192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
BillW
 
  4  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 02:26 am
@BillW,
https://www.axios.com/trump-blamed-rick-perry-call-ukraine-zelensky-8178447a-0374-4ac6-b321-a9454b0565d4.html

Scoop: Trump pins Ukraine call on Energy Secretary Rick Perry

Quote:
President Trump told House Republicans that he made his now infamous phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the urging of Energy Secretary Rick Perry — a call Trump claimed he didn’t even want to make.

Behind the scenes: Trump made these comments during a conference call with House members on Friday, according to 3 sources on the call.

Per the sources, Trump rattled off the same things he has been saying publicly — that his call with Zelensky was "perfect"and he did nothing wrong.
But he then threw Perry into the mix and said something to the effect of: "Not a lot of people know this but, I didn't even want to make the call. The only reason I made the call was because Rick asked me to. Something about an LNG [liquified natural gas] plant," one source said, recalling the president's comments. 2 other sources confirmed the first source's recollection.
Why it matters: The president's remarks suggest he may be seeking to distance himself from responsibility or recast the pretext for the call. White House officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Another source on the call said Trump added that "more of this will be coming out in the next few days" — referring to Perry.
Worth noting: Text messages released this week between Trump administration officials and Andrey Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, suggest that Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was a primary advocate for arranging the call.

There is no mention in the text messages of Perry playing a role in making this call happen.
Zelensky talks about buying American oil and wanting to work with the U.S. on energy independence, but Perry and LNG are not discussed in the 5-page memo of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House.
Between the lines: Perry, who is reportedly resigning by the end of this year, has become increasingly embroiled in congressional Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

In May, Perry led a U.S. delegation to Ukraine for Zelensky’s inauguration in place of Vice President Mike Pence, and Democrats have begun to press Perry for more information about the trip and his conversations with Ukrainian leaders.
The House subpoena of Rudy Giuliani also seeks documents related to Perry's "involvement with Ukrainian leaders last spring."
However, Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday that, "as God is my witness," neither Joe or Hunter Biden's name ever came up.
And as The Washington Post recently reported, "no evidence has emerged that Perry participated in the effort to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter."
Perry's spokeswoman, Shaylyn Hynes, told Axios: “Secretary Perry absolutely supported and encouraged the president to speak to the new president of Ukraine to discuss matters related to their energy security and economic development."

"He continues to believe that there is significant need for improved regional energy security—which is exactly why he is heading to Lithuania tonight to meet with nearly 2 dozen European energy leaders (including Ukraine) on these issues,” Haynes added.
The White House acknowledged the conference call in a Friday readout that said participants included Minority Leader McCarthy, Whip Steve Scalise, Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, and GOP leaders on key House committees — and that they discussed Friday's jobs report, the economy and concerns about Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

The readout makes no mention of Rick Perry.
Go deeper: Politico examines Perry's ties to Ukraine.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 03:21 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
There is right and there is wrong. Trump and his minions and his enablers are in the wrong. That's it.

Disagreeing with the left's demented ideology does not make people in the wrong.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 04:47 am
@oralloy,
Trump's supporting the right's demented ideology is what puts him in the wrong.
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 04:53 am
Trump 'Fawning' to Putin and other Authoritarians in 'Embarrassing' Phone Calls, White House Aides Say—Report

Quote:
As the spotlight on President Donald Trump's interactions with foreign leaders intensifies, former and current White House officials have described Trump's interactions with strongman leaders as fawning, deferential and embarrassing, with many of those in the administration "horrified" at his conduct.

The Washington Post spoke with 12 current and former White House officials who said that members of the administration were shocked at the president's behavior during conversations with authoritarians like Russian President Vladimir Putin and members of the Saudi royal family.

"There was a constant undercurrent in the Trump administration of [senior staff] who were genuinely horrified by the things they saw that were happening on these calls," one former White House official—who spoke on the condition of anonymity—told the Post.

"Phone calls that were embarrassing, huge mistakes he made, months and months of work that were upended by one impulsive tweet," the official added.

Aides were particularly concerned about Trump's calls with Putin. The first call came less than two weeks into the presidency on January 28, 2017.

The call was intended for Putin to congratulate Trump on his victory, but the new president was "obsequious" and "fawning," even apologizing to the dictator for not calling him sooner, anonymous former White House aides told the Post.

