The Trump Presidency: Part 17

[varwoche]

From another thread but more suited here...

That really is funny. I bet applecorped doesn't see the irony of his post. Maybe he genuinely doesn't know that Joseph McCarthy's Chief Counsel was Roy Cohn. Donald Trump's long time mentor and attorney for his father.

The bubble occupied by Trump cultists is on permanent opposite day.

Trump, whose traitorous misdeeds are unparalleled by any POTUS in history, can do no wrong. "Dear Leader" is spot on mockery.

Whereas Vindman, who has served the country honorably for his entire adult life, is a traitor.

It's not like the right wing went nuts yesterday. This has been brewing for a long time. Trump is Sarah Palin 2.0 in many respects. Still, the degree to which the Trump cult is unhinged is something to behold.

 

[acbytesla]

From another thread but more suited here...

The bubble occupied by Trump cultists is on permanent opposite day.

Trump, whose traitorous misdeeds are unparalleled by any POTUS in history, can do no wrong. "Dear Leader" is spot on mockery.

Whereas Vindman, who has served the country honorably for his entire adult life, is a traitor.

It's not like the right wing went nuts yesterday. This has been brewing for a long time. Trump is Sarah Palin 2.0 in many respects. Still, the degree to which the Trump cult is unhinged is something to behold.

I blame conservative talk radio and Fox News for this. I travel a lot in mostly rural America. It seems like everywhere I go, there are at most 5 to 10 radio stations. Half is predominantly religious programming and most of the rest is right wing radio where they spin everything or flat out don't tell the truth.

 

[phiwum]

Since you agree it was not covert, the president was legally required to advise the the intelligence committees or the "Gang of Eight". He did not.

ETA. Added the relevant law again for reference. It give two options - "normal conditions", or "covert". Trump's team failed to comply with either.

Thanks for the response.

I agree that the law says "keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 3093(e) of this title), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure."

Now, the military raid itself was not an intelligence activity. It was a military operation. However, it was the result of intelligence activity, I'd think.

The quoted part above is from this section of the law. It begins

(a) In general To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall—
(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 3093(e) of this title), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure; and
(2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities (including the legal basis under which the intelligence activity is being or was conducted), other than covert actions, which is within their custody or control, and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.

That bolded part seems to suggest that very sensitive matters (such as the whereabouts of Baghdadi, say) might be exempted from disclosure requirements. It seems like quite a broad exception.

So, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not clear to me that this law required the disclosure of the intelligence regarding Baghdadi's whereabouts. This law certainly does not seem to require disclosure of the raid itself, which was a military action primarily aimed at capturing Baghdadi and only secondarily after intelligence found on the premises.

I'm not at all confident that non-disclosure to the Gang of Eight or the Intelligence Committee in this case violated the law. The fact is that I've seen no reputable source saying otherwise which suggests that caution is reasonable in drawing conclusions here.

 

[a_unique_person]

This.
I really am starting to believe the theory that he never expected to be elected;he just saw running and getting the nomination as a huge publicity gimmick to prop up his troubled businesses, and was shocked when he won.

And what does that say about his competition? All he had to do was call them names like a primary school bully and stick a MAGA cap on his head.

 

[Venom]

Trump has raised the bar of "Never Trumper" to mean anyone who once was supportive of him and later fell out of favor.

 

[acbytesla]

And what does that say about his competition? All he had to do was call them names like a primary school bully and stick a MAGA cap on his head.

Is that competition's fault or the morons who think that bullying is the right approach?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Thanks for the response.

I agree that the law says "keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 3093(e) of this title), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure."

Now, the military raid itself was not an intelligence activity. It was a military operation. However, it was the result of intelligence activity, I'd think.

The quoted part above is from this section of the law. It begins

[snipped]

That bolded part seems to suggest that very sensitive matters (such as the whereabouts of Baghdadi, say) might be exempted from disclosure requirements. It seems like quite a broad exception.

So, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not clear to me that this law required the disclosure of the intelligence regarding Baghdadi's whereabouts. This law certainly does not seem to require disclosure of the raid itself, which was a military action primarily aimed at capturing Baghdadi and only secondarily after intelligence found on the premises.

I'm not at all confident that non-disclosure to the Gang of Eight or the Intelligence Committee in this case violated the law. The fact is that I've seen no reputable source saying otherwise which suggests that caution is reasonable in drawing conclusions here.

Then that would make it "covert" again.

It's a given there will always be some purely military operations that should most definitely remain covert, even after execution. I think we could agree that the Osama Bin Laden raid would qualify as such an example - I'm sure we don't know all about that yet and probably never will. Fair enough. But if these types of almost purely military covert operations are on the president's daily schedule, see the "Gang of Eight" legal requirement. Obama complied, btw. Nobody leaked as a result.

