Tag: Trump

Trump might have to testify in court about Trump “University” after all.

If the ninth circuit court of appeals – one of two courts that ruled against Trump’s travel ban in June – decides in her favor, Simpson intends to sue the president independently for fraud, which she hopes could see him give evidence before a jury.

“I believed in a jury trial,” Simpson told the Guardian. “It looked like we had such a strong case for trial after seven years of litigation.”

Simpson, a bankruptcy attorney who took courses at Trump University in 2010, had planned to sue on her own before learning of, and joining, one of the three class action suits.

She wasn’t told about the settlement in time to get out of the class action suit.

Trump University, a for-profit company that was not an accredited university or college, launched in 2005 with Trump promising that “students” would be mentored by hand-picked staff.

A Trump University “playbook” released in May 2016 showed that one of the pledges to enrollees read: “Only doers get rich. I know that in these three packed days, you will learn everything to make a million dollars within the next 12 months.”

The fraud lawsuits alleged that students learnt nothing of the sort, despite being encouraged to pay tens of thousands of dollars to attend weekend seminars.

Simpson, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, said she received a leaflet through the mail in 2010 and eventually ended up spending $19,000 on tuition.

“What I found from the very beginning was that it was just all upsell,” she said. “It was all a scam. It turned out it was a lot of cheerleading for Donald Trump and his successes.”

Just like the current US government. Can we sue for fraud now?

In May 2016 a federal judge, Gonzalo Curiel, made public more than 400 “playbooks”, which showed how staff were instructed to get people to accrue credit card debt to pay for tuition fees, and ordered to target financial weaknesses in a bid to sell further courses.

In other words pretty much the shittiest meanest scuzziest kind of financial crime you can engage in, cheating vulnerable individual people out of huge sums of money. Trump is scum.

The Post looks in the windows of the White House again and finds a lot of people worrying about how to manage the angry Toddler in Chief.

President Trump has a new morning ritual. Around 6:30 a.m. on many days — before all the network news shows have come on the air — he gets on the phone with a member of his outside legal team to chew over all things Russia.

The calls — detailed by three senior White House officials — are part strategy consultation and part presidential venting session, during which Trump’s lawyers and public-relations gurus take turns reviewing the latest headlines with him.

Again, it’s interesting and significant that three senior people were willing to tell the Post that. As commentators have been commenting for months, it shows what a hot mess this administration is.

They also devise their plan for battling his avowed enemies: the special counsel leading the Russia investigation; the “fake news” media chronicling it; and, in some instances, the president’s own Justice Department overseeing the probe.

His advisers have encouraged the calls — which the early-to-rise Trump takes from his private quarters in the White House residence — in hopes that he can compartmentalize the widening Russia investigation. By the time the president arrives for work in the Oval Office, the thinking goes, he will no longer be consumed by the Russia probe that he complains hangs over his presidency like a darkening cloud.

In other words, they’re desperate to find some way to manage Mr Angry’s moods and tantrums and fits. They’re so desperate that they chat to the Washington Post about it.

And is it working? Ha, no, of course not.

It rarely works, however. Asked whether the tactic was effective, one top White House adviser paused for several seconds and then just laughed.

Uh huh.

Trump’s grievances and moods often bleed into one another. Frustration with the investigation stews inside him until it bubbles up in the form of rants to aides about unfair cable television commentary or as slights aimed at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein.

Not to mention the endless infantile tweets.

Interviews with 22 senior administration officials, outside advisers, and Trump confidants and allies reveal a White House still trying, after five months of halting progress, to establish a steady rhythm of governance while also indulging and managing Trump’s combative and sometimes self-destructive impulses.

Well what did they think would happen? Did they think this was an adult, responsible, disciplined, thoughtful guy? Proverbs about making silk accessories out of pigs’ ears come to mind.

West Wing aides are working to keep the president on schedule, trotting him around the country in front of the supportive crowds that energize him.

Ouch.

Some in the White House fret over what they view as the president’s fits of rage, and Trump’s longtime friends say his mood has been more sour than at any point since they have known him.

They privately worry about his health, noting that he appears to have gained weight in recent months and that the darkness around his eyes reveals his stress.

Others say oh no he’s perfectly fine, better than ever, brimming with optimism.

“What’s playing out is a psychological drama, not just a political drama or a legal drama,” said Peter Wehner, who was an aide in George W. Bush’s White House and has frequently been critical of Trump. “The president’s psychology is what’s driving so much of this, and it’s alarming because it shows a lack of self-control, a tremendous tropism. . . . He seems to draw psychic energy from creating chaos and disorder.”

Quite, and that was obvious before he was elected.

After Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director in May and scrutiny over Russia by investigators and journalists intensified, the president and his inner circle settled on a combative strategy to discredit critics, undermine the probe itself and galvanize his most loyal supporters.

