Trump 2018: Resistance is Never Futile

[lionheart]

To pick up on the Star Trek motif.

Natasha Bertrand
‏*@NatashaBertrand*
Schiff: Democrats have been so frustrated in their attempts to convince R's to call key witnesses that they may soon make those requests public, "so that the public can see in very graphic terms what the majority has deemed unworthy of investigation."

www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-defend-their-handling-russia-probe-n834791

Seth makes some good points as ever:

A core truth we've learned from the Wolff book that many are overlooking: the fact that Trump didn't want or expect to be president means he didn't want or intend to help ANY of those he claimed to want to help, and instead intended to leave them with Clinton 3:10 pm · 5 Jan 2018

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
33m
Replying to @SethAbramson
2/ Fundamentally, one CANNOT run for President of the United States without wanting or intending to win unless you're 100% fine with your opponent becoming president and governing those you've publicly said she must never govern. Trump sold out his base to get his own TV network.

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
30m
3/ FIRE AND FURY ends the illusion that Trump cared about those he claimed to care about during the campaign. You can say that Bannon cares about them—you can say that folks like John Kelly do care about the country—but you CANNOT say Trump cares about the country OR "his base."
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
4/ We can say that Trump doesn't care about the country—and that FIRE AND FURY finally PROVES it—because Trump was not only OK with someone who he said was unfit to serve being president, he PREFERRED that outcome to him having to do the job instead of getting his own TV network.

5/ We have AMPLE evidence Trump tried to lose the election and abandon his "base." Remember that $1 billion he promised to spend to win? Instead he spent almost nothing—preferring to hoard his gold in anticipation of a TV network rather than lose any real coin to help his "base."

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
24m
6/ Wolff establishes that Trump and his team wanted it to be a close election in Hillary's favor so they could all go on to bigger and better things than public service. He establishes, too, that Trump had no political beliefs—no commitment to any "base"—besides getting richer.

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
23m
7/ So what emerges from FIRE AND FURY is that the entire Trump campaign was a scam and the entire Trump presidency an unhappy accident that no one in Trumpworld was prepared for or even remotely interested in. There's no sense that Trump wanted to help ANYONE or advance ANY idea.

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
21m
8/ This is why so much of Trump's statement in response to Steve Bannon was about Trump having an agenda, and that agenda being about "the forgotten men and women" of America. Because the book establishes that the man most likely and eager to forget them was Donald Trump himself.

I'm sure this thread could support an online book group!

I really hope this comes true:

Matthew Miller
‏*@matthewamiller*
Long way to go, but you can really see a Watergate-like end game now, where the grand jury indicts a number of admin officials for obstruction and names the president as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Source: Mercer split w/Bannon began long before Wolff book. Real cause? Mercers vs. Bannon's proposed tax hike on millionaires.

Or maybe we'll have one of those 'reading parties' where one of us reads it aloud as the others drink fine port, eat rare cheese and/or nibble on dark chocolate, and listen intently to each chapter.

You must live stream this so we can all join in the fun. I demand a book reading party! I have port already

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
The Mercer Family recently dumped the leaker known as Sloppy Steve Bannon. Smart!

Maggie Haberman‏Verified account
@maggieNYT
It's being written as Bannon/Trump feud but in reality Trump aides used the last few pieces quoting Bannon to force Trump to do what he always refused to, which is strongly stand up to Bannon
Trump has not changed at all, despite insistence otherwise - he's the same person now he's been for years. But he's in a new and stressful situation.
And what Kelly has done is made the staff feel safer from each other (read: Bannon) and from Trump himself. But he's done little durable to change how Trump operates

At some point, DJT will turn on himself.

As we're in literary circles now, have an extended metaphor

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/our-ship-of-state-is-sinking-and-only-the-people-can_us_5a4efd60e4b0ee59d41c099c

Jake Tapper‏Verified account
@jaketapper
Source close to White House tells me that Bannon was “aware of the fact that WH counsel misled POTUS about his authority to fire Comey” — which was in NYT story last night — and notes that the NYT story appeared after POTUS began attacking Bannon publicly. 🤔

Neera Tanden 🖖🏼
‏*@neeratanden*
I made this point on @TheLead the other day. They are going to war with Bannon who knows a lot about the coverup.

