U.S. Politics: Moscow on the Potomac

[Zorral]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And here would be an example of why it would be an impeachable offense.

 

It has never been considered anything done by a POTUS to give the intel of an ally -- or its identity -- to another nation without permission.  So, if not illegal, it was certainly wrong and criminal.

It's being speculated that the ally in this debacle is Israel, btw.

[Zorral]

44 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yeah.  He is the same as he ever was.  Impulsive.  Likes adoration and the spotlight.  Belligerent.  Blowhard.  Holds grudges.  Does whatever he wants to do at any moment and may or may not notice when he contradicts himself in the space of hours or days.  Remember what George said, it's not a lie if you believe it.

So he's always suffered from dementia, you're sayin?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Zorral said:

So he's always suffered from dementia, you're sayin?

No, it's not dementia. You're mistaking not remembering basic facts with not caring about basic facts. These things don't matter to him because they aren't about him. Him not remembering names of people he doesn't care  about, acting impulsively and selfishly, having a bizarre stream of consciousness when talking - these aren't signs of a brain that is slowly failing.

These are pretty classic signs of Narcissistic Personality. And yes, Trump has always been this way. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

Erick Erickson wrote he knows one of the sources:

Quote

I tend to take these stories about the President with a grain of salt. We have seen key details of a number of salacious stories retracted within 48 hours. The media hates the President so much that they’ll run a negative story about him without very much provocation. Anti-Trump sources embedded within the administration in the career civil service, etc. will leak to the press and confirmation bias sets in.

What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.

So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.

I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question — if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?

This is a real problem and I treat this story very seriously because I know just how credible, competent, and serious — as well as seriously pro-Trump, at least one of the sources is.

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

[Kalbear]

So, great. We are at the point where in order to convince Trump to do something we have to make sure that Fox News covers it.

Holy fuck.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So, great. We are at the point where in order to convince Trump to do something we have to make sure that Fox News covers it.

Holy fuck.

The only plus to that is there has been more push back from certain players at Fox (primarily Shepard Smith and Chris Matthews) against a Republican President than I can ever recall since that organization came into existence. I imagine he sees those exchanges. It will be interesting to see if they continue to be critical of him, when he will accuse Fox of being "Fake News".

[Fez]

37 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It has never been considered anything done by a POTUS to give the intel of an ally -- or its identity -- to another nation without permission.  So, if not illegal, it was certainly wrong and criminal.

It's being speculated that the ally in this debacle is Israel, btw.

It wasn't widely covered, but Trump had a call with the King of Jordan this morning that wasn't announced until yesterday afternoon. Could be the standard White House incompetence; but it also wouldn't surprise me if Jordan was the source.

ETA: Just saw Barbara Comstock's statement. 

Quote

Once again we are faced with inexplicable stories coming from the White House that are highly troubling.  We need to have immediate classified briefings on what occurred at this meeting so that Congress can at least know as much as Russian leaders and know the impact on our national security, our allies, and our men and women protecting our country.

She knows she's toast if she can't show distance from Trump. As bad as Trump's national approval is, its far, far worse in Northern Virginia; including the outer suburbs that she represents.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So, great. We are at the point where in order to convince Trump to do something we have to make sure that Fox News covers it.

Holy fuck.

There's nothing new about this. It was reported early on after his inauguration that his staffers were leaking things to the press to try and get his attention.

[Kalbear]

Naturally, we should care deeply about Hillary Clinton's PAC right now. Though to be fair, I agree with this argument - making a PAC to hide donors is not a good thing, period.

 

[Trebla]

57 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's being speculated that the ally in this debacle is Israel, btw.

If that's true that would be more fuel for the fire with Israel. There's already a dust up over the Western Wall. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-advance-official-causes-rifts-says-western-wall-not-part-of-israel/

Quote

 

As President Trump prepares for his first foreign trip as president, there's a report that a U.S. official caused some strife with Israeli counterparts ahead of his visit to Israel next week.

The Times of Israel reported that the unnamed official told an Israeli official that the Western Wall is "not part of Israel." 

CBS News' White House Correspondent Major Garrett says that the official was part of the Trump advance team preparing for the president's visit Israel next week.

The report went on to say that the official rejected a request from an Israeli official that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accompany Mr. Trump when he visited the Western Wall, which would be a major stop on the president's tour of the region.

The official reportedly retorted that the area was "not your territory" and that "it's part of the West Bank."

No sitting U.S. president has ever visited the Western Wall, which is not officially recognized by the international community or by the U.S. as part of Israel, although Israel considers Jerusalem its capital. 

The Western Wall, the holiest site of prayer for Jewish, has been contentiously debated since the 1967 Six Day War, after Israel annexed it, along with the rest of the Old City and East Jerusalem. However, Muslims also lay claim to the site. It's where the Al Aqsa Mosque is located, the third holiest site in Islam.

A senior White House official responded to the report saying that the comments were "not authorized communication" and that they "do not represent the position of the United States" or the president.

Netanyahu's office released a statement in response to the reports, saying "Israel is convinced that this statement is contrary to the position of President Trump, as expressed in his firm opposition to the most recent U.N. Security Council Resolution."