Much like Bill Cosby doing a lecture tour on how not to get accused of rape. It’s the Roy Cohn Doctrine – always attack no matter what. Never mind ethics, truth, fairness, accountability, legality – just fight fight fight, the dirtier the better.

Trump is most bothered by what he views as the one-sided portrayal and overall unfairness of the Russia investigation, senior White House officials said. He thinks media reports automatically treat Comey’s version of events as superior to his own and have not focused enough on Mueller’s hiring of some investigators who have donated to Democratic candidates.

Yes well there’s a reason for that. It has to do most basically with presentation: with what we see when we look at them. It has to do, for instance, with how they talk. We compare what we saw and heard when Comey talked to that committee with what we see and hear when Trump talks to anyone. This is why we see Comey’s version of events as superior to Trump’s.

Eleven months ago, the Secret Service was investigating one Al Baldasaro.

The Secret Service is investigating a Donald Trump adviser who said in a radio interview that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton should be “shot for treason” on a “firing line.”

Al Baldasaro, a New Hampshire representative who serves on Trump’s veterans’ coalition and as a Trump delegate at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, said in an interview with a Boston talk radio host that Clinton should pay for the 2012 Benghazi attack.

“She is a disgrace for any, the lies she told those mothers about their children that got killed over there in Benghazi,” he said on the Jeff Kuhner Show Tuesday. “She dropped the ball on over 400 emails requesting back up security. Something’s wrong there.”

“Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason,” he continued.

Today Al Baldasaro had a front seat at a White House bill signing.

Baldasaro’s presence drew particular notice given recent calls by the administration, and across Washington, for dialing back partisan rhetoric in the aftermath of last week’s shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Virginia that left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., in critical condition. (He has since been upgraded to fair condition.)

Asked about Baldasaro’s presence at Friday’s press briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer condemned all comments suggesting violence against another person.

Unless, of course, they’re fans of Trump and the person they suggest violence against is a Democrat or a woman or a rival of Donald Trump’s. In that case they can sit in Donald’s lap; they can even have an extra scoop of ice cream.

Baldasaro’s attendance also comes at a time when the White House has condemned a series of incidents in popular culture in which violence against Trump has been made light of or otherwise depicted.

Earlier during the briefing, Spicer said he found it troubling that more outrage hasn’t been raised over the incidents, which most recently include a comment by actor Johnny Depp, who asked, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” A representative for Depp later said Depp’s remark was a “bad joke.”

“It is, frankly, in my belief, a little troubling, the lack of outrage in some of these instances where people have said what they’ve said with respect to the president and the actions that should be taken,” said Spicer. “The president has made it clear that we should denounce violence in all of its forms.”

No, the president has not done that. Far from it. The president urged violence at some of his rallies. The president has expended no energy or breath denouncing rhetorical violence against his rivals or enemies.

The Post gives us the transcript of that Fox interview where Trump confirms that he tweeted about “tapes” and Comey in order to put pressure on him.

EARHARDT: Great. Big news today, you didn’t have — you said you didn’t tape James Comey. Do you want to explain that? Why did you want him to believe that you possibly did that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I didn’t tape him. You never know what’s happening when you see that the Obama administration, and perhaps longer than that, was doing all of unmasking and surveillance and you read all about it. And I’ve been reading about it for the last couple of months about the seriousness of the — and horrible situation with surveillance all over the place. And you’ve been hearing the word unmasking, a word you probably never heard before. So you never know what’s out there.

But I didn’t tape. And I don’t have any tape and I didn’t tape. But when he found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it’s governmental tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed. I mean you’ll have to take a look at that, because then he has to tell what actually took place at the events.

And my story didn’t change. My story was always a straight story. My story was always the truth. But you’ll have to determine for yourself whether or not his story changed. But I did not tape.

EARHARDT: So it was a smart way to make sure he stayed honest in those hearings?

TRUMP: Well, it wasn’t — it wasn’t very stupid, I can tell you that. He was — he did admit that what I said was right. And if you look further back, before he heard about that, I think maybe he wasn’t admitting that.

So you’ll have to do a little investigative reporting to determine that. But I don’t think it will be that hard.

Aaron Blake’s commentary:

This is Trump admitting what the White House apparently didn’t want to: That his tweet was meant to influence Comey (or at least that it had that [e]ffect).

There was little doubt that Trump’s initial tweet was a pretty thinly veiled threat to Comey, but it’s remarkable to see Trump admitting to his end-game here. And it harks back to that NBC News/Lester Holt interview in which Trump blurted out, after the White House spent two days arguing that he didn’t fire Comey over the Russia investigation, that Russia was on his mind when he did it.

