Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Trump Approval Numbers Underwater in 11 States He Won — Simple Oops Won't Suffice

Very Revealing and Highly Factual


Pretty sure Trump is apologetic about these numbers in this report from CNN. Sure seems that his bragging rights are kind of down the proverbial drain, um since he hates anything anti-Trump… no matter how factual things are otherwise.
Pretty sure also that he will call this “Fake news – a hoax – more DEM loser anger, and a lie.”

A few highlights:

More Americans disapprove of Trump's job performance than approve of it across 31 states nationwide – including 11 states that voted for him last November.

The list of states that went for Trump way but where his approval is now underwater includes some battleground states that he barely won like PA, WI, MI, and FL, or swing states like OH, IA, and NC (which is #1 for his disapproval gap).

The CNN list also includes “light-red states of GA and AZ” where Democrats were optimistic in 2016.

The two surprises on the list are IN (Pence’s home state) and TX.

My Input: Read how the rest of the states break down in the article – very enlightening to say the least.

As I said, I’m pretty sure Trump is livid – he usually is these kinds of things (like crowd sizes and such). Facts and truth be damned – all that matters is his view and his numbers.

Thanks for stopping by.


Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Trump & GOP: “ACA (Obama-care) Collapsing, Imploding, Disaster, Just Plain Awful”

Wheel in Sen. McCain, Decency, and Bi-partisanship – see how it goes
(BTW: He has great healthcare coverage)

Introduction to Nuts and Bolts as It Were: Sample of what (or who) is killing Obama-care – that implosion thingy we hear so much about. So, why, if in fact the ACA (Obama-care) is collapsing who or what is killing it or causing it to collapse?
Well, how about Trump backpedaling again saying in a huff that he was ready to let Obamacare die on the vine regardless of the consequences to the nation's health care consumers. That’s pretty profound isn’t it?

Plus, organized and carefully controlled skillful GOP BS efforts, e.g., they raise and hype uncertainty about any new plan; offer only illogical action to fix glitches by causing more and worse knowing full and well their side won’t even buy into their awful “plans,” ad infinitum…!!! 

Let’s take CSR payments for example:

These are payments that go to insurers to help defray the cost of offering plans to low-income Americans. Without the roughly $8 billion in annual payments, many health-policy experts have said the marketplaces would see a flood of insurer exits and steeper price increases for Americans getting insurance through the marketplaces.
Currently, CSR is made by the White House instead of appropriation. 
Politico reports that the White House agreed to continue to fund the CSR payments as it has been doing, apparently clearing the way for a deal on the shutdown.
1.  Democrats want to include funding for a key part of Obamacare, called cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, into the new continuing resolution.
2.  Republicans would rather leave these payments out, as they would likely take a toll on Obamacare's individual insurance market and are an added expenditure.
Democratic sources told Politico, however, that the White House had not committed to funding the CSR payments past next month, which may hang up the preliminary agreement between the White House and Democratic leaders.
One Democratic aide told Business Insider later on Wednesday that Democrats “still hope to secure language in the omnibus to continue the payments but was not able to predict the outcome of the debate.”
Right on cue by Trump: Stoking the flames that the CSR debate may not be over, tweeting, “The Democrats want to shut government if we don't bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!”
This echoed a nearly identical tweet later that same day.

Then GOP Speaker Paul Ryan pushed back on the inclusion of CSRs at a press conference, saying that the bill would not include these payments, adding: “CSR’s, we're not doing that.” 
Republicans do not need Democratic votes to pass the bill through the lower chamber, but Democrats could filibuster any legislation in the Senate. Thus, Democrats have some leverage to try and get the CSR payments included.
Short-term commitments from the White House are subject of a lawsuit between the Republican House and DHS that dates back to the Obama administration.
The House argued the program was illegal since the funds were not appropriated by Congress. A judge ruled in Congress' favor in 2016, but an appeal started by the Obama administration is still pending.
It remains unclear whether the Trump administration will continue with the lawsuit, and if the lawsuit is dropped by the administration, the lower court ruling would stand and this would effectively end the CSR payments.

Trump now says (if you can figure out or believe anything he says): I think we're probably in that position where we'll let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. So, we'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us and they are going to say: “How do we fix it? How do we come up with a new plan?” Then in same breath Trump predicts: “It will be a lot easier.”

