Donald Trump's Russia Signing Statement

Here is Donald Trump's signing statement on the Russia Sanctions bill. The meat:

....Still, the bill remains seriously flawed – particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate. Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking. By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together. The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice.

....I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.

He is such an embarrassment to America.

< DHS to "Waive Laws" for Border Wall at San Diego | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    America can't be embarrassed... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 02, 2017 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    if America is shameless.

    If I had a nickel for every time he boastiated about his great company I could buy his company.

    No argument there (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    That D. Trump is a serial boaster/liar isn't in dispute. But, I am afraid that this discussion (The whole Trump/Russia/Election imbroglio) will turn into a mirror image of last year's Hillary/Bernie mess. You, of all people, should remember that if you didn't clap your hands raw every time someone smeared Bernie with a new pejorative (Blowjobs, anyone?) you must have been a right wing fascist, racist, Anti-democratic pig, or, worse.  

    Everybody here, you, me, and everyone else has, to one degree or another, the same opinion of Donald Trump's horrible shortcomings.

    I'm only interested in the legal aspects here, things that will shape, and, survive how our country works in the future. I'm pretty sure everyone here deplored how the Republicans voted against anything/everything proposed by any of our Democratic Presidents of the past few decades, the Party of NO. And, I recall that when Democrats tried to make some similar moves against a Republican later on, some wise head reminded them that "what goes around, comes around." Meaning, what we do now can be used by them in the future.

    I mean, how many times can we say what an incompetent, uneducated, vindictive, sadistic, immoral, dangerous............idiot he is? That's been established. But, what's much more interesting to me is how we go about neutralizing (and, hopefully, removing him) And, some of the things I'm seeing are starting to bother me. Just try imagining that, in the future, when we have a Democratic President would you be as supportive then as you are now with some of the tactics being used against Trump?

    Is it possible to have a rational discussion here?


    That's interesting because (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:03:37 PM EST
    Just before I read it I was reading how Trump coul very possibly be brought down because of legal precedents set in the pursuit of Bill Clinton.

    Even more delicious, they were set by Kelly Ann Conways husband.

    Suffice it to say, Wheeler's lawyer isn't buying what the White House is selling, and on Tuesday night advised Yahoo's Isikoff that the plaintiff would be seeking to depose Trump and Spicer. If defendants cannot obtain a pre-trial dismissal of the action, Trump and Spicer remain realistic targets for deposition--because of George Conway's efforts to get justice for Paula Jones.
    In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that Jones could proceed but declined to address whether "a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place" or to expressly hold that a president could be deposed as a non-party in a civil suit. That is not the end of the story.

    Pages later, the court recalled those instances where Richard Nixon was "obligated" to produce the Watergate tapes in response to a subpoena, and when Presidents Grant, Ford, and Carter gave pre-trial testimony in criminal cases. In the aftermath the Supreme Court's decision, Clinton was ultimately deposed on film and under oath. Ridicule, impeachment, acquittal, and redemption ensued.

    Later in June, Kellyanne Conway's name surfaced in connection with Peter W. Smith, a GOP activist who sought Hillary Clinton's emails and who had committed suicide after prolonged illness. A September 2016 document provided by Smith to The Wall Street Journal listed her, among other senior campaign and White House officials.
    Coincidentally or not, Smith had partnered with George Conway more than 20 years earlier (and well before the Conways tied the knot in 2001) to get Bill Clinton.
    Some things don't change. Including presidential depositions, and possible perjury.

    Lawrence (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 09:09:00 PM EST
    was just talking about all this. He also said if you send a stupid person into the grand jury like Trump you are going to come out with a ton of indictments.

    You have to say it everytime shooter (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 06:33:25 AM EST
    Because Trump is a new normal for some folks. If you don't want a Nixonian Republican party you have to say it everytime...every day, you have to fight against it as hard as you can, or you risk a new normal that could actually destroy the fabric holding our nation together.

    And for the record (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    I not really clear on the "tactics" to which you refer.

    And also, just for the record, if there was ever a democratic president as dangerous and unstable as Trump clearly is, I can assure you I would be just as supportive of said tactics.


    Yeah, I'm not (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    sure either what tactics he is talking about. The fact that Russia colluded with Trump is very disturbing to me.