He blurts these things out when he’s boasting…and he’s always boasting. The blurt about “the Russia thing” was when he was boasting that the decision was all his, it was his idea, he did, him him him, he’s the boss and he decides all the things. The blurt about the tweet is when he’s boasting about being not very stupid. Keep on boasting, Don.

Trump goes on Fox and admits lying, bullying, pressuring, obstructing, you name it.

President Trump appeared to acknowledge on Friday in an interview that his tweet hinting of taped conversations with James B. Comey was intended to influence the fired F.B.I. director’s testimony before Congress, and he emphasized that he committed “no obstruction” of the inquiries into whether his campaign colluded with Russia.

The interview, with “Fox & Friends,” was shown one day after the president tweeted what most people in Washington had already come to believe: that he had not made recordings of his conversations with Mr. Comey.

He was talking about the possibility of tapes, you see, just as mobsters have always been talking about the possibility of this nice little place burning down, the possibility of something bad happening to a child or spouse or pet, the possibility of police being alerted to the presence of cocaine mysteriously planted by parties unknown.

“I’ve been reading about it for the last couple of months about the seriousness of the horribleness of the situation with surveillance all over the place,” the president said in the interview. “So you never know what’s out there, but I didn’t tape, and I don’t have any tape and I didn’t tape.”

That’s some eloquent shit right there.

When the Fox interviewer suggested that the possible existence of recordings might make sure Mr. Comey “stayed honest in those hearings,” Mr. Trump paused before responding, “Well, it wasn’t very stupid, I can tell you that.”

Hmm. That might turn out not to be true.

Referring to Mr. Comey, the president said that “when he found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there whether it’s governmental tapes or anything else and who knows, I think his story may have changed.”

He thinks Comey is as dishonest and corrupt as he is. Maybe he thinks everybody is. He’s obviously an extreme solipsist, so maybe that does translate to thinking everyone is morally on his level but he’s more skilled at it than anyone else.

The Times tallied up Trump’s lies at his “rally” yesterday.

President Trump returned to familiar rhetorical territory during a raucous campaign-style rally in Iowa on Wednesday night, repeating exaggerations and falsehoods about health care, jobs, taxes, foreign policy and his own record.

Other than that, it was all aboveboard.

He lied about all insurance companies fleeing Iowa. He lied about his glorious reign so far.

He exaggerated his legislative accomplishments.

Mr. Trump has signed nearly 40 bills into law, but it’s hard to argue, as he did, that any were “really big.”

The 14 bills rolling back Obama-era rules did signal a significant shift in regulatory policy, but are not considered major pieces of legislation. Three others named federal buildings, four made symbolic gestures toward women and veterans, three appointed Smithsonian Institution regents, two set minor rules for federal employees, one affirmed NASA’s mission, one improved weather forecasting, and one aided Minnesota’s bid for a world’s fair in 2023.

…

He falsely claimed the United States is “the highest-taxed nation in the world.”

In 2015, the United States ranked in the middle or near the bottom compared among 35 advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development by the typical metrics: No. 28 for total tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product, No. 22 for corporate tax revenue as a percentage of G.D.P. and No. 13 for tax revenue per capita.

That’s a huge and damaging lie.

He falsely claimed that an Obama-era rule applied to “a little puddle in the middle of their field.”

Mr. Trump rolled back a rule that limits pollution in the country’s waters. But that rule explicitly excludes puddles and most ditches, and it really only applies to streams and rivers that drain into major bodies of water.

He falsely claimed Gary Cohn paid “$200 million in taxes” to serve as his economic adviser.

Mr. Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs, was required to divest company shares under ethics laws, and sold about $220 million worth of Goldman stock. He also received a cash payout of about $65 million. The nearly $300 million payout is, of course, eventually subject to taxation but characterizing it as money paid to the I.R.S. is not accurate.

Seeing as how the tax rate is not 100%.

He repeated inaccurate claims about the Paris agreement.

Mr. Trump misleadingly pointed to China’s compliance pledge to argue that the climate deal “puts us at a permanent economic disadvantage.”

Though China says it expects emissions to peak by 2030, that doesn’t mean the country is planning to ignore the pledge until then nor can it meet its goal overnight in 2029. It is already on track to beat that target and also pledged to get 20 percent of energy from non-fossil-fuel sources by 2030.

And despite Mr. Trump’s protest “like hell it’s nonbinding,” there are no serious legal restraints or penalties for falling short of declared targets in the deal.

…

He said he would bar immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for five years, but they already are prohibited.

The requirements sought by Mr. Trump have largely been in place for two decades since the passage of welfare reform or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Legal permanent residents who haven’t worked in the United States for 10 years are not eligible for food assistance or Medicaid within the first five years of entering the country. States have the option of waiving the Medicaid rule for pregnant immigrants and children.