Wow talk about wishy-washy BS – Trump is full of **it…!!! Or as he often ends his tweets with: SAD…!!!

My View: “Art of the (Trump) Con” in play: (1) Kill, or stop, or divert, or deflect something important to people (esp: if it does not help your business or political bottom line), (2) blame everyone around you while professing that only you can fix the damage, (3) never reach the promised point, then (4) keep selling the same con to another audience who will listen and buy into it with similar message and technique.

Rx: Repeat as often as necessary to get your way with no one else’s input or concerns in  the mix. Then take all the credit, and then move to your next con. 

/s/ DJT – Master of the Con…!!!

So, how high’s the GOP sh*t pile Momma? Sorry, can’t see that high. 

Just stay tuned, and as always, thanks for stopping by.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Boy, Does Trump Know How to Pick Losers: "Mooch" Scaramucci and Another Faux Pas

Only one week in the W/H: “I now kiss my raggedy ass goodbye” 
(/s/ Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci)

Trump syndrome strikes again: Keep changing the story but don't tell the previous story teller you did – let them hear about on national TV – and don’t sweat the petty shit – okay, gang?  /s/ The Donald.



Just another WTF moment for the political history books and night comics. 

I wonder who will play Scaramucci on SNL’s next segment. It ought to be a hoot.

My guess, Bill Hader fits the bill as it were:

Bill Hader 
(SNL cast member)

Thanks for stopping by.


Saturday, July 22, 2017

Anthony Scaramucci: Another Trump Hire Who Fits Wall Street Profile Like a Glove

Earn Wall Street Mega Bucks Then Move into the White House
(Hell Why Not)

Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci is a Wall Street slickster as sharp as a tack and capable and able to swipe his Granny's false teeth and then sell her peanut brittle. He fits nicely the profile of Trump hires from Wall Street – where in there are plenty of charlatans and people of questionable repute.
No wonder he made so much as a hedge-fund manager… read this account of how his type makes billions and from here, too.

Last year, the 25 highest-earning hedge fund managers collectively earned $24.3 billion. 

Most that was taxed as carried interest rather than as income, that means that this tiny group of people by themselves cost the government billions of dollars in tax revenue that would have been paid under a fairer system of taxation.

When asked how hedge funds manage to bestow such great riches on their managers despite the fact that, in many cases, their performance seems pretty ordinary.
The responses ranged from claims that “hedgies” are remunerated perfectly appropriately to charges that they are outright crooks who prey on gullible and greedy investors. 
Because the industry has grown enormously in recent years — according to one industry source hedge funds now manage about $2.1 trillion of capital, a good deal of which comes from pension funds and charitable endowments — it’s not a trivial matter which of these explanations is the most accurate.

Trump continues to draw on like-minded people whom many of them are turning out to be very reputable or for that matter not highly-qualified or capable to serve the public in any official capacity.

 

To date, a dozen or so have resigned, been fired, or turned down offers for appointments. The list to date: Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, James Comey, Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, Sean Spicer, Craig Deare, Angella Reid, Michael Dubke, Patrick Kennedy, and Katie Walsh.

 

Plus several others on very thin ice: Conway, Sessions, and Mueller. Some of those actually fired are seen here.


Thanks for stopping by.


Friday, July 21, 2017

More So It Seems: Trump Preparing for His Version of “Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre"

Anger, Concern, Discontent, Thoughtfulness, Uncertainty, Worry 

Don't Blame Me If This Train Goes Off the Rails
(I Know Nuthin' — Blame the DEMS or Mueller)

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons. Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

One adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work. They are actively compiling a list of *Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work, according to several of Trump’s legal advisers.*

A conflict of interest is one of the possible grounds that can be cited by an attorney general to remove a special counsel from office under Justice Department regulations that set rules for the job.

* RELATED:  TRUMP’S OWN CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS SEEN IN THIS SHORT VIDEO CLIP:


Responding to this story on Friday after it was published late Thursday, one of Trump’s attorneys, John Dowd, said it was “not true” and “nonsense. The President’s lawyers are cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller on behalf of the President.”

Other advisers said the president is also irritated by the notion that Mueller’s probe could reach into his and his family’s finances. Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face.

Trump’s primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump deal making. He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns. “If you’re looking at Russian collusion, the president’s tax returns would be outside that investigation,” said a close adviser to the president.