The thing is, it is a legal requirement. It's right in there in the law that applies. For better or worse, it should not be so blatantly ignored. Especially on such high-risk international ops. If it had gone wrong in any way, the legal consequences would have been severe.

 

[Stacyhs]

Saying he didn't expect to win goes against the idea of his narcissism. You can say his opening bid was a ploy for publicity, but once he was legitimately in it and a possibility, I have no doubt he thought he would win. If he ever had a plan in mind for when he did win is a different matter entirely though.

Not really. Not when you recognize the actual disorder includes severe insecurity alternating with a form of delusions of grandeur.

I'm with Skeptic G on this. Narcissism is a severe reaction to strong feelings of inferiority. It's why Trump is constantly degrading others in order to feel better about himself. It's why he does everything he can do to diminish Obama and his legacy.

The Mayo Clinic research group defines narcissistic personality disorder as “a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”


Narcissism is often interpreted in popular culture as a person who’s in love with him or herself. It is more accurate to characterize the pathological narcissist as someone who’s in love with an idealized self-image, which they project in order to avoid feeling (and being seen as) the real, disenfranchised, wounded self. Deep down, most pathological narcissists feel like the “ugly duckling”, even if they painfully don’t want to admit it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ways-narcissists-compensate-their-inferiority

 

[Cain]

maybe, not sure.

Sam Harris suggests that Trump has no real well thought out political ideology. He is "impressively lacking in ideology, he's just chaos of narcissism and selfishness and ignorance" and "a personality cult has formed around him".

I wonder if that for many republicans its more about them enjoying him sticking it to the Dems and the lefties than anything else. The rest are either greedy (promised more wealth and power) or scared of him.

I doubt many of them agree with his political philosophy as there really isn't any.

Sam makes the point that Trump could change all of his policies tomorrow and his base would still support him. That for me is whats so telling.

It's just tribalism. There were plenty of Bush-cultists in the aughts who have conveniently jumped on the Trump train. It's like the Bush promoting war-monger turned Never- Trumper David Frum has remarked: "When this is all over, nobody will admit to ever having supported it."

It's easy to forget Trump called Cruz "Lyin' Ted," published Lindsay Graham's personal cell-phone number, and boycotted a debate sponsored by Fox News. In the end, everyone falls back in line.

On Trump getting away with criticizing McCain's military service:

I don't know bragging about being a sexual predator rates up there too.

If the Access Hollywood recording had come out early in the primary (i.e., at around the time of the McCain comment), Trump would not have been the nominee. It's relatively easier to get Republicans to vote for another Republican rather than to vote for Clinton (or to stay home). The tape almost doomed his candidacy in the general election, but he was saved by James Comey (and assisted by Russia)

It's easy to imagine Trump losing in 2020 or leaving the White House in 2025 and overstaying his welcome in Republican politics by incessantly injecting himself into the news cycle. Even the rank and file will tell the braying buffoon to "go away!" Win or lose, the absolute best thing that can happen to his legacy is that he promptly dies. The best thing for Democrats is that he loses in 2020, and then haunts the GOP by threatening to run again.

 

[Aridas]

As much as a number Republicans severely disliked Obama, I wouldn't support an idea put forward that they would purposely jeopardize an operation to get Bin Laden just to make him look bad.

After the stuff that they actually did? They sabotaged our economy, healthcare, foreign relations and diplomacy, infrastructure, national security, electoral security, disaster response, judicial system... the list of WTF is wrong with these people goes on and on. So no, I wouldn't put it past them. Still, I wouldn't particularly expect them to sabotage that, despite the rest of their sabotage, so that's something, I suppose?

I don't now how common the portrayal of them in such a way is in the real world, but there's been a trend among some right wing science fiction writers for a while to portray Liberals as willing to sabotage military operations and get people killed because they hate the military and can't stand to have it succeed and look good to the public.

That's something that we can fairly safely call projection. Going by all the actual research that I've seen... someone who actually did that would fairly certainly not be a liberal, given that it violates just about all the things that liberals are quite unified on valuing highly.


Anyways, random other news.


Pathologist Claims Jeffrey Epstein Autopsy ‘Points To Homicide’
Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic expert hired by Epstein’s brother, cast doubt on the official ruling that the former money manager died by suicide.

It's not like Epstein's death ever stopped stinking, especially with Barr's refusal to recuse and Barr's total and complete untrustworthiness.

Jason Chaffetz: How can Congress read eight-page impeachment resolution in just two days?

Oh, the horror of Republican lawmakers having to spend a couple minutes actually reading. Bring me my fainting couch!

Environmentalists Slam 'Climate Criminal' Rex Tillerson for Spreading More Lies During Testimony in Exxon Trial

"As wildfires rage across California and the West, it's momentous to see Exxon's former CEO in court, on the witness stand, testifying to his role in lying to investors about climate-related risks."