Refugees, asylees and victims of trafficking can collect some benefits, and immigrants who’ve served in the military are eligible without a time requirement.

And so on. He should be called Lyin’ Don.

Trump tweeted today that nyah nyah he didn’t make any tapes of Comey haha fooled you.

With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017

…whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017

Adam Schiff put out a statement saying what bullshit that is.

.@POTUS statements stop short of denying WH has any tapes in possession, and only raise more questions. WH must respond to us in writing. pic.twitter.com/I0AW6lYXwp

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) June 22, 2017

If he didn’t tape Comey, that tweet about tapes looks all the more like pure intimidation and thus obstruction of justice.

This lie increases Trump's legal exposure for obstruction and witness intimidation–more evidence of corrupt intent @Susan_Hennessey https://t.co/qBx7e58XEl

— Norm Eisen (#TryingTrump out now!) (@NormEisen) June 22, 2017

Oops.

In the least surprising news of the century, Trump told the people at his latest “rally” that he doesn’t want poor people working for him.

The US president told a crowd on Wednesday night: “Somebody said why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? No it’s true. And Wilbur’s [commerce secretary Wilbur Ross] a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said: ‘Because that’s the kind of thinking we want.’”

Of course it is. He wants the kind of thinking that sees rich people as miraculous geniuses who deserve to be infinitely rich because of their massive talent and genius and hard work and genius and ontrapranooryal spirit. He wants the kind of thinking that sees poor people as lazy scum who deserve to be nibbled by rats in their beds because of their failure at ontrapranoorship.

The president explained that Ross and his economic adviser Gary Cohn “had to give up a lot to take these jobs” and that Cohn in particular, a former president of Goldman Sachs, “went from massive pay days to peanuts”.

Trump added: “And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person. Does that make sense?”

From the Trump point of view? Of course it does. From the point of view of a reasonable adult? It depends on how you’re defining “poor.” You don’t want a broke person who can’t get a job, because you want an actual working economist. Note that that means a professional, not a plutocrat.

The event underscores Trump’s comfort in a campaign setting. He laughed off the occasional heckler, repeated riffs from last year and appeared far more at ease when going after Democrats in front of adoring crowds than trying to push through his own legislative agenda from the confines of the White House.

Well that’s the thing, isn’t it. The guy loves performing. He’s addicted to it. He loves being the center of attention, he loves getting cheers and applause. (Don’t go thinking that’s just human nature. It’s not. Lots of people hate being the center of attention.) He loves babbling his repetitive stunted nonsense to a sea of adoring fans. He does not love the more sober activities that he has to perform as chief tenant of the White House. It’s a pity he didn’t realize where the campaigning would take him, but then few of us could believe it would.

I saw Senator Warren warning us about a Trump de-protection move.

Rich is right: Workers will die if @realDonaldTrump rolls back protections for exposure to lethal, cancer-causing beryllium on the job. https://t.co/B4APLunB7x

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 21, 2017

The Hill has more:

[The] AFL-CIO, a leading labor group, fears the Trump administration is planning to roll back a hard-fought worker protection finalized under President Obama.

The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) completed a review last week of a proposed rule that the Labor Department submitted on the occupational exposure to beryllium.

In January, just days before President Trump was sworn into office, the Obama administration issued a final rule reducing the permissible exposure limits of the toxic material from 2.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 0.2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air over an eight-hour period.

The Labor Department then pushed the effective date of the rule back to May 20 under Trump to give the administration time to review and consider the new standard. OIRA’s review could signal that the administration is planning to roll back or weaken the rule.

Workers don’t matter. They’re just ants toiling away, making the owners rich.

Beryllium, a lightweight metal used in foundry and smelting operations, machining, beryllium oxide ceramics, composites manufacturing and dental lab work, is coveted for being lighter and stronger than steel, but it can pose serious health risks when it’s crushed to dust and enters the air.

You know, like coal dust and cotton fiber dust.

Bloomberg also reports, with tastefully muted enthusiasm:

Few Americans care about beryllium. Most have probably never heard of it.

But, it turns out, the metal — symbol Be on the periodic table — offers a case study on governing by President Donald Trump. With little fanfare earlier this year, the Department of Labor delayed and the White House began a review of limits on workplace exposure to the possibly toxic element used in cell phones and aircraft, handing industry a victory.

Across Washington, myriad rules are similarly being softened, mostly to the delight of corporate America. With executive orders, bureaucratic actions and unprecedented use of an obscure statute, the Trump administration has killed or postponed dozens of regulations. The controversies swamping the White House haven’t gotten in the way of an often under-the-radar, piece-by-piece realization of Trump’s pro-business campaign promises.

Pro-business and anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-environment.