Further adding to the challenges facing Trump’s outside lawyers, the team’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, resigned on Thursday. Corallo confirmed Friday that he has resigned but declined to comment further.

Related: Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer, is no longer head of the legal team responding to the Russia investigations.
Ty Cobb will now fill that role, with Kasowitz taking up a lower position – 

NOTE: Kasowitz fell under scrutiny when ProPublica published several profane emails he sent to an individual telling him to stop defending the president also here from (The Hill).

That shakeup on the legal team comes one day after Mark Corallo, the spokesman for Trump’s legal team, resigned. Corallo had reportedly never met Trump or Kasowitz before taking the spokesman post, and had been critical of the administration in the past.

The Washington Post reported some lawyers representing the president are looking at ways to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller, who is spearheading the Russian probe.

Bloomberg first reported on Thursday Mueller was looking into Trump’s past business transactions as a part of the probe, despite Trump’s warning in a New York Times interview not to do so.

Corallo had only been on the job for two months. According to Politico he “had grown frustrated with the operation and the warring factions and lawyers” and was increasingly concerned about whether he was being told the truth about certain matters. 

Corallo had told an associate that the dynamics in the White House were untenable and that there was “too much fighting all the time,” in the words of one person who spoke to him and said he no longer needs the money and had complained about the fighting among the lawyers, this person said. Corallo worked in the George W. Bush administration under former AG John Ashcroft

Meanwhile, veteran Washington lawyer John Dowd, hired last month, will take the lead in responding to the Special Counsel and Congressional inquiries. Jay Sekulow, a lawyer who has been a familiar face in conservative media in recent years, will serve as the group’s public face, appearing frequently on television.

Sekulow said in a recent interview: “…that the president and his legal team are intent on making sure Mueller stays within the boundaries of his assignment as special counsel and he will complain directly to Mueller if necessary…”  

Sekulow continued: “The fact is that the president is concerned about conflicts that exist within the special counsel’s office and any changes in the scope of the investigation. The scope is going to have to stay within his mandate. If there’s drifting, we’re going to object.” Sekulow then cited Bloomberg News reports that Mueller is scrutinizing some of Trump’s business dealings, including with a Russian oligarch who purchased a Palm Beach mansion from Trump for $95 million in 2008 and he concluded: They’re talking about real estate transactions in Palm Beach several years ago. In our view, this is far outside the scope of a legitimate investigation.”

The president has long called the FBI investigation into his campaign’s possible coordination with the Russians a “witch hunt.” But now, Trump is coming face-to-face with a powerful investigative team that is able to study evidence of any crime it encounters in the probe — including tax fraud, lying to federal agents, and interference in the investigation.

This is Ken Starr times 1,000” said one lawyer involved in the case, referring to the independent counsel who oversaw an investigation that eventually led to House impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton adding: “Of course, it’s going to go into his finances.” 

Following Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director Comey — in part because of his displeasure with the FBI’s Russia investigation — Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel in a written order. That order gave Mueller broad authority to investigate links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any crimes committed in response to the investigation, such as perjury or obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s probe has already expanded to include an examination of whether Trump obstructed justice in his dealings with Comey, as well as the business activities of Jared Kushner.

Trump’s team could potentially challenge whether a broad probe of Trump’s finances prior to his candidacy could be considered a matter that arose “directly” from an inquiry into possible collusion with a foreign government.

The president’s legal representatives have also identified what they allege are several conflicts of interest facing Mueller, such as donations to Democrats by some of his prosecutors. Another potential conflict claim is an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011, two White House advisers said. A spokesman for Mueller said there was no dispute when Mueller, who was FBI director at the time, left the club.

Trump also took public aim on Wednesday at AG Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein, whose actions led to Mueller’s appointment. In an interview with the New York Times Wednesday, the president said he never would have nominated Sessions if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the case.

Some Republicans in frequent touch with the White House said they viewed the president’s decision to publicly air his disappointment with Sessions as a warning sign that the attorney general’s days were numbered. Several senior aides were described as “stunned” when Sessions announced Thursday morning he would stay on at the Justice Department.

Another Republican in touch with the administration described the public steps as part of a broader effort aimed at “laying the groundwork to fire” Mueller adding: “Who attacks their entire Justice Department? It’s insane.”

