The Trump Presidency: Part 18

[phiwum]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen any mention of the early reviews of "A Warning", the new book coming out by Anonymous.

The New York Times review is pretty scathing. The author doesn't give any new verifiable information. He does report that senior officials were considering a self-massacre (mass resignations) in the first two years but decided against it. He says he was wrong about the ability of reasonable men to create stability in the information. And he has some particularly scathing discussions of Trump's incompetence and personality deficiencies (see the article in The Post for some choice excerpts). The Times reviewer points out that the criticisms of Trump really don't add any new information to anyone who's been watching him. His supporters will dismiss anonymous accounts, his critics are already aware of his behavior and there's no one left to be educated by this account.

The author does not want Trump removed from office (or impeached, I'd reckon), since that will exacerbate the divisions in our nation. He wants Trump to lose in 2020 soundly. The Times points out as well that the author is apparently an establishment Republican and so it's reasonable to guess that he's concerned about the health of the party as well as the health of the nation.

The reviewer also criticizes the author for deciding the last straw was not Charlottesville nor separating migrant families but disrespecting John McCain after his death by not wanting flags at half-staff.

Obviously, I haven't read the book and I'm not sure I'll bother. I thought the review was pretty convincing. Reading the book would give one the satisfaction of seeing an opinion they largely agree with forcefully argued, but it doesn't seem like there's much more substantial payoff. There is also the concern that while the Times confirms he's a senior administration official, his reports cannot be verified and so should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The best quote I've seen, from the above mentioned Post article and about the early morning Trump tweets:

“It’s like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pantsless across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him,” the author writes. “You’re stunned, amused, and embarrassed all at the same time. Only your uncle probably wouldn’t do it every single day, his words aren’t broadcast to the public, and he doesn’t have to lead the US government once he puts his pants on.”

The author does have a way with words.

 

[Belz...]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen any mention of the early reviews of "A Warning", the new book coming out by Anonymous.

I linked to a Maddow report on it just this morning in this thread.

 

[Armitage72]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen any mention of the early reviews of "A Warning", the new book coming out by Anonymous.

The New York Times review is pretty scathing.

Talk about a conflict for Trump. On the one hand, they're critical of a book that says bad things about him. On the other hand, they're the fake news failing New York Times.

 

[phiwum]

I linked to a Maddow report on it just this morning in this thread.

Ah, yes, I saw that. I didn't bother to click on it since I wasn't in the mood for a video, so it slipped my mind.

 

[phiwum]

Talk about a conflict for Trump. On the one hand, they're critical of a book that says bad things about him. On the other hand, they're the fake news failing New York Times.

No conflict at all. He cites the Times when he likes what they say. They're trustworthy on those occasions.

Look for a tweet that begins "even the failing New York Times..."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen any mention of the early reviews of "A Warning", the new book coming out by Anonymous.

The New York Times review is pretty scathing. The author doesn't give any new verifiable information. He does report that senior officials were considering a self-massacre (mass resignations) in the first two years but decided against it. He says he was wrong about the ability of reasonable men to create stability in the information. And he has some particularly scathing discussions of Trump's incompetence and personality deficiencies (see the article in The Post for some choice excerpts). The Times reviewer points out that the criticisms of Trump really don't add any new information to anyone who's been watching him. His supporters will dismiss anonymous accounts, his critics are already aware of his behavior and there's no one left to be educated by this account.

The author does not want Trump removed from office (or impeached, I'd reckon), since that will exacerbate the divisions in our nation. He wants Trump to lose in 2020 soundly. The Times points out as well that the author is apparently an establishment Republican and so it's reasonable to guess that he's concerned about the health of the party as well as the health of the nation.

The reviewer also criticizes the author for deciding the last straw was not Charlottesville nor separating migrant families but disrespecting John McCain after his death by not wanting flags at half-staff.

Obviously, I haven't read the book and I'm not sure I'll bother. I thought the review was pretty convincing. Reading the book would give one the satisfaction of seeing an opinion they largely agree with forcefully argued, but it doesn't seem like there's much more substantial payoff. There is also the concern that while the Times confirms he's a senior administration official, his reports cannot be verified and so should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The best quote I've seen, from the above mentioned Post article and about the early morning Trump tweets:

The author does have a way with words.

What were they expecting, to find a nugget of chocolate among the rat turds? He's just upset Trump is making racism look bad.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

I will be announcing the winners of the #MAGACHALLENGE and inviting them to the
@WhiteHouse to meet with me and perform. Good luck!

 

[Paul2]

. . . . This is all just show boating by the Dems to expose as much s@#t on him running up to the next election. I thought there was no way he will actually be impeached - or found guilty, or whatever the terminology is.

No doubt the Dems will embrace whatever political advantage the impeachment and trial might bring them, but that doesn't mean that it is just showboating. If any President committed an impeachable offense, then any party that brought the impeachment might benefit politically in an upcoming election, and seek to maximize that benefit while still addressing the underlying impeachable behavior.

 

[Cain]

The author does have a way with words.

I'd guess (and hope) Anonymous did not write this her/himself. Stylometry software has a history of exposing supposedly anonymous people, and it's part of the reason why Snowden insisted journalists not quote him exstensively. Playing the old Deep Throat parlor game, I'd guess it's Kirstjen Nielsen, so basically a ****** person.

 

[Babbylonian]

No doubt the Dems will embrace whatever political advantage the impeachment and trial might bring them, but that doesn't mean that it is just showboating. If any President committed an impeachable offense, then any party that brought the impeachment might benefit politically in an upcoming election, and seek to maximize that benefit while still addressing the underlying impeachable behavior.