"He was like, 'Oh my gosh, my people didn't tell me you wanted to talk to me,'" according to one person with direct knowledge of the call. And in another Putin call, Trump is said to have asked his Russian counterpart for advice on how to deal with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

"We couldn't figure out early on why he was being so nice to Russia," a former senior administration official added.

Trump upended long-term U.S. strategy during his calls, for example promising to support Saudi Arabia's entry into the G7 group of nations. "The G-7 is supposed to be the allies with whom we share the most common values and the deepest commitment to upholding the rules-based order," one former official told the Post.

Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses mean it would not have been suitable for admission, but Trump said he would support the country's efforts anyway, the former official claimed. Ultimately Saudi Arabia was not added to the group.

The president also reportedly ignored the grave human rights abuses in the Philippines, where President Rodrigo Duterte has been waging a zero tolerance campaign against drug dealers and users, in which thousands have been killed.

During an April 2017 call, Trump told Duterte that he was doing an "unbelievable job on the drug problem," the Post reported.

Officials said it was a constant battle to keep Trump on track. "You had two to three minutes max," one former senior administration official said. "And then he was still usually going to say whatever he wanted to say."

Another said aides quickly had to come to terms with his unconventional, and at times embarrassing, manner. "People had gotten really numb to him blurting out something he shouldn't have," one former national security staffer told the Post.

Officials were also concerned that calls with long-time U.S. allies often did not go as smoothly as those with strongmen and dictators. "People who could do things for him—he was nice to," one former security official said. "Leaders with trade deficits, strong female leaders, members of NATO — those tended to go badly."

newsweek
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 05:47 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Officials were also concerned that calls with long-time U.S. allies often did not go as smoothly as those with strongmen and dictators. "People who could do things for him—he was nice to," one former security official said. "Leaders with trade deficits, strong female leaders, members of NATO — those tended to go badly."
When given the option of spending an afternoon with Nelson Mandela or with Don Corleone, Trump chose....
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 05:50 am
This morning at the New Yorker
Quote:
“Stupid Watergate” Is Worse Than the Original
By David Remnick

Quote:
Donald Trump's Ukraine Scandal Has Its Roots in Russia
Both situations stem from the President’s apparent willingness to accept political favors from foreign leaders, and his eagerness to do Putin’s bidding.
By Jeffrey Toobin

Quote:
The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine
by Jane Mayer



0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 05:59 am
Sinclair continues it's outstanding work in state propaganda
Quote:
For the second straight week, Sinclair Broadcast Group’s main conservative personalities, Boris Epshteyn and Eric Bolling, have been producing programming akin to state propaganda on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Epshteyn and Bolling have been using their Sinclair platforms to defend Trump’s solicitation of foreign help to investigate his potential 2020 political rival Joe Biden; dismiss the substance of both the inquiry and the whistleblower complaint that spurred it; push misinformation and lies about the inquiry; and attack Democrats leading the effort. Bolling has also hosted allies of the president to bolster these arguments.
MM

Eric Bolling landed here after a HuffPost report that he'd sent unsolicited lewd photos and text messages to three female colleagues at Fox whereupon Fox fired him because such behavior had never ever ever been seen previously at their network.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 06:29 am
Quote:
What Will Republicans Do If Trump Goes Down?
By Ed Kilgore

At this stage of the Ukraine scandal and impeachment proceedings, there’s no reason to think Donald Trump is in any imminent danger of losing his job. Yes, impeachment by the House is (in my judgment, anyway), more probable than not. But since it would take the defection of 20 Republican senators (and maybe more if any Democrats break ranks) to uphold a conviction, both the prevailing atmosphere of partisan polarization and the proximity of incredibly high-stakes elections make the sort of GOP disarray needed to split the party that badly extremely unlikely, to put it mildly. And the sounds of dissension and distress now emanating from such perpetually squeaky wheels as Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse should not be confused with any widespread revolt.

Still, anything’s possible when it comes to the kind of presidential misconduct impeachment proceedings might unveil. And there’s the Nixon precedent, in which most party members stuck with him until he made himself all but indefensible. As Lee Drutman recently noted, such a reversal could be swift if it happens, though it probably won’t:
Quote:
If there is a Republican cascade against Trump, in retrospect, it will look inevitable, as if the steady drip of revelations and testimony was always destined to reach that final dramatic tipping point. But a note to future historians: As of this moment, it does not look inevitable at all.