Law enforcement officials described Sessions as increasingly distant from the White House and the FBI because of the strains of the Russia investigation. 

Traditionally, Justice Department leaders have sought to maintain a certain degree of autonomy from the White House as a means of ensuring prosecutorial independence.
But Sessions’s situation is more unusual, law enforcement officials said, because he has angered the president for apparently being too independent while also angering many at the FBI for his role in the president’s firing of Comey. 

As a result, there is far less communication among those three key parts of the government than in years past, several officials said. 

Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, it would set off a legal and political firestorm, first around the question of whether a president can use the constitutional pardon power in that way.

“This is a fiercely debated but unresolved legal question,” said Brian C. Kalt, a constitutional law expert at Michigan State University who has written extensively on the question.

The power to pardon is granted to the president in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That means pardon authority extends to federal criminal prosecution but not to state level or impeachment inquiries. No president has sought to pardon himself, so no courts have reviewed it. Although Kalt says the weight of the law argues against a president pardoning himself, he says the question is open and predicts such an action would move through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court.
“There is no predicting what would happen,” said Kalt, author of the book, “Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.” It includes chapters on the ongoing debate over whether presidents can be prosecuted while in office and on whether a president can issue a pardon to himself.

Other White House advisers have tried to temper Trump, urging him to simply cooperate with the probe and stay silent on his feelings about the investigation.

On Monday, lawyer Ty Cobb, newly brought into the White House to handle responses to the Russian probe, convened a meeting with the president and his team of lawyers, according to two people briefed on the meeting. Cobb, who is not yet on the White House payroll, was described as attempting to instill some discipline in how the White House handles queries about the case.

But Trump surprised many of his aides by speaking at length about the probe to the New York Times (July 20, 2017). Cobb, who officially joins the White House team at the end of the month, declined to comment for this article.

Some note that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a president from pardoning himself. On the other side, experts say that by definition a pardon is something you can only give to someone else. There is also a common-law canon that prohibits individuals from serving as a judge in their own case. “For example, we would not allow a judge to preside over his or her own trial,” Kalt said.

A president can pardon an individual at any point, including before the person is charged with a crime, and the scope of a presidential pardon can be very broad. President Gerald Ford pardoned former president Richard M. Nixon preemptively for offenses he “committed or may have committed” while in office.

Devlin Barrett and Sari Horwitz also contributed to this report. 

Excellent article and links therein … a keeper for sure along with this (The Trump Dossier – by Christopher Steele, former MI-6 operative in Moscow).

Thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Donald J. “Nixon” Trump: Seems He’s Ready for His “Saturday Night Massacre Redux”

You're fired...!!!


Based on this story from The Hill here, I have some hope (albeit slim) that we can possibly get this result:

We need some GOPers right now with balls to get rid of Trump before he pulls a Nixon and his version of a Saturday Night Massacre (the history channel).

That was when Nixon fired the independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, which led to the resignations of AG Elliot Richardson and his Deputy AG, William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal investigation.

Trump is near or so it seems, damn close to doing just that… if so, then history surely would repeat itself. Nixon was paranoid and I suspect Trump is, too. Time will tell about that aspect.

So, stay tuned – a big story as they say.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

FACT: Trumps will do, say, pay, try, lie, imply, or deny anything against Trump Empire, Inc.

What Are Those Plans – How to I.D. them is the Biggest Problem

Never Look Back - All That Green and Opportunities - We're All Set 


The DOJ previously ruled and concluded that Jared Kushner serving in his father-in-law's administration would not be a violation of federal anti-nepotism laws and neither would be daughter Ivanka-Trump Kushner’s appointment: 

In the opinion, written by Daniel Koffsky, Dep AG in the OLC, which serves as interpreter of federal law for the W/H, he said in part: “In choosing his personal staff, the President enjoys an unusual degree of freedom, which Congress found suitable to the demands of his office. The anti-nepotism law covers only appointments in the “Executive Agency” and the White House Office is not an executive agency within that law. The president is authorized to make appointments to the W/H staff “without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the government service.”

(NOTE: Koffsky was citing the separate law (described here) that gives the President broad powers to hire his W/H staff advise he also said was poorly given to Carte, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama for their desired to hire relatives). 