Some moves, such as relaxing Obama-era clean-water decrees, have made headlines. Many others, the beryllium deferment among them, have received scant attention outside a tight circle of agencies, businesses and often outraged public-interest groups.

They may seem minor, but they all add up. “He wants to free up as much of the economy from government regulations as possible and he’s found ways to do that outside the legislative process,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor and presidential historian at Princeton University.

To put it another way, he wants to free up as much of the economy from government protections as possible.

Chief executives may not see a clear path to the corporate tax cut they want, but they’re winning in a significant smattering of other ways. E-cigarette makers got a reprieve when Trump’s Food and Drug Administration pushed out the deadline for complying with tobacco laws. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration gave builders three extra months to slash laborers’ exposure to silica dust, which has been linked to cancer.

Companies bidding for big federal contracts don’t have to disclose serious safety and labor-law violations anymore. Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt thwarted a push made under President Barack Obama to ban Dow Chemical Co.’s widely used pesticide Lorsban from food farming. The Department of Agriculture has twice delayed new standards for livestock labeled organic, which would require animals to have year-around access to the outdoors and enough indoor space to stretch their limbs.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for seeing to it that “livestock” will continue to live in such confined spaces that they can’t stretch their limbs. That way they’re happy to be killed.

Robert Reich on Trump’s insistence on loyalty at the expense of integrity:

Last Monday, the White House invited reporters in to watch what was billed as a meeting of Trump’s Cabinet. After Trump spoke, he asked each of the Cabinet members around the table to briefly comment.

Their statements were what you might expect from toadies surrounding a two-bit dictator.

“We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda,” said Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. “Greatest privilege of my life, to serve as vice president to a president who’s keeping his word to the American people,” said Vice President Mike Pence.

Reich points out that when he was sworn in as Clinton’s Labor Secretary he pledged loyalty to the Constitution, not to Bill Clinton.

That oath is a pledge of loyalty to our system of government – not to a powerful individual. It puts integrity before personal loyalty. It’s what it means to have a government of laws.

And specifically of laws, not of persons. It stands in opposition to monarchy and dictatorship and hero cult and all such forms of authoritarian bow-to-daddy rule. It’s a huge step in human progress, and we need to keep it.

But Trump is all about the loyalty, and the slavish loyalty at that. He demanded it from Comey before the inauguration crowds had gone home. He tried to get it from Preet Bharara, who was in a position to prosecute him should occasion arise.

In his first and best-known book, “The Art of the Deal,” Trump distinguished between integrity and loyalty – and made clear he preferred loyalty.

Trump compared attorney Roy Cohn – Senator Joe McCarthy’s attack dog who became Trump’s mentor – to “all the hundreds of ‘respectable’ guys who make careers out of boasting about their uncompromising integrity but have absolutely no loyalty … What I liked most about Roy Cohn was that he would do just the opposite.”

Wo. That’s an admission. That’s a scalding admission. Frank contempt for the very idea of integrity, and frank preference for unconditional loyalty…to him.

Trump continues to prefer loyalty over integrity.

His top advisers are his daughter, Ivanka, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The White House director of social media is Dan Scavino Jr., who had been Trump’s caddie.

Lynn Patton, just appointed to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s important New York office, knows nothing about housing. She had organized golf tournaments for Trump and planned his son Eric’s wedding.

None of this is about loyalty in the abstract, of course. It’s certainly not about mutual loyalty. It’s about slavish loyalty to Trump no matter what; slavish loyalty to Trump even if Trump turns and bites you. All good things are owed to Trump, and all bad things must be unloaded onto Trump’s loyal slaves. All the world owes loyalty to Trump, while Trump owes nothing to anyone. Trump, in short, is the only person in the world who matters.

No wonder he shoved Duško Marković out of his way. Trump is the only person in the world who matters, so naturally he gets to shove the peasants aside if they’re disloyal enough to wander into his path.

The horrifying reality is that in Trumpworld, there is no real “public” role. It’s all about protecting and benefiting Trump.

When loyalty trumps integrity, we no longer have a government of laws. We have a government by and for Trump.

We knew this, but the depth and breadth of it is taking time to sink in.

Guy Harrison on Facebook:

Please don’t hate, disown, or ostracize rabid Trump supporters. Yes, it may be necessary to maintain some distance for comfort’s sake. But if you turn your back on them you are no better than the Scientologists and Mormons who shun their friends and relatives for waking up. The most committed Trump supporters are lost and afraid, as we all are to some degree. That’s where their anger and prejudice come from. They aren’t aliens. They aren’t evil. And it’s not helpful to dismiss them as hopelessly crazy and stupid. Yes, they hitched their wagon to an incompetent lunatic of a leader, but they are still part of “us”. We are a bunch of inventive, neurotic apes, stumbling around on a warm rock in cold, dark space. We are in this together. Turning your back and giving up on them is not the way forward.