Another possible but unlikely scenario also echoes the Nixon precedent: an embattled and exhausted president resigns rather than facing the music, with or without assurances his successor will protect his predecessor from prosecution. If any president has ever thrived in chaos, it’s this one. But let’s just say for the sake of argument that one way or another Donald Trump is packing his bags for Mar-a-Lago well before his appointed date with the American electorate on November 2 of next year. What would his party, so recently the subject of a hostile takeover by this strange man with his norm-breaking behavior, do then? First, obviously enough, they’d likely look to his vice-president and successor.

Any post-Trump scenario begins with Mike Pence.

The obvious figure who could keep a party together composed of MAGA folk and other sorts of conservatives who for one reason or another dumped Trump, it would be Mike Pence. He’s been loyal to POTUS to the point of embarrassing sycophancy. Yet before he joined Trump’s ticket, he was a rigidly conventional conservative with many friends among his fellow House Republicans. And he’s beloved (at least at the leadership level) among Trump’s and the GOP’s single most important constituency: white conservative Evangelicals. As McKay Coppins notes, he could represent a soothing alternative if the stormy barbarian in the White House just vanished:
Quote:
One senior Republican Senate staffer, who requested anonymity to describe the situation candidly, told me, “If it was just a matter of magically snapping their fingers … pretty much every Republican senator would switch out Pence for Trump. That’s been true since day one.”

Well, that’s not happening. But if he ascends to the presidency because Trump goes down or leaves, it’s hard to see a really powerful movement among Republicans to dump incumbent President Pence with a 2020 election right there in front of them.

The more immediate question, though, is whether Pence will himself be so deeply implicated in the misconduct leading to the removal of Trump that he’ll go right down with the ship. David Frum has some relevant thoughts on how ensnared the veep might be by the Ukraine scandal:
Quote:
From the beginning, [Trump] has appeared determined to implicate as many members of his administration as possible in his scandal — Vice President Mike Pence heading the list …

Indeed, Pence seems to have been involved up to the eyeballs in the Ukraine plot. His team’s messaging — Yes, he pressed the Ukrainians to investigate corruption, but he never appreciated that Trump’s true purpose was to pursue the Bidens — fails the laugh test. Pence’s taint presents a political problem for him, but raises a much graver question for the country. If the Senate ever could muster the integrity to remove Trump from office, there would be no Ford to put in his place, only a vice president who participated in Trump’s dirty schemes, from staying at a remote resort to direct government funds to Trump’s failing Irish golf course to extorting an invaded country to fabricate political dirt to help Trump’s reelection.

There may be a limit to Pence’s entanglement, though. Let’s just say it’s November and the House Judiciary Committee is drafting articles of impeachment against Trump, and has reason to impeach Pence as well. Will they consider it, knowing that taking Pence down too would make their own chieftain, Nancy Pelosi, president? That’s certainly the one thing the House could do that is most guaranteed to assure Senate acquittal of both men. It won’t happen: Democrats will likely prefer to get rid of Trump and then deal with a damaged Pence in November of 2020.

If Pence is too unpopular or tainted to replace Trump as their leader, where could Republicans turn?

Let’s say Trump is removed from office or resigns under pressure, and Pence is severely damaged goods. What would Republicans do then, looking down the gun barrel of the 2020 elections? It’s unlikely they would throw the party nomination open to a free competition of candidates like they had in 2016; for all we know, the primaries could be half-over by the time Trump was sent packing. That means Republicans would need to unite quickly and firmly behind a well-known and reasonably popular replacement, pronto. Below is a look at their not-great options.

How about their 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney?

You can almost hear the sonorous voices of centrist elites urging the GOP to turn in its distress to the man it last nominated for president before it went mad and fell to Trump — Mitt Romney. And there’s a certain superficial logic to the argument: He’s got 100 percent name ID; he proved in 2012 that he could placate his party’s many factions, including suspicious conservatives; and he came pretty close to knocking off an incumbent president.

But any scenario where Trump is driven from office by Republicans as well as Democrats has Romney, already a regular and sometimes vociferous Trump critic, being loud and proud and in the lead. That would make him a most unlikely figure to heal a party wounded and probably still divided over the fall of the 45th president.