    I'm not ignoring you, Howdy (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    I gotta run now, but, I will get back to you. As one who had the ba!!s to at least re-examine whether Hillary could've run a more productive campaign I'll look forward to chatting with you.

    Later (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:42:19 PM EST
    Please (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:16:41 PM EST
    describe these things that "bother you". Are you upset about all the legitimate investigations? What unfair tactics are being used?

    Sure there is some wild stuff on the web and the media does get a little bit bombastic, but for the most part the reporting has been validated and each new revelation all points in the same direction, each new lie exposed increases the appearance of guilt.

    It's hard to have a rational discussion when your whole point seems to be quit being mean to tRump.


    A Rational Discussion (none / 0) (#45)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:32:24 PM EST
    would be best made about the structural weaknesses in the US political system that got us into the current situation.  There is so much about it that doesn't make sense to me.  Do the legislative branches have to be gridlocked unto two opposing piles?  Does this happen in countries with a parliamentary system?  How in the world did national presidential elections end up as a choice between two unattractive candidates instead of a multiplicity of reasonable possibilities, at least before a runoff?  

    We don't have (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:36:19 PM EST
    a parliamentary system which would have multiple parties. The electoral college is what is holding our political system to two parties. There is never going to be a third party in the system. The only way a third party rises is the collapse of one of the two major parties.

    I (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    think your questions are way beyond mere discussion, I suspect many hefty tomes will be written by future historians trying  to provide answers.

    My short answer would be the decades of right wing  
    propaganda casting anyone left of Dick Cheney as demonic traitors, has made it impossible for any kind of compromise.

    You still haven't told us what so "bothers" you about the treatment of tRump, instead you deflect.


    There is a theory (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    out there that things are so bad right now that it's going to blow up the political purists on both sides of the spectrum and usher in an era of working together in the best interest of the country.

    Do I get a pony? (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:41:43 PM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    Did you propose the same thing?

    No (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 08:23:53 PM EST
    I just thought if all that was going to happen surly we would all get ponies.

    On a slightly OT subject I love this story.

    A trailer.  On the sidewalk in front of Trump Tower.  Awsum.

    A dispute between the Secret Service and the Trump Organization over the agency's lease led to its Trump Tower departure, according to a report.

    The Secret Service's command post was moved from Trump Tower in Manhattan to a trailer on the sidewalk in July, The Washington Post reported, citing two people familiar with the discussions reported Thursday.

    Yeah, I think (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    that's pretty funny too. It's not like NYers have much love for Trump in the first place but that has to be making it lots worse.

    Mueller (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2017 at 06:03:01 PM EST
    Just added a new one

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former U.S. Justice Department official has become the latest lawyer to join special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, a spokesman for the team confirmed.

    Greg Andres started on Tuesday, becoming the 16th lawyer on the team, said Josh Stueve, a spokesman for the special counsel.

    Most recently a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.

    There seems (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 02, 2017 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    to be a whole lot of lawyers hired recently who know about money laundering. Hmm.

    Hmm indeed (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 02, 2017 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    Pretty soon his poll numbers are going to be lower than the number of lawyers chasing him.

    Right it's 16 to 33.  And counting


    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 02, 2017 at 08:28:52 PM EST
    Good one, Howdy!

    WSJ (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    reporting Mueller has impaneled a grand jury in Russia probe,

    Trump is losing the headline war big league (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    just reported (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    the White House is "digesting" this news.

    might be a good time to by stock in antacids


    so (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    he already had a grand jury right?  at least one in VA?

    cant be good news for Trumpland that he has impaneled one specifically for this.


    ... two grand juries, one in Virginia and another in Connecticut. However, those were likely investigating the actual mechanics of Russian hacking itself, and were not looking at the Trump-Russia connection.

    Connecticut is potentially significant in this story because the FBI's cybercrime investigation unit is based there. Spanish authorities last April 7 arrested Russian hacker Peter Yurievich Levashov in Barcelona at the behest of U.S. prosecutors, after a federal grand jury in Bridgeport had indicted him on eight felony counts.