That argument was also put forward by Kushner's personal attorney, Jamie S. Gorelick (leaving Kushner) earlier in the week wrote in the NY Times: “The appointment of Jared Kushner, President-elect Donald Trump's son-in-law, as a White House senior adviser is clearly lawful under that staff hiring authority.”

Kushner was a key political strategist on Trump's election. But federal anti-nepotism laws brought into question whether he could continue his influence in the President's life post-election. Trump, as well as many as of his Cabinet nominees has been criticized for conflicts of interest. 
But the DOJ in this specific Kushner and Ivanka hires, are saying: “A President wanting a relative's advice on governmental matters therefore has a choice: to seek that advice on an unofficial, ad hoc basis without conferring the status and imposing the responsibilities that accompany formal White House positions; or to appoint his relative to the White House under Title 3 and subject him to substantial restrictions against conflicts of interest. We believe that the President's special hiring authority in Title 3 U.S.C. §105(a) (also cited above) permits him to make appointments to the White House Office that the anti-nepotism statute might otherwise forbid.”
Big legal loophole? And, that's why W/H lawyers get the big bucks to find those loopholes, neatly placed in laws by Congress who later complains when they are used for an opponent’s gain, but not theirs. 
Neat trick isn’t it? Yes, it is…!!! It's called slick dirty politics and boy do we fall for it each election with their fancy tap dancing… 
My Last Point: The lawyers may have been correct in giving advice to Trump on appointing his daughter and son-in-law, but the results are not worthy for those two in the White House … harmful does come to mind – both Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump-Kushner.
It  all clearly shown by the evidence and their performance – sadly much more will probably to come before it's over.
Fix: Both of them need to go and the sooner the better. Seriously.
Thanks for stopping by.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Trump DOD Pledge as Good as His Trump University Degree Pledge

Remember this Pledge - Seems It Was Eons Ago 

This is my plan — now let's talk to Erik Prince for the details


Trump loyalists' line of resistance is simple: Leave our president alone to do his job: and that job? 

Now “The Donald” will follow Bannon and Kushner down the proverbial rabbit hole and deconstruct the country.

Note this latest from Bannon, Kushner, and old Erik “Blackwater-fame” Prince (Betsy DeVos brother BTW) is this: Privatize the war in Afghanistan. So, pledge be damned. Now he will rebuild our military to be #2 in the world right behind contractors...!!!  That story headlines:



Highlights from the link. And, pretty disgusting to say the least:
Recently Trump adviser Stephen Bannon, with Jared Kushner’s backing went to the Pentagon to arrange a discussion between Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and “two businessmen who profited from military contracting,” the New York Times reported.
These weren’t ordinary contractors: They were Erik Prince, the notorious founder of Blackwater, the all-purpose mercenary army, and Stephen Feinberg, a New York financier who owns and controls DynCorp International, the largest US contractor in Afghanistan.
At the meeting (which neither Prince and Feinberg would confirm), they urged the Pentagon to turn the war over to what they call “private military units” who would fight for profit as an alternative to the Pentagon’s recent proposal to send thousands more US military troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
To their apparent disappointment, Mattis, the Times reported, “listened politely” to their audacious proposal, but “declined to include the outside strategies” in a review of Afghanistan policy that is being led in the White House by Trump’s NSC Adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster. The Times story screamed conflict of interest.
Prince, as most Americans know, cut his mercenary teeth sending his private army into Afghanistan with the CIA shortly after 9/11. He then became persona non-grata in the US government after contractors under his command killed dozens of civilians in Iraq.
But after selling his company and moving on to organize a private army for the United Arab Emirates, he became a key adviser to Trump on military issues. In an interview with Bannon’s Brietbart News a day after his Pentagon meeting, he spelled out his proposals.
Talk about a shitty job … this ranks as #1 for the Trump bunch.
Thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Don Jr. and Maybe Dear Old Dad Face Legal Jeopardy: “Rookie” Errors, Um – Yeah Sure

Like Father Like Son
(3-minute video clip at the site link)