Trump White House Asks to Screen Steven Spielberg's 'The Post' (Exclusive)

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trump-white-house-asks-screen-steven-spielbergs-post-1071684

The period drama about 'The Washington Post' stars two of Trump's Hollywood critics, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks.
This weekend, filmmaker Steven Spielberg's The Post expands into additional theaters — including the White House.

President Donald Trump's team has requested, and been granted, access to the 20th Century Fox political drama for both 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and Camp David, where the president is scheduled to host a summit on Saturday and Sunday with top GOP lawmakers.

For decades, Hollywood has provided movies for the first family or White House staff to watch, when asked. Continuing that tradition, sources say the Trump White House has been fed a steady diet of new releases. That doesn't mean, however, that Trump himself is engaging.

Nevertheless, there's a certain amount of irony to The Post ask. Stars Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks are critics of the commander-in-chief, while Spielberg says he rushed to make the movie to remind people of the importance of the First Amendment amid the current political climate and Trump's repeated attacks on the media.

Natasha Bertrand
‏
Verified account

@NatashaBertrand
23m23 minutes ago
House Intel Democrats have asked R's to bring in Mark Corallo, who reportedly quit after Trump drafted the misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting. But that request and others have "gone nowhere" with Nunes.
“They simply sit on the requests." www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/01/05/schiff-the-case-that-trump-obstructed-justice-just-got-stronger/?utm_term=.5da42e150161 …

Renato Mariotti‏Verified account
@renato_mariotti
Following Following @renato_mariotti
More
THREAD: Do the revelations in today’s @nytimes article, including Trump’s order to his White House Counsel to stop Jeff Sessions from recusing himself, aid Mueller’s investigation of obstruction of justice? (Short answer: Definitely.)

1/ Today @nytmike of @nytimes published this article discussing Trump’s efforts to stop Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation and how his decision to fire @Comey came about. www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html …

2/ The article indicates that at Trump’s orders, White House Counsel Don McGahn tried to convince Sessions not to recuse himself. This is very unusual. Lawyers recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest or an appearance that they couldn’t be fair.

3/ Why did Trump care so much about whether Sessions recused himself? According to the article, Trump said that he wanted Sessions to “safeguard” him, as he believed other Attorney Generals had done.

4/ This is really important because Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey with “corrupt” intent. In other words, by acting with the intent to unlawfully impede the investigation.

5/ To prove someone’s intent, prosecutors often ask jurors to make inferences from what the person said or did because we don’t have a magical telescope that can look inside their brain.

6/ Trump’s statements about Sessions’ recusal can raise an inference that Trump wanted Sessions to impede or stop the Russia investigation. Mueller could argue that this suggests that Trump had the same intent when he fired Comey.

7/ None of Trump’s conversations with McGahn are privileged, and I expect Mueller asked him tough questions about why he followed Trump’s order. Even if Trump could argue that he didn’t understand recusal, McGahn certainly did and knew that Trump’s request was unethical.

8/ McGahn’s actions are in stark contrast with another White House lawyer, Uttam Dhillon, who withheld information from Trump about whether he could fire Comey in an attempt to prevent him from doing so. As the article notes, that is highly unusual.

9/ It is unethical for a lawyer not to counsel a client regarding his legal options or to mislead a client about his options. Dhillon’s decision to do so in this instance suggests he was deeply concerned about Trump’s desire to fire Comey.

10/ Dhillon could testify about his concern, and more importantly, about the facts that prompted his concern. The article doesn’t fully discuss what Dhillon saw and heard, but Mueller could ask him. Dhillon’s testimony could be very important.

11/ It’s worth noting that if Dhillon thought Trump was obstructing justice, the proper course for him to take would have been to inform Trump that firing Comey could be a crime.

12/ Today’s article also notes that the first sentence of the original letter firing Comey, which Trump asked Stephen Miller to write, mentioned Trump’s claim that the Russia investigation was “fabricated and politically motivated.”

13/ That also suggests that the Russia investigation was Trump’s motivation for the firing, which he famously admitted to Lester Holt in an interview after initially claiming otherwise.

14/ The Times article also notes that after Comey’s firing, a Sessions aide looked for dirt on Comey, which the Justice Department now denies. That is interesting because it could show Sessions’ involvement in an attempt to discredit a witness against Trump.

15/ That would be highly improper, given that Sessions is the head of the agency conducting the investigation and recused himself from the investigation.