    Levashov is alleged to have been the mastermind behind the development and distribution of the Kelihos Boxnet, a particularly virulent form of malware. Some sources -- including Levashov's own wife, Maria Levashova -- had initially alleged that he worked with Russian intelligence to hack Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and the DNC itself. But it must be noted here that federal officials have thus far specifically refused to confirm any of that.

    At the very least, though, Levashov appears to have been a criminal entrepreneur, renting out the Kelihos Boxnet for use by various criminal enterprises, which then engaged in various activities ranging from stock manipulations on Wall Street to the distribution of ransomware. The latter recently plagued the healthcare fields in the United States and Great Britain, after several major U.S. medical centers and the U.K.'s National Health Service found their computer systems had been hijacked and locked down.

    As to whether or not the list of Levashov's clients actually include Russian intelligence services such as the GRU or FSB, that's yet to be determined or disclosed. But regardless of whether or not he's ever actually implicated directly in  the Trump-Russia scandal, his indictment and arrest is nevertheless good news for consumers and businesses around the world.



    tahts what i thought (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    2.  and then NY.  i think.

    just talking about this (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    that was the Flynn Grand Jury.

    this is signaling theres way more than that.


    And signalling that Mueller thinks there may (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    have been offenses committed for which venue would lie in the District. That is, crimes committed in Washington, DC.

    Apparently, that grand jury was impaneled ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    ... in Washington, D.C. several weeks ago, according to WSJ's two sources. It certainly appears to be a welcome indicator that the Special Counsel's office is moving expeditiously in this matter, no doubt aware of the ever-increasing stakes at this point.

    But that said, the grand jury process is understandably opaque, so I hope that Jeralyn and / or Peter can further explain in detail the actual significance of this particular development from a legal standpoint, which includes what we might expect to see and learn, if anything.



    See my comment (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    concerning "opaque" (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    is it not true that grand juries opperate in secret so that fact we know this could be because they want us to?

    Yes, by law (Fed Crim Rule 6(e)) (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    all matters "occurring before the grand jury" must be kept secret. Nevertheless, leaks have been known to happen. More often by FBI agents than by federal prosecutors. And always for some tactical reason from the feds' POV, such as to spook a suspect into making a reckless move. On the other hand, grand jury witnesses and their lawyers are not bound by the Rule requiring secrecy. So information can come from that direction as well, sometimes by leak and sometimes openly.

    the Ty Cobb statement opens with (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    "Grand Jury matters are typically secret..."

    Harder to fire Mueller. (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    heading an investigation v grand jury (move toward) indictment. Some insurance, although one still of such risk  that only Lloyd's of London would underwrite.

    see below (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    like russia, that choice is about to be made for him.

    Agreed. My comment (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    applies to Congressional action, as well as to Trump's ruminations.

    Now (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    Reuters is reporting subpoenas issued regarding junior's June meeting with the Russians.

    The meeting with Boris and Natasha (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    occurred in New York, but the acts that might be deemed to be obstruction of justice occurred in D.C., it seems to me. So if the grand jury is sitting in D.C., that suggests what at least one focus of its investigation may be.

    Well, then (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:42:13 PM EST
    there is Schneiderman in NY. Maybe you can answer this question, Peter. Can Schneiderman and Mueller share any information they gather or do they each have to gather their own evidence?

    Federal grand jury matters are secret (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    and cannot be shared unless there is formally a joint investigation. Dunno anything about what restrictions New York law may place on the state's Atty General. Non-grand jury matters, like FBI investigative materials, can be freely shared within the law enforcement world.

    Thanks for the (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    answer. I was really thinking along the lines of evidence that the FBI came across and whether they could pass that information onto Schneiderman.

    If both grand juries indict the same person (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    For the same crime how does trying that person for that crime shake out Peter? If the same crime and same defendant was committed in different jurisdictions are those separate crimes and separate charges?

    No, it is one federal crime (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    There may be more than one federal district where venue for a given offense would be proper. Double jeopardy would prevent a person from being prosecuted more than once for the same offense, however, even if the U.S. Attorneys' Offices for those districts did not work it out between themselves in advance. The more challenging problem is when a person is accused of committing several related federal offenses, and there is no one district where venue would be proper for all of them. The defendant may then wish to waive venue for one or the other, so as not to have to stand trial more than once in the "case" as a whole. This may require consent and cooperation of the judges in the various districts, after considering other relevant factors, such as the convenience of the witnesses.

