The Trump Presidency

[Il Duce]

I think those are really good insights. I think your point on Nixon is further strengthened by the fact it took Republicans to cross over and stop protecting/start going after the President in order for impeachment to be a real possibility. The only way I see that happening in this climate - even if somebody produces tapes of President Trump murdering someone - is if there is a straight line to VP Pence taking over, which much of the Republican establishment would have preferred in the first place.

I thought this was an excellent article in placing Manafort's activities in context: What Exactly Did Paul Manafort Do Wrong?

 

[ThunderHorse]

So I think this goes here, this is from the Phoenix New Times. Antifa's in brown shirts:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154247224046861

Arizona is an open carry state, I don't carry often unless I'm out in the desert hiking. Walking around in formation in and around the capital grounds makes you an asshole.

ETA: DNC asks all staffers to resign-http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/embattled-dnc-asks-all-staffers-for-resignation-letters-nbc-news.html

ETA 2: Atlantic Monthly used to be so good. The Fundamental Dishonesty of the Gorsuch Hearings

 

[Salt USMC]

If you need any further convincing that Devin Nunes is a clown and an independent investigation is needed in the Russia investigation, I submit to you exhibit A

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, a Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed that President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Mr. Nunes has also been faulted by his congressional colleagues for sharing the information with President Trump before consulting with other members of the intelligence committee.

The contacts who informed Nunes of the "incidental collection" of Trump during the campaign (which was neither incidental nor collection) were actually White House staffers, one of whom is pretty senior in the NSC. Which makes his behavior all the more bizarre: if your sources are within the White House, why would you brief the President on information that he's already privy to? Are NSC officials not sharing intelligence with the President, or is he choosing to ignore it?

Regardless, this whole debacle is just further confirmation that Nunes is carrying water for the administration and is not acting in good faith as the House intel committee chairman. I'm just glad that the Senate hearings are going more smoothly, without the weird partisan kabuki theater we saw when Comey and Rogers testified.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Comey on Twitter: http://gizmodo.com/this-is-almost-certainly-james-comey-s-twitter-account-1793843641

ETA: Trump's 1Q Salary was donated to the Department of the Interior.

 

[TLDR20]

This isn't a serious policy gripe and is totally me being nitpicky:

I am kind of upset POTUS didn't throw out the first pitch yesterday. He surely would have been booed, but there is something I think brings people together during baseball. Him punching in a strike would have at least made him connect with some of his base a little more in my opinion.

I think it is pretty lame to shirk what is in my opinion a good tradition. I know others have not done it, doesn't mean I can't bitch about it now though...

 

[ThunderHorse]

Waiting for the arraignment of Susan Rice that will never happen...

In regards to that, what was he doing yesterday that conflicted with it? Kind of a dumb thing, sort a thing that's on the Calendar, right?

 

[Il Duce]

Arraignment? It might help for there to be illegal and/or unethical behavior first.

The unmasking/masking explanation in this article is surprisingly good - and might be helpful to non-SIGINTers to understand what's being talked about: Susan Rice and the Latest Bogus Attempt to Justify Trump’s Wiretapping Tweet

 

[Salt USMC]

Waiting for the arraignment of Susan Rice that will never happen...

In regards to that, what was he doing yesterday that conflicted with it? Kind of a dumb thing, sort a thing that's on the Calendar, right?

Why should it? There are legitimate reasons why the president's national security advisor could request for US citizens to be unmasked in intelligence reports related to a national security investigation. I'm not ruling out the idea that it could've been done for partisan political reasons, but conservative media is treating that as a foregone conclusion when that's simply not the case. Moreover, it's a really blatant attempt to muddy the investigation. One commentator said it best: It's like the administration just got caught cheating on his girlfriend and he's getting mad at her for going through his phone.

It's also super weird that the administration is double, triple, even quadrupling down on this ridiculous wiretapping claim after the FBI and NSA have already testified that it just didn't happen. Why can't they let it die like they did with the claim of "millions of illegal voters"?

 

[Marauder06]

Why should it? There are legitimate reasons why the president's national security advisor could request for US citizens to be unmasked in intelligence reports related to a national security investigation. I'm not ruling out the idea that it could've been done for partisan political reasons, but conservative media is treating that as a foregone conclusion when that's simply not the case. Moreover, it's a really blatant attempt to muddy the investigation. One commentator said it best: It's like the administration just got caught cheating on his girlfriend and he's getting mad at her for going through his phone.

It's also super weird that the administration is double, triple, even quadrupling down on this ridiculous wiretapping claim after the FBI and NSA have already testified that it just didn't happen. Why can't they let it die like they did with the claim of "millions of illegal voters"?

One of the reasons we have laws about intel oversight is to prevent intelligence collection being used for political purposes. I see no reason OTHER than a partisan political one why the then-sitting-president's National Security Advisor (NSA) would want to personally see the individual names of people affiliated with the candidate that her boss desperately wanted to not become president. If the names were redacted then the intelligence and/or law enforcement officials tasked with collecting the information felt that the high bar for naming US persons was not met. This means either the information was collected inadvertently or that they were not accused/suspected of a crime. So why did NSA Rice override that?

 

[Marauder06]

This isn't a serious policy gripe and is totally me being nitpicky:

I am kind of upset POTUS didn't throw out the first pitch yesterday. He surely would have been booed, but there is something I think brings people together during baseball. Him punching in a strike would have at least made him connect with some of his base a little more in my opinion.

I think it is pretty lame to shirk what is in my opinion a good tradition. I know others have not done it, doesn't mean I can't bitch about it now though...

It was a savvy political move. The disruption would have only generated positive press for the protesters and encouraged similar behavior from them in the future. Not showing up and blaming it on "the left" (or whatever) actually strengthens his base, "Look what other American traditions are threatened by "them!!""