There's a lot of Big Oil executives that should likely be going to jail, regardless.

John Bolton could comply with a subpoena to testify on 11/7

May Bolton redeem himself, at least a tiny bit, there.

Also of note... Ted Lieu made a rather poignant observation.

With tomorrow's vote, the House will give @POTUS more due process protections than either Nixon or Clinton received.

And we are doing this even before the Senate conducts a trial--which is where defendants traditionally get due process rights--should the House decide to impeach.

The Democrats are bending over backwards to accommodate these nonsensical complaints that the GOP has been making in bad faith. They really should be emphasizing how nonsensical this situation and the complaints are more, I think. Control the narrative, Democrats! You CAN do it, especially when your opponents are being this idiotic! On the upside, there's no rational way that people could objectively look at this and see a witch hunt or that Democrats are just trying to undo the 2016 election result. On the downside, the GOP propagandists have made it abundantly clear that objective truth has little to no bearing on **** that spews out of them.

 

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/P_Lepinkainen/status/1189854724633354240

 

[phiwum]

Trump has raised the bar of "Never Trumper" to mean anyone who once was supportive of him and later fell out of favor.

"No Longer Trumper" is a bit awkward.

 

[phiwum]

Then that would make it "covert" again.

It's a given there will always be some purely military operations that should most definitely remain covert, even after execution. I think we could agree that the Osama Bin Laden raid would qualify as such an example - I'm sure we don't know all about that yet and probably never will. Fair enough. But if these types of almost purely military covert operations are on the president's daily schedule, see the "Gang of Eight" legal requirement. Obama complied, btw. Nobody leaked as a result.

The thing is, it is a legal requirement. It's right in there in the law that applies. For better or worse, it should not be so blatantly ignored. Especially on such high-risk international ops. If it had gone wrong in any way, the legal consequences would have been severe.

Neither raid was a covert action according to this law, because US involvement was not hidden in either. Details have been hidden, but that's not thr definition of covert action.

This was a military raid, not an intelligence operation.

I'm not defending Trump's refusal to notify as a good and reasonable decision. It does not appear to violate the chief law since it was not, I think, an intelligence activity.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

https://twitter.com/P_Lepinkainen/status/1189854724633354240

It’s good form to at least give a hint as to a link’s content. Without that, I won’t click on it.

 

[phiwum]

It’s good form to at least give a hint as to a link’s content. Without that, I won’t click on it.

Huh. A preview appears when I look at Tero's post on Tapatalk, but not on the ISF site.

I agree. A summary or quote would be useful. Here's what the tweet Tero linked says:

We need those ellipses interrogated. Can you lend us your hero dog so we can round them up?

 

[Belz...]

What gets to me is that Trump is such a STUPID liar. He tells lies that can be shown as such in about five minutes.
The guy is not even a good liar.

Five minutes? They're obvious as he says them.

 

[TofuFighter]

Neither raid was a covert action according to this law, because US involvement was not hidden in either. Details have been hidden, but that's not thr definition of covert action.

This was a military raid, not an intelligence operation.
I'm not defending Trump's refusal to notify as a good and reasonable decision. It does not appear to violate the chief law since it was not, I think, an intelligence activity.

What I have read is that this event was arguably a military operation, and that is the position the Administration has taken to support their having not notified all and sundry. That's enough to rebuff any accusations of illegality.

 

[Tero]

It’s good form to at least give a hint as to a link’s content. Without that, I won’t click on it.

It was satire. I proposed we use the phtoshopped hero dog to round up the ellipses in his abreviated phone call transcript. So we can interogate them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

The Do Nothing Democrats have gone Crazy. Very bad for USA!

“Now is the time for Republicans to stand together and defend the leader of their party against these smears. It would be one thing if there were any indication of an underlying crime, but there is not-not in the transcripts, and not in the secret witness testimony that.....

.....the Dems have selectively leaked. Nor was there any corrupt intent on the part of the President. Remember, the President knew that that call was being heard and documented by many people. Anyone with intent would be a tad more discreet, don’t you think? This farce should...

...never be allowed to roll into a winter showtrial. Indeed, allowing a long, drawn out trial in the Senate would merely validate and perpetuate the fraud begun in the House. The crisis is of the Democrats own making, and it’s up to Republicans to make sure this never happens....

.....to any President, of either party, again. Laura @IngrahamAngle

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trump, whose traitorous misdeeds are unparalleled by any POTUS in history, can do no wrong. "Dear Leader" is spot on mockery.

Whereas Vindman, who has served the country honorably for his entire adult life, is a traitor.

Because Vindman is an evil non-American foreign foreigner who's so not American he was born in another country entirely so much that he wasn't even born here but somewhere else entirely that isn't even America!

Checkmate librul.