    Thank you Peter (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 08:15:50 PM EST
    In the unlikely event that Tr*mp's immigration (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    proposal were actually to be enacted, perhaps it could be amended to provide for retroactive deportation of illegals and their descendents, on a selective basis predicated on the national interest (as determined by me).

    Think about what is taking place (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 08, 2017 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    From Kim Jong-un's point of view.

    Don't laugh now, but, to approach this crisis rationally we have to think, well, rationally. Kim is, in my opinion, behaving rationally. What I mean by that is he's not like the Islamic terrorists that knocked down the NY Towers. They welcomed death. That's behaving irrationally. Kim is not suicidal. He's a third generation autocratic potentate. He wants to keep the dynasty going. Certainly, he understands that the instant one of his missiles even thinks about looking our way, he, and every atom of his D.N.A. would not even constitute mist a minute later.  Trust me, the squirt doesn't want to die. And, besides himself he has a daughter, parents, grandparents, uncles, great-grandparents, and cousins....not to mention, "friends."

    So, attacking us is just not gonna happen. He must really be having a ball giggling to himself, though, about how The Big Bad America and its Big Mouth President are having conniption fits whenever he yells, "BOO," regarding an action that they know, simply, ain't gonna happen.

    So, what does he want? What's really going on?

    North Korea taking an aggressive against us is just too ludicrous to contemplate, so, what's he really doing?  

    First of all I believe he's smarter than his Alfalfa haircut would lead you to believe (he really, really doesn't want to die.) At least, he's rational. Since he sure as hell doesn't want to die he must have other motives. And, he does. After all the  psychotic, belligerent,  screeching he's done, he sure has our attention. I'm pretty sure he considers that a pretty big victory already. But, what he really wants is to negotiate. And, with the weak, tiny position he's coming from, throwing a tantrum, and threatening us with his b.b. Gun vs. 10 Trillion dollars worth of Megadeth, he's in about a good a negotiating position as he'll ever be.

    One thing is for sure.....he's not giving up his nuclear options, not at this moment in time, anyway. Like I said, he's not stupid. He remembers very well what happened to Saddam and Colonel Gaddafi when they did what we asked in giving up their WMD's. That worked out great for them, right?

    Nope, the little squirt has played it quite well so far. He's got the world' attention. For someone with so little real power he's maneuvered himself into as good a negotiating position  as he could have hoped for.

    Now, if only our Leaders will respond as rationally in return, we may have something pretty good starting over there.

    So, why am I worried more about our President than theirs?

    His regime is very weak (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 09, 2017 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    When compared to South Korean government. His own people are physically weak from poor nutrition and healthcare. I think the reality of it has set in with him, and he wants to negotiate for improved relations and trade. But I don't think he's willing to evolve on human rights. He may want to negotiate but once he puts the gun down what does he have?

    We don't want regime change. We don't want millions starving, and that's what we get if his system takes an instant dive. He's got to socially evolve.


    Trump is not only (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    an embarrassment, he is also very dangerous.   That has been said before.

    But with the North Korea situation, and Trump lambasting his generals a la Hitler, it is becoming very serious.  Mueller needs to get done sooner rather than later, and hopefully we can get the cheeto out of the place he calls a "dump."  

    Yes, and I am (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:12:13 PM EST
    worried that it is even worse that we imagine.  It can be noted that some of Trump's fiercest critics, including anti-Trump conservatives such as David Frum, are tut-tutting about the leaking to WaPO of Trump's phone calls to foreign leaders. Other leaks are OK, but this just goes too far..the president needs to have confidential conversations...national security..,dangerous...terrible if happened to Obama...etc.

    However, these are the same critics who have, nightly, spoken of the need not to make this ab/sub-normal presidency normal. Trump's conversations (which have been reported already, in part) are further indication of the danger of Trump. The leaker(s) of the phone conversations must be close within the Administration and know just how dangerous Trumps and risk the leaking...as, likely, a patriotic undertaking.

    After all Trump wants chaos and everything to be different. Unusual times, unusual leaks. We are being told something more than the leaks themselves.


    OK... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Lora on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    We are being told something more than the leaks themselves.

