST
    I can't find any news that backs that up.

    I was watching (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    MSNBC this morning and they were talking about it.

    Ivanka sent a tweet: (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    "Ivanka looks forward to serving alongside John Kelly, as we work for the American people.  Gen Kelly is a true American hero."   She will be serving alongside Kelly?  

    Honestly, this seems to me like a whole (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 05:19:32 PM EST
    lot of nothing. Ivanka works (so to speak) in the White House. Gen. Kelly now works in the White House. Hence, she will be "working alongside of" him. I really don't think it meant anything other than that. It's a tweet of congratulations, for goodness sake, nothing else.

    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    It was just a tweet of congratulations

    I think it was very carefully worded to send a message.  And I think she absolutely knew it would be seen that way.


    Are you referring to her comment (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    that she was looking forward to serving alongside Kelly?

    This is going to go the way these things always go: Kelly will be fine, until he isn't.  The staff will work with Kelly until he does something that The Family can't abide, and then he will be on the Exit Express.

    Lately, I've had the feeling that sometimes Donald isn't sure if those cameras that follow him everywhere are part of the reality TV show he's starring in, or part of the media.  Yesterday, he referred to the Cabinet Room as "the boardroom," and made a kind of syntactically garbled comment that Kelly "will go down, in terms of the position of chief of staff, one of the great ever"

    I really do think he's losing a step or three...


    The Exit Express... (none / 0) (#44)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    with a one-way ticket to Palookaville!  I like it.

    I coulda' taken Wilson apart that night.. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    I was referring (none / 0) (#71)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    to Ivanka naming herself co-Chief of Staff. Did she actually say that? Or is it just an insinuation?

    I don't think she officially (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    has that title but basically from the news reports it is what she is going to be doing. They made it sound like Kelly was not going to be in full control of staff decisions and they could overrule any decisions he made.

    She sent out a tweet, (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    "Looking forward to serving alongside John Kelly as we work for the American people. General Kelly is a true American hero."

    That's the extent of Ivanka's announcement.


    P.S. (none / 0) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 01, 2017 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    She sent it out yesterday,

    12:00 PM - Jul 31, 2017


    I remember Curtis LeMay and Lemnitzer (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 11:57:22 AM EST
    simply being a 4 star general doesn't preclude one being borderline psycho.

    Cheap Shot..... (none / 0) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    Your interpretation could be applied to every human on earth. "How about that plumber that moonlighted as a serial killer?"

    I'd rather remember the hundreds of generals who worked diligently, and, effectively to save humanity from the worst despots in history...from Germany, Japan, and Italy.

    Or, more optimistically, "Innocent until proven guilty"


    Innocent.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    lets not be completely oblivious to who he's working for: someone about as principaled as the current head of the Genovese Family.

    As far as the generals who saved humanity goes, what was it Patton's men used to say about Old Blood and Guts? "His guts and our blood." The real saviors, as usual, were the one's who came back missing arms and legs and faces, or didn't come back at all. Self-important Pentagon martinets come and go.


    o.k. (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 06:51:44 PM EST
    we'll leave it that.