Besides, outside Utah and LDS circles, and perhaps some Wall Street precincts, Romney has never been and will never be a beloved party titan. He was tolerated by many in 2012 because his rivals turned out to be feckless. But he’s become a symbol of Establishment Republican failure, the most important contributor to Trump’s ascent in the first place. Replacing Trump with the Mittster would be the deepest insult imaginable to mourning MAGA folk who view him as the epitome of the Swamp, both as a politician and as a champion of financial elites. It really wouldn’t make much sense.

How about a face for the future, like Nikki Haley or Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley?

If a figure from the GOP’s past won’t work, then how about one who is flagged for the party’s future? Many idle speculators have dreamed of Nikki Haley as someone who could begin to turn around the GOP’s unsavory reputation among women and minorities (she’s Indian-American), and she’s actually got the bare minimum of a résumé needed to run for president (even before Trump supposedly abolished such qualifications.) Tom Cotton appeals to many traditional conservatives thanks to his military service and his harsh moralism and militarism. He’s also been willing to accommodate Trumpism on issues like immigration and trade, and he conveys a cold hatefulness that Pence lacks, which could appeal to those who want to own the libs. And then there’s the freshest fresh face, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who may represent the distant future of Trumpism, someone so committed to bring back American Greatness that he won’t let quaint Republican attachments like free-market economics get in the way of a culturally reactionary agenda.

The trouble with all these GOP prospects is that they’ve never run, much less won, a national political campaign; they wouldn’t have time for even a moment’s “grooming”; and none, in part because they are all available, would be some sort of lead-pipe cinch as a party leader. It’s just too soon for any of them, and even if any of them were ready, there’s no national party cabal with the power to impose such novices onto the top spot of the 2020 ticket.

How about a 2016 retread?

There is, aside from Romney, a group of pols who have run for president before, but have by and large reconciled themselves to their conquerer, and could in theory unite rabid MAGA folk with the Senate Republicans who have (in this scenario) tossed Trump over the side. That group would include 2016 candidates like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham.

The first problem, of course, is that these men are all senators, who in a post-Trump scenario, would have voted for or against defenestrating him, and probably engaging in much hot rhetoric along the way (that’s assuming Trump doesn’t make it easy by announcing on television that he worships at an altar of the Lord Satan every morning before watching Fox & Friends, or literally shoots someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue). You don’t look among jurors to replace a convicted criminal. The bigger issue would be which of them would get pride of place in a scenario, again, in which Republican primary voters likely would not have the opportunity to sort them out. Do they get together for a game of rock-paper-scissors? It’s hard to see this working out in the constrained circumstances it might involve.

How about a revered senior figure? Could GOP Nation turn its lonely eyes to Paul Ryan?

By process of elimination, if Trump goes down and Pence is cast aside, Republicans would need to quickly find a unity figure not involved in 2016 or more recent, divisive intra-party squabbles. That narrows it down to possibly one person: Paul Ryan. He’s obviously very well-known, with plenty of friends on Capitol Hill and on Wall Street. He’s been on a national ticket before, with the Mittster, whose defeat no one blamed on him. He’s in the neighborhood, having recently moved back to Washington, probably in anticipation of getting the Mother of All Lobbying Gigs — which fortunately he has not yet secured. He’s from the state many experts believe will decide the 2020 election, Wisconsin. And he knows how to graciously accept a call to service while appearing to resist it, having become Speaker of the House precisely through this role as a reluctant party savior.

No, he’s not perfect for the gig of post-Trump presidential nominee; his own misgivings about the 45th president have been pretty clear, and he’d have to swallow hard to champion a lot of Trumpian foreign and economic policies. But he’s been out of the line of fire just long enough that he’s not a red flag to any party faction. Yes, nasty things he said about Trump made it into print in Tim Alberta’s book, American Carnage, this summer, leading to an even nastier presidential tweetstorm. But who in the GOP hasn’t been treated to one of those? I mean, if Trump is run out of office, they can’t make his daughter their next party leader, can they?

This close to the election, Republicans better hope Trump doesn’t force himself and Pence out of office.

Perhaps other writers will spin fantasies of open Trump opponents like William Weld somehow picking up the pieces and roaring through the 2020 primaries if the president goes down very quickly. But that ignores the fact that even if Republicans abandon Trump, the GOP will in many respects remain his party for the foreseeable future. Most likely, they will submerge their private misgivings and go to war with his banner held high, bellowing MAGA rage and trying not to think about inviting another four years of daily madness. And if they can’t do that, they’ll try to salvage his veep. Republicans chose a long dark road when they accepted Donald Trump as their leader and then adjusted to his barbaric ways in exchange for the tax cuts and judicial appointments and high military spending he offered. They won’t be able to climb back toward the light very easily.