What bullshit. We’re not obliged to be cozy with Trump supporters, especially not rabid ones – as a matter of fact I don’t much want to be cozy with rabid people no matter what they’re rabid about. Combine rabies and Trump support and you’ve got yourself one unpleasant person, and we all get to turn our backs on unpleasant people.

The claim about Scientologists and Mormons is ludicrous. Yes as a matter of fact we are better than they are, in the sense that our reasons are better. On the most stripped-down level sure, walking away from people is walking away from people, no matter what the reasons are – but then walking away from people isn’t automatically or necessarily a bad thing (unless they’re your dependent children). It depends. It depends on circumstances, degree and kind of relationship, and reasons. Total incompatibility of thought and conscience is a perfectly good reason for walking away from most people.

And then the claim that the “most committed Trump supporters are lost and afraid” is wholly unsupported, and I don’t believe it for a second. No doubt that describes some of them, but the entirety of the set? Please. He must be swallowing the absurd myth that Trump’s supporters are all abandoned rust belt workers desperate for jobs in coal mines. Nope: lots of them are The Very Rich, looking forward to tax cuts funded by dumping people off health insurance. There’s no reason whatever to assume that all Trump supporters are lost and afraid. Some are found and emboldened and full of venom.

Nor do we know that being lost and afraid is where their anger and prejudice come from. That’s just another made-up fact pulled out of the air. It may apply to some, but why should we agree it applies to all? Maybe the anger and prejudice of many or most of them just comes from anger and prejudice. Maybe there’s no need to look for sentimental “there there sweetiepie” sources, maybe there just are a lot of furious malevolent bullies cheering for Trump.

Yes they are “aliens” in some senses. They’re not from other planets, but they are from an alien moral universe.

The rest of it is just tedious platitudes and more unsupported assertions. Why is turning our backs on rabid Trump supporters not the way forward? How do we know it isn’t? Maybe it is; maybe it’s a necessary division of labor; maybe their friends and relations can work to redeem them morally while everyone else concentrates on getting Trump the fuck out of there.

Philip Bump at the Post notices Trump’s Twitter silence about Finsbury Park:

Donald Trump tweeted about the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015 about 3½ hours after they occurred. The following month, he tweeted about the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., 90 minutes after the violence began. It took fewer than 12 hours from the time an EgyptAir flight went missing in May 2016 for Trump to speculate publicly that the attack was terror-related. More than a year later, it’s still not clear what happened to the plane.

When terrorists drove a van into a crowd on London Bridge earlier this month, Trump tweeted about the need to be “smart, vigilant and tough” even before authorities identified terror as the motive behind the attack.

But now, bupkis.

In response to a crisis, one of the simplest responses from a president is a carefully worded statement of support, condolence or outrage. Simpler still is a brief message on social media. Trump built his political career in part on his willingness to jump into any number of frays by tweeting about them. As we’ve noted in the past, he shows little reticence to tweet about things he sees on television right after he sees them. Yet, Monday morning: silence.

Trump’s use of Twitter betrays his interests and disinterests. On Sunday, Father’s Day, Trump tweeted, in order:

• A two-part defense of his political success.
• An outlier poll showing him as more popular than he is.
• A retweet of the performers Diamond and Silk criticizing the media.
• A retweet of his son critical of former president Barack Obama.
• Praise for Camp David, where he spent the weekend.
• And finally, a retweet of the White House’s “Happy Father’s Day” message that morning.

That Trump hasn’t mentioned the attacks on Muslims in London isn’t surprising, mind you. It took days for him to praise the two men who were stabbed to death in Portland, Ore., while defending Muslim women on a train. It took almost a week for him to speak out about the shooting of two Indian men in Kansas by someone who thought that they were Muslim.

He’s too stupid even to fake it for appearances’ sake.

David Remnick on the cesspit that is Trump’s white house.

The yearning in the character of Donald Trump for dominance and praise is bottomless, a hunger that is never satisfied. Last week, the President gathered his Cabinet for a meeting with no other purpose than to praise him, to note the great “honor” and “blessing” of serving such a man as he. Trump nodded with grave self-satisfaction, accepting the serial hosannas as his daily due. But even as the members declared, Pyongyang-style, their everlasting gratitude and fealty to the Great Leader, this concocted dumb show of loyalty only served to suggest how unsustainable it all is.

The reason that this White House staff is so leaky, so prepared to express private anxiety and contempt, even while parading obeisance for the cameras, is that the President himself has so far been incapable of garnering its discretion or respect. Trump has made it plain that he is capable of turning his confused fury against anyone in his circle at any time. In a tweet on Friday morning, Trump confirmed that he is under investigation for firing the F.B.I. director James Comey, but blamed the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, for the legal imbroglio that Trump himself has created. The President has fired a few aides, he has made known his disdain and disappointment at many others, and he will, undoubtedly, turn against more. Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner, Jeff Sessions, Sean Spicer­—who has not yet felt the lash?