 

[TLDR20]

It was a savvy political move. The disruption would have only generated positive press for the protesters and encouraged similar behavior from them in the future. Not showing up and blaming it on "the left" (or whatever) actually strengthens his base, "Look what other American traditions are threatened by "them!!""

Wait what? Were there threats of protests? I just assumed he didn't want to be booed.

I saw people unfurled a banner after the game, but he hadn't planned on going for over a week.

 

[Marauder06]

Wait what? Were there threats of protests? I just assumed he didn't want to be booed.

I saw people unfurled a banner after the game, but he hadn't planned on going for over a week.

An "Impeach Trump" banner isn't a protest?

I also read that he had claimed a "scheduling conflict" so maybe that was the cause and not my original supposition.

 

[TLDR20]

An "Impeach Trump" banner isn't a protest?

I also read that he had claimed a "scheduling conflict" so maybe that was the cause and not my original supposition.

Sure it is, they did that knowing he wasn't coming though.

Should he not interact with the populace due to fear of protests?

 

[Il Duce]

One of the reasons we have laws about intel oversight is to prevent intelligence collection being used for political purposes. I see no reason OTHER than a partisan political one why the then-sitting-president's National Security Advisor (NSA) would want to personally see the individual names of people affiliated with the candidate that her boss desperately wanted to not become president. If the names were redacted then the intelligence and/or law enforcement officials tasked with collecting the information felt that the high bar for naming US persons was not met. This means either the information was collected inadvertently or that they were not accused/suspected of a crime. So why did NSA Rice override that?

Really? So, the national security advisor sees a report about high-level Russian diplomats/spies talking with masked US persons about sanctions/elections/cyber/spying/almost anything while that same country has been linked to disinformation and hacking in the just-completed national election. Meanwhile, her boss is instituting/has instituted diplomatic sanctions (kicking diplomats/spies out of the country) and the IC is preparing a report on Russian interference in the election with Congressional investigations a pretty safe bet. In that situation you feel like the national security advisor has zero reasons to want to know the US persons masked in the reports other than a desire to leak the names and damage political adversaries? I would think a national security advisor would be derelict in not wanting to know the names of those people as questions are most assuredly going to come up on 'what did you know and when.'

On top of that 'unmasking' requests are a part of the intelligence oversight chain at NSA covered by DIRNSAs legal office and subject to almost constant audit. A review board of experts has to review every request for intelligence value, need-to-know, and privacy concerns. I think they may have come up with at least one reason in that review process other than political dirty tricks.

 

[Marauder06]

Sure it is, they did that knowing he wasn't coming though.

Should he not interact with the populace due to fear of protests?

You're assuming they knew he wasn't coming. It's also possible that they planned the protest because they thought he was coming, and then decided to carry it out anyway.

I think he--or anyone--should be judicious about public events, for the reasons already stated. Sometimes an individual will take a personal hit to avoid having protestors ruin an event for everyone.

 

[Marauder06]

Really? So, the national security advisor sees a report about high-level Russian diplomats/spies talking with masked US persons about sanctions/elections/cyber/spying/almost anything while that same country has been linked to disinformation and hacking in the just-completed national election. Meanwhile, her boss is instituting/has instituted diplomatic sanctions (kicking diplomats/spies out of the country) and the IC is preparing a report on Russian interference in the election with Congressional investigations a pretty safe bet. In that situation you feel like the national security advisor has zero reasons to want to know the US persons masked in the reports other than a desire to leak the names and damage political adversaries? I would think a national security advisor would be derelict in not wanting to know the names of those people as questions are most assuredly going to come up on 'what did you know and when.'

On top of that 'unmasking' requests are a part of the intelligence oversight chain at NSA covered by DIRNSAs legal office and subject to almost constant audit. A review board of experts has to review every request for intelligence value, need-to-know, and privacy concerns. I think they may have come up with at least one reason in that review process other than political dirty tricks.

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I never said, or implied, that NSA Rice leaked anything. But yeah, I think that her actions are indicative of someone wanting to garner information for domestic political uses. I think a reasonable person could go either way on this. Let an investigation decide.

 

[Il Duce]

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I never said, or implied, that NSA Rice leaked anything. But yeah, I think that her actions are indicative of someone wanting to garner information for domestic political uses. I think a reasonable person could go either way on this. Let an investigation decide.

What's the domestic political use other than leaking?

 

[Marauder06]

What's the domestic political use other than leaking?

Crafting future political strategy, for one. Information doesn't have to be leaked in order to be useful.

 

[TLDR20]

There is such a silly thing going on. America elected a guy that was going to demolish safe spaces, say fuck the PC police, drain the swamp and all that. Yet when he may be challenged publicly he retreats into his safe space, or his twitter account.

Bottom line for me is that POTUS seems like he is afraid of the people. He is afraid of what they think of him, be that a shitty first pitch, or a group of angry liberals booing and making posters. If he is such a tough guy why doesn't he strut out there, fire a strike and peace the fuck out? Wouldn't that say more than a scheduling conflict? Wouldn't going out and doing something Americans do maybe normalize the guy, especially a guy that spends all his weekends at his private resort in Florida?

.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

be that a shitty first pitch,

That actually disappointed me. Throw the best pitch you can and if you muss it, do an over-exaggerated "oh my shoulder!" move while smiling and laughing.

I have often believed that one of the things that endeared Bill Clinton and Obama to those with opposing views was their ability to be both self deprecating and available to the public. Be it Jimmy Fallon, Ellen, Oprah, etc...

If current Mr. President would take a cue and let himself be laughed at a bit, it weakens the strength and effectiveness of the liberal attacks. Right now he is taking a cue from the late Dennis Green and hiding in the bunker. It makes him appear self conscious and paranoid.