0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 07:21 am
Second whistleblower in Trump-Ukraine scandal comes forward: lawyer
Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A second whistleblower, with first-hand knowledge of President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, has spoken with the intelligence community’s internal watchdog, the lawyer representing the official said on Sunday.

Mark Zaid confirmed in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” that the second official, also from the U.S. intelligence community, has been interviewed by the inspector general. Zaid represents the first whistleblower who filed a complaint involving a July 25 phone call Trump held with Ukraine’s president in which he asked him to investigate a Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 07:47 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Kelly O'Donnell
@KellyO
53m
Attorney Andrew Bakaj tells me his legal team is representing MULTIPLE officials who will be making disclosures to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. He says "No further comment at this time."


The more individuals who break silence, the easier it will be for others to do the same. Still, because of how Trump and Barr operate, this is not without significant risk for any of them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 07:54 am
Ever seen this phenomenon before? I haven't.
Quote:
Richard Hine
@richardhine
‼️ "This morning there isn't one Administration official who is going on television to defend the President and no one from the GOP's leadership team in Congress is going on any Sunday shows."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 08:26 am
Quote:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
59m
The Democrats are lucky that they don’t have any Mitt Romney types. They may be lousy politicians, with really bad policies (Open Borders, Sanctuary Cities etc.), but they stick together!

There is not a single element in here that is true. Except perhaps the "lousy politicians" thing.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:08 am
I tell you, I just don’t get it.
Trump has asked for hostile foreign countries’ help to get negative info about a political rival. - live on national TV.
Everyone knows what he did.
Even the spineless cowardly Republicans are said to admit it - though in private.
We’ll probably not only get this 2nd whistleblower, but a third and more.
What is enough?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:18 am
@snood,
Good for Trump! It's not as if there is anything wrong about what he did.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:20 am
@MontereyJack,
Actually I wasn't speaking in broad generalities, but about this latest offense with Trump using his office to pressure foreign leaders to help with his re-election chances by dangling military aid and a WH meeting.

I mean we have laws, Trump broke campaign laws at the very least, worse he put our country at risk in numerous ways and he abused his position as President. It's that simple.
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:27 am
It appears to me that many here are rather intensely wrapped in protective illusions and oblivious to several key facts. The ongoing fatuous impeachment effort will go nowhere: not even getting a majority vote in the House of Representatives ( a prospect that Speaker Pelosi appears increasingly to fear). The trumped up (sic!) charges are at best weak and insufficient, and the lies and deceptions accompanying them by Adam Schiff and others are fast making this a rather ridiculous spectacle in the public eye. The stock market dipped with the initial announcement but has since recovered it's previous level. Trump's poll numbers are steady and rising.

Meanwhile the circus of Democrat Presidential contenders appears to be in a bit of disarray; Biden has likely been fatally damaged by his own many gaffes and recent indicators of serious corruption; Sander's unfortunate health issues appear likely to end his campaign; the hard-to-love shrill Cherokee Warren is on center stage; and the loonies in charge of the DNC are making little progress in the development of a Party platform that won't alienate most voters.

Now Democrat hysteria is turning to the ongoing activities of AG Barr and his appointed DOJ prosecutor in their investigations of the now discredited Mueller/Russian collusion probe. Their unease and fears appear to be very well-founded. Many among them including Brennan , McCabe and others have much to fear.
revelette1
 
  4  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:29 am
@georgeob1,
yada yada yada, a lot of words signifying absolutely nothing.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:31 am
@revelette1,
Not a particularly intelligent, informative, or even adult, response. In any event unfolding events will reveal the truth.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:39 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
I mean we have laws, Trump broke campaign laws at the very least,

The notion that "having the Bidens investigated" is an illegal campaign contribution is quite a stretch.


revelette1 wrote:
he abused his position as President.

Is it an abuse of power to try to get your political rivals investigated?

When do we expel all of the Democrats (who've been trying to have Trump investigated from the moment he was sworn in) from office?
hightor
 
  5  
Sun 6 Oct, 2019 10:25 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

When do we expel all of the Democrats (who've been trying to have Trump investigated from the moment he was sworn in) from office?

When we find out that they've been colluding with a foreign power. Next?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 06:47:59