It’s hard not to be pleased that the adder is striking at them. They found his venom acceptable enough to agree to work for him, so it’s cosmic justice that he’s spitting it at them now.

Trump’s egotism, his demand for one-way loyalty, and his incapacity to assume responsibility for his own untruths and mistakes were, his biographers make plain, his pattern in business and have proved to be his pattern as President.

Veteran Washington reporters tell me that they have never observed this kind of anxiety, regret, and sense of imminent personal doom among White House staffers—not to this degree, anyway. These troubled aides seem to think that they can help their own standing by turning on those around them—and that by retailing information anonymously they will be able to live with themselves after serving a President who has proved so disconnected from the truth and reality.

It’s unkind to say it serves them right, but all the same, it does.

Joe Biden was on Fresh Air the other day. There was this one bit that started with Twitter…

GROSS: So, like, what are the rules for communication? Like, ’cause he – is it OK – did you have social media when you were vice president? And, like, what rules were you expected to follow?

BIDEN: Not that old. Yes, I…

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: I had social media.

GROSS: I thought they take that stuff away from you.

BIDEN: I have social media – had it. And we have millions of people following us. But there’s a difference between using the modern media and the means of communication than there is being irresponsible or irrational in the way you do it and just venting. You know, words matter. Words matter. When presidents speak, the world listens. And look, the idea that somebody, no matter what they do – no matter what their profession or their interest is – that gets up at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning and tweets vitriol, what it does – it fundamentally alters the view of the character of the presidency in the rest of the world.

You know what I heard? I was just in Greece and Italy and meeting a lot of national figures in each of those countries. You know the one thing that’s done the most damage? When the president of the United States stiff-armed and moved – no, I mean it. I’m not joking. I’m not – and then stood like this. That was the image of America, almost the image of the ugly American. That it just – it has such resonance.

It’s not a joke at all.

What will happen if Trump runs out of Justice Department people to fire? Will the gears just freeze and everything stop and time come to an end?

Since taking office, the Trump administration has twice rewritten an executive order that outlines the order of succession at the Justice Department — once after President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend his travel ban, and then again two months later. The executive order outlines a list of who would be elevated to the position of acting attorney general if the person up the food chain recuses himself, resigns, gets fired or is no longer in a position to serve.

In the past, former Justice Department officials and legal experts said, the order of succession is no more than an academic exercise — a chain of command applicable only in the event of an attack or crisis when government officials are killed and it is not clear who should be in charge.

But Trump has been burning through DoJ people as a hungry man burns through two scoops of ice cream. Sessions is recused from all the things, and Trump has fixed his beady eye on Rosenstein. There aren’t a lot of people left.

“We know Rachel Brand is the next victim,” said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, referring to the former George W. Bush official who was recently confirmed as associate attorney general, the third-highest position in the Justice Department.

“For those of us who have high confidence in Rachel — the more confidence you have in someone in this role, the less long you think they’ll last,” said Wittes, who said he considers Brand a friend. “That does put a very high premium on the question of who is next.”

That question, however, has become more complicated because the Trump administration has been slow to fill government positions and get those officials confirmed. Typically, the solicitor general would be next in line after the associate attorney general, followed by the list of five assistant U.S. attorneys, the order of which would be determined by the attorney general. But none of those individuals have been confirmed by the Senate, and they would be unable to serve as acting attorney general without Senate confirmation.

Well you can’t blame them for that, they’ve been terribly busy tweeting.

Some former Justice Department officials said they would find it inconceivable for Trump to clean house, or to fire Mueller — even taking into account the sometimes erratic behavior of the commander in chief.

“This president is so unpredictable, it’s hard to say,” said Emily Pierce, a former Justice Department official in the Obama administration. “It would be the craziest thing he’s done to date if he were to start firing the special counsel or Rosenstein. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he realizes how much trouble he may be in — and that with the firing of Comey, he wouldn’t do that.”

A reasonable person wouldn’t do that. You can provide the next sentence without my help.

“I think the Watergate scenario would make most self-respecting lawyers loath to put themselves in the role that Bork ended up playing,” said Brian Fallon, a former Obama Justice Department and Hillary Clinton spokesman. “Most career-minded independent lawyers that have high regard for the Justice Department as an institution would be loath to be the modern-day equivalent to Bork.”

But Trump, too, is cognizant of the comparison to Nixon, according to one adviser. The president, who friends said does not enjoy living in Washington and is strained by the demanding hours of the job, is motivated to carry on because he “doesn’t want to go down in history as a guy who tried and failed,” said the adviser. “He doesn’t want to be the second president in history to resign.”