    I wouldn't doubt it.  So let's go there.  What more are we being told?

    I kind of took it for what seems obvious -- that Trump is sociopathic in that he will do or say whatever he wants to do, and then cover up with lie after lie.  That he was trying to make deals as if our country was just another one of his shady businesses.

    Maybe the leaker was hoping to open the eyes of of a few more of those Trump supporters who still have a brain and can think for themselves-?

    What else?


    I found the conversation with Mr. Turnbull (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    to be particularly enlightening, and not in a good way.  What I read was that Trump was seemingly incapable of grasping what seemed to me to be some simple, basic facts about the refugees being held in the camps.  

    Jonathan Chait at NY Magazine sums it up:


    Australia has a policy of refusing to accept refugees who arrive by boat. The reason, as Turnbull patiently attempts to explain several times, is that it believes giving refuge to people who arrive by boat would encourage smuggling and create unsafe passage with a high risk of deaths at sea. But it had a large number of refugees who had arrived by sea, living in difficult conditions, whom Australia would not resettle (for fear of encouraging more boat trafficking) but whom it did not want to deport, either. The United States government agreed under President Obama to vet 1,250 of these refugees and accept as many of them as it deemed safe.

    In the transcript, Trump is unable to absorb any of these facts. He calls the refugees "prisoners," and repeatedly brings up the Cuban boatlift (in which Castro dumped criminals onto Florida). He is unable to absorb Turnbull's explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones, and that the United States has the ability to turn away any of them it deems dangerous.

    Turnbull explains, repeatedly, and Trump continues to not understand.  He appears to believe there is only one kind of refugee, that all refugees are terrorists-in-training, that if Obama was involved it is automatically bad, and he keeps trying to make common cause with Turnbull on the basis of a complete misunderstanding of facts and concepts.  In spite of Turnbull's explaining that he and Obama agreed that Obama would consider - but not be obligated to take  - 1,250  refugees, Trump says at one point, after Turnbull has given him the 1,250 figure multiple times, that he heard it was like 5,000.

    He has the same inability to process when he speaks to the Mexican president.

    He fixates, and never lets go.  I bet if you asked him today about the Australian refugees, he would tell you a completely mangled version of the policy, the agreement, the nature of the refugees, and so on.

    So, what was the reason for the leak?  To show the American people that Donald Trump cannot even master the facts in a fairly low-level matter with foreign leaders.  That he is not capable of doing his job, and that lack of ability is putting us all in various levels of danger.

    Sadly, I also read today that his support in battleground states is holding steady at about 47%.  So however low his overall ratings are, it isn't affecting the numbers that matter the most, making it a possibility that, barring being caught in Mueller's investigation, this incompetent, dangerous demagogue could be president for another 7 ½ years.  

    Yeah, it makes me want to spend it drunk on my aSS, too.


    I posted here even before (none / 0) (#60)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    the inauguration that tRump was a danger to national security. He puts us all in jeopardy. He is wholly unqualified for the position. He is an imposter president.

    It's a different battleground (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    in 2020 though. While he might be holding at 47% in Ohio he is at 43 here in GA and he's sinking fast in a lot of other states that are traditionally GOP states.

    {{Sigh}} (none / 0) (#63)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Is it too soon for a cocktail?
    Well, it's about 4PM Eastern, sounds like cocktail hour to me.
    The fact that Trump keeps spouting this totally false BS but that there are still so many die hard Trump supporters (yes, maybe "only" about 1/3 overall, but almost half in "battleground" states) makes me want to despair.

    Look at the (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 04, 2017 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    actual map Zorba and it will lift your spirits.

    Hard for me to process (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lora on Sat Aug 05, 2017 at 07:50:30 AM EST
    Even though I suppose I know better, I have such a hard time believing Trump is a total moron.

    I want to believe "we" elected someone with a higher than 3rd grade intelligence.

    I could come up with alternate reasons for his behavior:

    1. He doesn't want to know the reasons for Turnbull's policy, because it is counter to his stated policy of just keeping out the bad apples (they are all bad apples), which he has adapted from and/or sold to his supporters.

