The Trump Presidency
I suppose a reboot of this thread was due.
It in no way changes the opinions expressed or the candor used in expressing them - civility where civility is due.
And very much like this current president eschews it, I suspect the same will happen (again) here.
HOLDING TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE
By George Packer
Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution allows for the removal of a President who can no longer discharge his duties but is unable or unwilling to say so. It empowers the Vice-President, along with “a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,” to declare the President unfit and to install the Vice-President as Acting President. Section 4 has never been invoked. In 1987, when Ronald Reagan appointed Howard Baker to be his new chief of staff, the members of the outgoing chief’s team warned their replacements that Reagan’s mental ineptitude might require them to attempt the removal of the President under Section 4. Baker and his staff, at their first official meeting with Reagan, watched him carefully for signs of incapacity—but the President, apparently cheered by the arrival of newcomers, was alert and lively, and he served out the rest of his second term.
After a month in office, Donald Trump has already proved himself unable to discharge his duties. The disability isn’t laziness or inattention. It expresses itself in paranoid rants, non-stop feuds carried out in public, and impulsive acts that can only damage his government and himself. Last week, at a White House press conference, the President behaved like the unhinged leader of an unstable and barely democratic republic. He rambled for nearly an hour and a half, on script and off; he flung insults at reporters; he announced that he was having fun; and he congratulated himself so many times and in such preposterous terms (“this Administration is running like a fine-tuned machine”) that the White House press corps could only stare in amazement. The gaudy gold drapery of the East Room contributed to the impression that at any moment Trump might declare himself President for Life, and a flunky would appear from behind the curtain to pin the Medal of National Greatness on his suit jacket, while, backstage, officials and generals discussed his overthrow. Trump experienced such a deep need to get back on top by lashing out that he apparently overrode the objections of his advisers, felt much better afterward, then prepared to go to Florida to sustain his high at the first rally of his reëlection campaign.
While the White House isolates itself in power struggles, the Administration is in nearly open revolt. Career diplomats are signing statements of dissent or leaving the State Department, while key posts remain unfilled. Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency fought to stop Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pro-industry nominee, from taking over as their new boss. And other government officials, after weeks of hearing Trump belittle their agencies, are feeding the press information about Russian involvement with his campaign.
Foreign leaders, depending on their orientation, are watching this spectacle with disbelieving alarm or with calculating interest. Allies such as Prime Ministers Justin Trudeau, of Canada, and Shinzo Abe, of Japan, flatter the President in order to avoid the fate of Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull, whom Trump first berated and then hung up on during their get-to-know-you phone call. Vladimir Putin is already testing Trump, by sending Russian fighter jets to buzz a U.S. Navy ship. Xi Jinping is positioning China to fill the void in the Pacific Rim which will be left by Trump’s policy of America First. Pragmatists in Iran are trying to judge whether the new American government can be counted on to act rationally—exactly what U.S. officials always wondered about the fractured leadership of the Islamic Republic.
It won’t get better. The notion that, at some point, Trump would start behaving “Presidential” was always a fantasy that has the truth backward: the pressure of the Presidency is making him worse. He’s insulated by sycophants and by family members, and he can still ride a long way on his popular following. Though the surge of civic opposition, the independence of the courts, and the reinvigoration of the press are heartening, the only real leverage over Trump lies in the hands of Republicans. But Section 4 won’t be invoked. Vice-President Mike Pence is not going to face the truth in the private back room of a Washington restaurant with Secretaries Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, and Wilbur Ross, or in the offices of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republican leaders have opted instead for unconstrained power.
They need Trump to pass their agenda of rewriting the tax code in favor of the rich and of gutting regulations that protect the public and the planet—an agenda that a majority of Americans never supported—so they are looking the other way. Even the prospect of Russian influence over our elections and our government leaves these American patriots unmoved. Senator John Cornyn, of Texas, the Republican whip, made it plain: Trump can go on being Trump “as long as we’re able to get things done.” Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky, explained, “We’ll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we’re spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans.”
The growing Russian scandal will challenge the willingness of the Party to hold the President accountable. So far, the situation is not encouraging. The heads of the key House and Senate committees are partisans who are doing as little as possible to expose corruption and possible treason in the White House. The few critical Republican voices—Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins, and Representative Mark Sanford—are ineffective. Perhaps Party leaders are privately searching their souls; perhaps, as with the old Bolshevik Rubashov, in Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” ideology and power have rendered them incapable of independent moral judgment. Whatever the case, history won’t be kind to them.
An authoritarian and erratic leader, a chaotic Presidency, a supine legislature, a resistant permanent bureaucracy, street demonstrations, fear abroad: this is what illiberal regimes look like. If Trump were more rational and more competent, he might have a chance of destroying our democracy.
If his whole group was involved and/or knew about the Russian contacts, who becomes president then?