It would be very easy for the Republicans to neutralize most of any partisan advantage the Democrats may gain: Join the impeachment process. They can hem and haw about their reluctance and the gravity of their decision, end up on the right side of history, and maybe save their garbage party.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It would be very easy for the Republicans to neutralize most of any partisan advantage the Democrats may gain: Join the impeachment process. They can hem and haw about their reluctance and the gravity of their decision, end up on the right side of history, and maybe save their garbage party.

Possibly they will, if they recognize Trump as a lost cause.

Hans

 

[acbytesla]

It would be very easy for the Republicans to neutralize most of any partisan advantage the Democrats may gain: Join the impeachment process. They can hem and haw about their reluctance and the gravity of their decision, end up on the right side of history, and maybe save their garbage party.

As much as I don't like the present incarnation of the Republican party, it's important to have an honorable opposition.

Which is the problem with the GOP today. It has abandoned any honor it may have once had. Graham only a few weeks ago said if evidence became available that showed there was quid pro quo trading military aid and only a couple of days ago, Graham said he wasn't going to read the transcripts that prove that.

They close their eyes about climate change and pollution
They closed their eyes about tobacco.
They close their eyes about the opioid crisis.
They close their eyes about guns.
They close their eyes about health care,
They close their eyes about education.
They close their eyes about a crumbling infrastructure.

They close their eyes about Trump and his crimes.

 

[Minoosh]

A RINO, then.

In my somewhat limited experience party affiliations on the local end aren’t quite as predictive as they are on the state/national stage.

 

[Babbylonian]

As much as I don't like the present incarnation of the Republican party, it's important to have an honorable opposition.

Which is the problem with the GOP today. It has abandoned any honor it may have once had. Graham only a few weeks ago said if evidence became available that showed there was quid pro quo trading military aid and only a couple of days ago, Graham said he wasn't going to read the transcripts that prove that.

They close their eyes about climate change and pollution
They closed their eyes about tobacco.
They close their eyes about the opioid crisis.
They close their eyes about guns.
They close their eyes about health care,
They close their eyes about education.
They close their eyes about a crumbling infrastructure.

They close their eyes about Trump and his crimes.

Exactly. The main thing to which the Republican Party is in opposition is reality.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I'd guess (and hope) Anonymous did not write this her/himself. Stylometry software has a history of exposing supposedly anonymous people, and it's part of the reason why Snowden insisted journalists not quote him exstensively. Playing the old Deep Throat parlor game, I'd guess it's Kirstjen Nielsen, so basically a ****** person.

I’ve got $2 on Kellyanne.

 

[acbytesla]

Exactly. The main thing to which the Republican Party is in opposition is reality.

This is what bothers me most about politics today. We use to debate about how best to address the issues. But the GOP has changed their strategy. Instead they debate the issues with spin and disinformation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But I thought the house (or the other house) wont actually find him guilty? This is all just show boating by the Dems to expose as much s@#t on him running up to the next election. I thought there was no way he will actually be impeached - or found guilty, or whatever the terminology is.

What is wrong with people that they think the Democrats exposing their POTUS is a crook is "showboating".

There was cheating in the 2016 election that Trump's campaign team was involved in (multiple guilty verdicts) and Trump obstructed justice in that investigation on at least 4 occasions, clearly spelled out by Mueller, and more occasions where there is some evidence of obstruction. Read the Mueller report.

But if that's too much trouble read this: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Barr’s vs. Mueller’s Statements about Special Counsel Report to see how Barr lied and quashed the report.

Now Trump is caught red-handed trying to cheat in the 2020 election. It's called abuse of power to use your control of military aid to extort a county to create dirt on your opponent. And despite the GOP talking point that it's just a phone call, and urging them to read the transcript, it is not a transcript, it is a memorandum, and more importantly the more honest people around Trump are testifying against him because it was an illegal quid pro quo and there is a lot more evidence than just the one phone call.

So ask yourself, just how much abuse of power do you want to normalize?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought about this and yes the IRS presumably would have nailed him before he was pres if there are irregularities.

It's a mythological view of the IRS to think they catch billionaire tax cheaters.

No, I'm wondering if it will show (declared) income from places (like bad Russians) which may lend more weight to his Russian collaboration etc. It could show income from some very dubious sources. I assume the IRS doesn't care where the income is from, just that he paid all the Tax due.

I think though it's highly likely we will discover he was in fact so in-debt that he paid no tax at all. Wouldn't surprise me if he was far less rich than he makes out. Oddly I don't think it would hurt his base to publish if this were the reason as much as it is hurting him to keep his returns secret and all the rumors and theories it has generated.

So the rumors and theories have a high likelihood of being true then.

 

[acbytesla]

I’ve got $2 on Kellyanne.

It may not be Kellyanne. But I can't see how it couldn't be her.
I can just imagine what it's like in her home after she comes home after spending a day with the loon.

 

[Belz...]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/469592-trump-rails-against-impeachment-they-shouldnt-be-having-public

President Trump on Friday said there should be no public hearings in the impeachment inquiry as he railed against the process unfolding in the House.

"They shouldn’t be having public hearings. This is a hoax," Trump said as he left the White House for events in Georgia.

Can't have closed-door hearings, can't have public ones.

I love this part:

"I’m not concerned about anything," Trump said. "The testimony has all been fine. I mean for the most part, I’ve never even heard of these people. "

Sure you haven't, Donnie.