    2.  He gets it but won't admit it because it is counter to his stated policy.

    3.  He refuses to go there with Turnbull because it would put a hole in his stated policy.


    Continued (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lora on Sat Aug 05, 2017 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    1. It's something Obama agreed to, and since he's sold the idea that anything Obama = Bad, he has to be against it no matter what.

    2.  He's such a con artist and liar, he will say anything, whether it makes sense or not, to deflect from his stated agenda.

    Or, he could really be that stupid.  I just don't know if I can totally believe it.

    How (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 05, 2017 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    about 6. All of the above.

    tRump has spent his entire life behaving this way, suffering no blowback and in fact being wildly rewarded for it.

    Lying, cheating and ignorant bluster has been his business model from day one. I suppose you can't call it stupid if it works. However it does speak volumes about our society.


    I think you are on to something. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Aug 05, 2017 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    However I find it more than plausible that he really is that stupid.

    Consider that he doesn't read, anything. So much of what I know and understand about the world around me comes from all the novels I've read, magazine articles, nonfiction that I have consumed.


    How (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 05, 2017 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    about 6. All of the above.

    tRump has spent his entire life behaving this way, suffering no blowback and in fact being wildly rewarded for it.

    Lying, cheating and ignorant bluster has been his business model from day one. I suppose you can't call it stupid if it works. However it does speak volumes about our society.


    Considering what we have heard (none / 0) (#7)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    about the reach of Putin into Britain, trump's unpresidential admonitions may not be as braggadocios as fearful.

    then there is this (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    A bipartisan team of senators introduced a bill Thursday to protect the special counsel from meddling by President Trump, as an emboldened Congress takes more swipes at the White House.
    Sens. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican, and Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat, wrote the bill to create a judicial review should a president try to remove a special counsel.
    The bill would write into law current department guidelines governing who can fire a special counsel, and make them retroactive to this year's appointment of Robert Mueller, who was named special counsel to probe Russian meddling in the 2016 election -- including dealings with Trump campaign figures.
    If Mr. Mueller or any future special counsel were to be fired, the decision could be challenged before a special panel of three federal judges.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    I read where Trump really wanted to fire Mueller and Kelly told him if he did that the sun would explode. Maybe Kelly has better toddler management skills than previously thought.

    i doubt it (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    and im pretty sure a majority of both houses of congress will doubt it.

    Well, what I meant (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:25:34 PM EST
    was not that Kelly would keep him from doing it but that he seems to be able to put it in terms that a toddler could understand or Trump could understand like "the sun will explode". Yes, certainly the house and senate don't think Kelly can keep him from firing Mueller hence the bill they are looking to vote for. I will have to call my free dumb rep and see if he is going to vote for that bill.

    In (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 04:50:13 PM EST
    the end tRump would rather see the sun explode than this head,
    Federal investigators exploring whether Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russian spies have seized on Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia as one of the most fertile avenues for moving their probe forward, according to people familiar with the investigation.

    Fertile ground indeed.


    Yeah, it is looking (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    worse and worse for Trump. Manafort had contact with Russian spies according to that CNN story. My guess would be what is going to shake out is Trump has been laundering money for the Russians for years. And that is what Putin used to turn him into a Russian asset. It looks like Putin used the old fashioned way of money and propaganda to get Trump into office.

    so (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    its said the senate is about to go into pro forma recess.

    to stop Trump from considering a recess appointment.

    They did that to thwart Obama (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 08:01:27 PM EST
    all the time, too.

    For the record (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    Just found this annoying.  Just now on Ari the "celebrated columnist for the NY Daily News" Mike Lupica.  (Who is very full of himself) describing whatever Trumps is hiding by comparing it to what Hitchcock used to describe in his movies - by his definition - as 'the thing around which the plot turns'.

    The Maguffin.

    "What is the muffin?!  What is he hiding?"

    Whatever he is "celebrated" for, it's not film history.

    This is an incorrect analogy.  Hitchcock described  The Maguffin as a distraction.  A red herring.  For example he described the stolen 40,000 dollars in Psycho as The Maguffin.

    So WHATEVER Trump is hiding it is definitely not the Maguffin.

    Just so we are clear, Mike.

    WIKI (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 03, 2017 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot

    slightly OT (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 08, 2017 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    but this cant be good

    North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say

    this can not and will not stand.

    this is going to escalate.  duck and cover.