16/ Overall, the main conclusion to draw from this article is that the Trump’s statements to McGahn strengthen the obstruction case against Trump, and Dhillon could be an important witness for Mueller. /end

Jake Tapper
‏
Verified account

@jaketapper
12h12 hours ago
More
Source close to the White House: “I wonder if POTUS has considered the fact that Steve Bannon hasn’t yet testified before congressional committees and/or met with Mueller.”

The Atlantic
‏
Verified account

@TheAtlantic
13m13 minutes ago
More
Mick Mulvaney isn't going to let his time at the CFPB go to waste, writes @gillianbwhite. The acting director is making fast work of pushing Trump's deregulation plan. theatln.tc/2EZIe9P

Eric W. Dolan
‏
Verified account

@EWDolan
15m15 minutes ago
James Comey’s first draft of the memo that absolved Hillary Clinton was just released – look at these edits www.rawstory.com/2018/01/james-comeys-first-draft-of-the-memo-that-absolved-hillary-clinton-was-just-released-look-at-these-edits/#.Wk-obHp8lyc.twitter …

(We’ve had the first bit on this thread but not the subsequent posts):

Stephanie Ruhle
@SRuhle
In her statement cutting ties with Steve Bannon, Rebekah Mercer said they have not been in contact for many months.
Meanwhile, a party goer tells me she hosted a cocktail party on October 18, 2017 at her Upper West Side home. Steve Bannon was a featured guest.

Melissa McEwan
@Shakestweetz
It all seems like a pretty transparent ploy to distance themselves from Trump. Not coincidentally, immediately after the tax bill was passed, which I predicted was when we'd see the first rats starting to jump ship.

It's not because "Mueller is getting close." It's because the corporatists have no use for him anymore, now that he signed his name on the tax bill. Yes, another Republican president could have done it, but now Trump takes the fall when account for its malice comes due.

The tax bill was enormous. The corporatists wanted all the benefits and none of the responsibility. Trump was the pen. They won't defend him anymore. It's starting. Exactly like I said it would.

MSNBC
‏
Verified account

@MSNBC
21m21 minutes ago
More
House Republicans defend their handling of Russia probe: on.msnbc.com/2lX4F73

The Hill‏Verified account
@thehill
Following Following @thehill
More
Gary Cohn: Congress will soon exempt dozens of banks from financial regulations hill.cm/hojdwD8

Ha! A streaming reading party! Well, DH wears specs and has a somewhat professorial-looking goatee. If I can stuff him into a velvet smoking jacket and cravat and force him to puff on a carved rosewood pipe whilst sitting in a wing chair by a roaring fire maybe he'll consent to read aloud on camera.

We can sit around lounging on settees and hassocks taking notes and pontificating the meaning of life obstruction of justice.

Only problem is that he'll insist the pipe have a wee bit of weed in it which means that he'll probably start reading in silly voices and giggling at some point. Hope that's OK.

A streaming reading party!

I'm up for it, even if at 2am (my local time) or something.

But only if the readers promise to read with voices.

Recently, I was in a seminar/workshop thingy with historians and was baffled because they sat while reading their essays in the most boring voices that they could muster. We lab people are much more lively and interesting, even if we talk in acronyms all the time. That's probably why I fit in MN.

Glad to hear your DH isn’t dissuaded by sessions and his crackdown across

I think a bit of green is exactly what’s needed as an accompaniment to this book

Is he suggesting that the American people wanted sessions not to recuse himself so he could interfere with the investigation? Surely that’s too brazen even for “paid by putin” Rohrabacher?

Manu Raju
@mkraju
More House GOP criticism over Sessions' recusal from Russia probe. "The American people now are getting a taste of what people in Washington have known over this last year and that is Jeff Sessions betrays the people who have had faith in him," Rep. Rohrabacher to @AnaCabrera

And I know he’s speaking to the base, grooming them for trump etc but I still had to re-read that several times and even now I can’t quite believe that’s what he’s saying. Out loud.

Look out pence, I hope the panic is growing

Evan Rosenfeld
@Evan_Rosenfeld
NEW: CNN: Pence's chief lawyer and domestic policy director are leaving his office at the beginning of the New Year, according to four sources

Exclusive: Top Pence aides quietly depart in new year

amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/01/05/politics/mike-pence-staff-departures/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

I think stoned might be the best thing to be for this book. Almost tempted to take it up again just for the occasion. Saying that I've always fancied a hookah. I could lounge on my new second hand sofa wearing a silk kaftan if that would help the mood.