Laws of succession. The President is replaced by the Vice-President. If he then needs to replaced it goes to the House of Representatives to pick someone. I would assume if it went to the House to pick a President, the speaker of the House Ryan is the most likely candidate for the next 2 years. If the Democrats regain control of the House in 2 years they could pick anyone they want!!!! Maybe Bernie???? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to "ALL" Conservatives!!!!
Originally Posted by Brent
Last edited by etucker1959; 02-22-2017 at 10:16 AM.
Hurry, call the Waaaaaambulance.
Kellyanne Conway sidelined from TV after Flynn debacle
by Dylan Byers
February 22, 2017: 1:35 PM ET
Kellyanne Conway, once the most visible spokesperson for the Trump White House, has been sidelined from television appearances for making statements that were at odds with the administration's official stance, White House sources told CNNMoney on Wednesday.
Conway has not given a television interview since early last week. On that Monday, she claimed that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had the president's "full confidence." Hours later, Flynn resigned.
The following day, Conway claimed Flynn had offered to resign, even though White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump had asked Flynn for his resignation.
She has not given a television interview since then.
Those statements, which came amid existing public scrutiny over Conway's credibility, led the president and his top advisers to conclude that her appearances were doing more harm than good for the administration, the sources said.
Conway was "off message," a White House source said.
Her absence from the airwaves has already lowered the level of controversy for the Trump White House, suggesting that the press office may be getting a better grip on its messaging strategy.
Even before the Flynn remarks, Conway had come under fire for encouraging Americans to purchase Ivanka Trump's clothing products -- a move House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz called "over the line" and "unacceptable."
"Clearly they're having much more of a drama-free week," a source close to the White House said. "Having Kellyanne off television is helping them."
Conway's absence is also seen as a victory for White House press secretary Sean Spicer. As CNN reported last week, several sources in and outside the White House believe Conway was responsible for leaking negative stories about Spicer to the press, and making his job harder by contradicting him in interviews.
Conway did not respond to a request for comment, but White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders dismissed the suggestion that Conway had been sidelined.
"This is another wild goose chase," Sanders said. "Kellyanne has a number of media appearances this week and also has a large portfolio at the WH and is spending significant time focusing on it."
Days before the Flynn debacle, Conway told CNN that she was planning to scale back her television appearances. "I'm trying to
reduce my television exposure," she said.
In the wake of Conway's Flynn remarks, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" announced it would no longer interview Conway because she lacked credibility. "She goes out and lies, and you find out about those lies a couple hours later," co-host Joe Scarborough said. "It's giving people dishonesty, it's not worth the interview," said co-host Mika Brzezinski.
Since last Wednesday, Conway's media appearances have been limited to radio interviews, including a Tuesday interview with conservative talk shot host Hugh Hewitt.
Sources believe Conway will return to television, but that the administration is enjoying a reprieve from the controversy created by her appearances.
"Trump was using her as an effective surrogate, then she started becoming ineffective," one of the sources said. "So they're letting the heat cool off."
The Story Behind Trump’s Chinese Trademark
Last week, the president resolved a decade-long legal battle—and added another entry to the long list of his conflicts of interest.
Amid the tumultuous end to his first month in office, President Donald Trump got a piece of long-awaited good news: After more than a decade of hold-ups in court, his application to trademark his name in China was finally approved.
Because the announcement came shortly after Trump announced for the first time his commitment to the so-called “One China Policy,” in which governments officially recognize the Republic of China but not Taiwan, the decision immediately prompted speculation about conflicts of interest. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, for instance, wasted little time in declaring the new trademark unconstitutional. “China’s decision to award President Trump with a new trademark allowing him to profit from the use of his name is a clear conflict of interest and deeply troubling,” said Feinstein, adding, “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is.” (Feinstein was referring to a section of the constitution that prohibits officeholders from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”) A report from ThinkProgress that the decision violated a Chinese rule prohibiting trademarks that are “the same as or similar to the name of leaders of national, regional, or international political organizations” only further fueled charges of corruption.
Regardless of whether the court’s decision represents a quid-pro-quo scenario, the argument that it creates a conflict of interest remains wholly intact. Whether Trump, China, or both saw the trademark court as a bargaining chip in broader political negotiations is essentially immaterial; all that matters is that the Chinese government made a decision that provides the president new opportunities to make money in the country. That in and of itself will color Trump’s future interactions with the country, especially if, as The New York Times has suggested, this is only the first in what could be a long series of decisions in Trump’s favor. Each subsequent ruling in his favor will serve to remind Trump of the personal profits he could reap by improving his own personal relations with China, even if doing so leaves the American people worse off.
Reading levels for the Trumpanzees isn't that high.
Giving them reading material is like giving a band of monkeys an abacus.
They'll continue using their SpeakAndSpell to respond to your news articles, you libtard wambulance Benghazi Muslim Obama-ite..
Wonder what the sportsmen on the board would say about this one:
I assume they'll continue hiding.