Oh Don. You’re so stupid. That ship has sailed. Best case scenario you’re going down in history as a joke. Best case.

Adam Schiff said a thing yesterday about Trump’s possible plans to fire Mueller.

It has become clear that President Trump believes that he has the power to fire anyone in government he chooses and for any reason, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That is not how the rule of law works, and Congress will not allow the President to so egregiously overstep his authority.

If President Trump were to try to replicate Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre by firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in addition to Mueller, Congress must unite to stop him – without respect to party, and for the sake of the nation.

Congress can defend our system of checks and balances by passing an independent counsel law that empowers an independent prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation and anything that arises from it. Such a law should allow for the reappointment of Bob Mueller, someone who has served Presidents of both parties and whom Democrats and Republicans have come to admire. We cannot allow the President to choose who will conduct this investigation or to interfere with its progress in any way.

I find that more unnerving than reassuring. Note that it doesn’t say Congress will unite to stop him – it says Congress must. Well, yeah, it must, but will it? It must do a lot of things, but it doesn’t.

It is being underlined every day that in reality the president has way too much absolute power and that the “checks and balances” are a fraud. It’s being constantly demonstrated that there are no checks and balances if the executive and Congress are both in the hands of the same party (and that party has no scruples or conscience or integrity). The truth is that Trump could fire Mueller and get away with it. The truth is that we don’t know that Republicans would join Democrats to stop him.

This country is a menace.

The political or public relations side of things may be going unsmoothly for Don, but the money-making side is flourishing. More gold-plated bathtubs for Don, and that’s what matters.

President Trump says he’s received tens of millions of dollars in income from the golf courses and resorts whose profile he boosted during frequent visits since taking office, according to filings released Friday by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

Being president is turning a big big profit. All he has to do is visit one of his resorts and the cash just pours in. It’s such a brilliant wheeze.

Properties that Trump frequently visited as president saw the largest boost in income. Trump claimed more than $37 million in income from Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach County resort in Florida he described as his “Winter White House,” as well as $20 million in income from the nearby golf club he owns in Jupiter, Florida. His claimed Mar-a-Lago income rose rapidly since his last two financial disclosures with the FEC: Trump reported more than $15 million in income from the resort in the 2015 report, followed by $29 million in the 2016 version.

Compared to $37 million for just half of 2017. Not too shabby, eh? Makes being president worth the trouble.

Golfing and vacationing are bipartisan presidential traditions, as are the partisan critiques of the presidents who partake in them. But Trump has taken his leisure time to new levels both in volume and location. A May 5 analysis by The Washington Post found that Trump visited at least one of the properties he owned in 36 of his first 108 days in office, or one-third of his presidency to that time. The trips include almost weekly visits to Mar-a-Lago and his Florida properties, where he mingles with guests and club members as well as hosts foreign dignitaries.

And he does it all at our expense. He collects the profits while we pick up the tab for his costs.

Royalties on his “book” are way up, too.

Also…Trump’s lawyer has hired a lawyer. No really.

President Donald Trump’s longtime attorney and adviser Michael Cohen has hired a lawyer to represent him in the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Cohen told CNN on Friday.

Cohen, who serves as Trump’s personal attorney, hired Stephen Ryan, a partner at the DC-based law firm McDermott, Will and Emery, to handle inquiries related to the investigations into Russian meddling in the election. News of the hire comes two weeks after Cohen was subpoenaed by the House intelligence committee as part of the committee’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Next week Trump’s lawyer’s lawyer will hire a lawyer and it will keep on this way until the whole thing is solid lawyers all the way to the horizon and then we go back to zero and start again.

Dianne Feinstein issued a statement:

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement on recent statements by the president:

“I’m growing increasingly concerned that the president will attempt to fire not only Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible obstruction of justice, but also Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein who appointed Mueller.

“The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired. That’s undemocratic on its face and a blatant violation of the president’s oath of office.

“First of all, the president has no authority to fire Robert Mueller. That authority clearly lies with the attorney general—or in this case, because the attorney general has recused himself, with the deputy attorney general. Rosenstein testified under oath this week that he would not fire Mueller without good cause and that none exists.

“And second, if the president thinks he can fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and replace him with someone who will shut down the investigation, he’s in for a rude awakening. Even his staunchest supporters will balk at such a blatant effort to subvert the law.

“It’s becoming clear to me that the president has embarked on an effort to undermine anyone with the ability to bring any misdeeds to light, be that Congress, the media or the Justice Department. The Senate should not let that happen. We’re a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, a lesson the president would be wise to learn.”

I wish she had said “The Senate must not let that happen.”