Blogger Note: 100% excellent analysis from Dana Milbank at the Washington Post – absolutely a must read as it was published. I wanted to share what he wrote with those who have not read it yet. You may or may not agree, but enjoy it nevertheless. My points of interest are in red, no other editing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WaPo Editor’s Note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Milbank starts here with this: 
'“I love it.”
That’s how Donald Trump Jr. responded, we now know, to an email last year offering dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.
What I love is the defense of this attempt by senior Trump campaign officials to receive Russian help in the election. As my colleagues John Wagner and Rosalind Helderman report, presidential advisers are explaining away the meeting with the Russian lawyer as a “rookie mistake” by an “unsophisticated” campaign.
“Rookie mistake”: the all-purpose defense of the Trump White House.
When President Trump failed to support NATO’s collective-defense promise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it “a rookie mistake.”
After revelations of Trump’s meddling in the FBI’s Russia probe, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) explained that Trump is “new at this.”
The rookie-error explanation has been employed to describe Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, his handling of health care and his legislative approach.
There have been enough rookie errors to send this whole team back to Double-A ball. The longer this goes on — we’re now six months into Trump’s term — the less it looks like growing pains than incompetence and mismanagement aggravated by nepotism and dishonesty.
Returning from three weeks abroad, I’ve been catching up on developments at home. These weeks, though highly abnormal by usual standards, were fairly typical of the Trump presidency. Mistakes and outrages are so common that we become numb to them.
But stack three weeks of the embarrassments together and the cumulative effect makes it plain that this is amateur hour for the greatest nation on Earth:
The president, representing the United States at the Group of 20 summit in Germany, tweets that “everyone” at the world conference is talking about why Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta wouldn’t give DNC servers to law enforcement. Trump erroneously claims the CIA sought the server. Podesta, who had no authority over the DNC, urges “our whack job” president to “get a grip.”
Trump gives a speech in Warsaw contradicting an earlier speech he gave in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. While in Poland, he publicly disparages U.S. intelligence agencies.
The president meets with Chinese President Xi Jin-ping and the White House press release identifies his country as “the Republic of China” — that is, China’s foe Taiwan.
Trump meets with Vladimir Putin and tweets that he “discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit” with Putin. Twelve hours later, Trump tweets that such a “Cyber Security unit” can’t happen.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tells reporters that Trump discussed sanctions with Putin. Trump tweets the next day: “Sanctions were not discussed.” (The previous month, Tillerson called for the end to a blockade of Qatar; hours later, Trump touted the Qatar blockade.)
Trump’s voter-fraud commission requests voter files and is roundly rejected by Democratic and Republican state officials alike; the Mississippi secretary of state, a Republican, tells the commission to “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”
In spite of Trump’s vow that a North Korean missile capable of reaching the United States “won’t happen,” North Korea tests an ICBM. Trump calls this “very, very bad behavior.” After the missile test, U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, complains on Twitter on Independence Day: “Spending my 4th in meetings all day. #ThanksNorthKorea.”
Trump gives a speech at the Kennedy Center, in July, vowing, “We’re going to start saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”
The president tweets that a cable-news host, Mika Brzezinski, was “bleeding badly from a face-lift” when he met her. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) responds: “Please just stop.”
Trump follows this by tweeting a mock professional wrestling video of him pummeling “Fraud News CNN.”
The Post’s David Fahrenthold reports that fake Time magazine covers featuring Trump were on display in at least five of Trump’s clubs.
The president, who had implied he had tapes of his talks with Comey, tweets that there are no such tapes. Lawmakers, calling the president’s word insufficient, threaten to subpoena the tapes.
Former CIA director David Petraeus, asked in a panel discussion whether Trump is fit to serve, replies: “It’s immaterial.”
Trump claims the Senate health-care bill “is working along very well.” Republican leaders soon abandon plans to have a vote on the bill.
The White House issues a statement threatening to bomb the Syrian regime. Both the intelligence community and the Pentagon appear to be caught off guard.
Eight months after the election, Trump tweets: “Hillary Clinton colluded with the Democratic Party in order to beat Crazy Bernie Sanders.”
Now, after months of Trump denials of Russia contacts, comes proof of a Russia meeting with Donald Jr., Jared Kushner and campaign chairman Paul Manafort during the campaign. Among Junior’s conflicting explanations: It was okay because the Russian didn’t produce good dirt on Clinton.
And these are just some of the misfires.
They aren’t rookie mistakes. This is a team that never should have taken the field.” 
End of the article
Thanks for stopping by. More to come I am sure. A lot of shoes left to drop.