 

At this point, I wouldn't be shocked if Trump landed in Saudi Arabia with a giant portrait of he and the Prophet Muhammad smoking cigars together. "Isn't Muhammad the greatest? Isn't he the greatest? Isn't that a great picture of him?"

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Trebla said:

At this point, I wouldn't be shocked if Trump landed in Saudi Arabia with a giant portrait of he and the Prophet Muhammad smoking cigars together. "Isn't Muhammad the greatest? Isn't he the greatest? Isn't that a great picture of him?"

Notice how I'm a little taller than him?  He's a pretty tall guy, but I'm obviously taller, everyone knows that.

[Hereward]

As Fez said, it's more likely that the source is Jordan. Their intelligence operation is as good as Israel's but they have a huge advantage in running agents in ISIS.

[Fez]

Its hard to focus on other news, but since Republicans are stonewalling all Trump-related issues, its important to focus on what they are doing. To that end, McConnell had a really interesting interview with Bloomberg News this morning. People are focusing on his tepid Trump comments, but the other stuff is also important:

McConnell says any tax reform must be revenue-neutral (though only via dynamic scoring) and he won't commit to having a vote this year (which means there probably won't be a vote before the midterms).

He also says there is not senate support for a border adjustment tax (he specifically cites the two Arkansas senators and WalMart's concerns).

He does not think the Senate will reform Dodd-Frank due to Democrats blocking any bills related to it.

Finally, he says he expects the senate to ignore Trump's FY2018 budget proposal and its spending cuts, and he specifically commits to fully funding the State Department, foreign aid, NIH, and the opioid initiatives approved last year. He also says he will seek a bipartisan funding agreement and made no mention of a shutdown.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Naturally, we should care deeply about Hillary Clinton's PAC right now. Though to be fair, I agree with this argument - making a PAC to hide donors is not a good thing, period.

 

*I Can't Believe It's Not A Government Server*

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

See, here's the thing. Trump's entire life has been based on the philosophy of 'it isn't wrong if I do it'. It just so happens that this time, because he's President, he's technically correct. It isn't leaking if the POTUS decides just to go ahead and give away classfied info. It may be monumentally stupid and negligent, but it's not leaking.

In this respect (and no other) Trump has tremendous experience of what it means to be President: he's had people employed to clean up his messes and let him walk away scot-free for his entire life. He's used to being able to fuck up freely.

But apart from whether Trump thinks he's right or wrong, he's admitting to being a leaker in the same tweet where he admonishes the intel community for not finding the leakers. Not to mention that Trump has a history of 'leaking' his own information by pretending to be his publicist.  

I think my shock is more that people who voted for him continue to support him and/or pretend that he's not completely unhinged or that the things he says and does don't matter.  My mind still doesn't not undersatnd how this happens.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Hereward said:

As Fez said, it's more likely that the source is Jordan. Their intelligence operation is as good as Israel's but they have a huge advantage in running agents in ISIS.

And if the intel comes from a foreign government, it may have been illegal for Trump to declassify it. 

[Hereward]

No, there is no law against declassifying another country's intelligence, after all, how could other countries enforce it? What it could do is nullify intelligence sharing agreements and cut the US off from vital intelligence.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And if the intel comes from a foreign government, it may have been illegal for Trump to declassify it. 

Nope, it's not. There is literally nothing that Trump cannot declassify which is illegal for him to do so. Classification is a system based entirely on the power of the Executive branch to keep information that POTUS deems important somewhat secret. That's it.

Now, that declassification can come with some MAJOR problems - allies can and will stop helping us with intel, it can cause major negotiations to fail, it can cause actual military operations to end. It can be considered a massive violation of the oath of office. But it isn't illegal. 

[OldGimletEye]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

McConnell says any tax reform must be revenue-neutral (though only via dynamic scoring) 

Now there is a Republican Party fantasy. At least their version of it. Pretty sure Moore and Co. did dynamic scoring in Kansas and that didn't work out too well.

The Party O' Bidness strikes again!

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

He does not think the Senate will reform Dodd-Frank due to Democrats blocking any bills related to it.

Let's just hope Jeb Hensarling's Financial Bomb Act never sees the light of day. Given the Republican Party's utter incompetence on healthcare, their attempts at financial reform would be truly scary.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But apart from whether Trump thinks he's right or wrong, he's admitting to being a leaker in the same tweet where he admonishes the intel community for not finding the leakers. Not to mention that Trump has a history of 'leaking' his own information by pretending to be his publicist.  

I think my shock is more that people who voted for him continue to support him and/or pretend that he's not completely unhinged or that the things he says and does don't matter.  My mind still doesn't not undersatnd how this happens.

There are lots of reasons.

• The standard 'I did it, so I had to have been right'. This is probably the biggest one; it's hard for humans to admit that a decision they made turned out bad.
• "Got Gorsuch". Seriously, there are people who state that anything else is gravy. I'm not sure they're wrong.
• "Hillary would be worse". 
• "It wasn't really that bad". 
• My favorite: "if he wasn't being hurt by the millennials in his office leaking like crazy he'd be fine"
• The Democrats are the real reason he's having problems
•