Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Who in the White House Will Turn Against Donald Trump? – The New Yorker

The yearning in the character of Donald Trump for dominance and praise is bottomless, a hunger that is never satisfied. Last week, the President gathered his Cabinet for a meeting with no other purpose than to praise him, to note the great honor and blessing of serving such a man as he. Trump nodded with grave self-satisfaction, accepting the serial hosannas as his daily due. But even as the members declared, Pyongyang-style, their everlasting gratitude and fealty to the Great Leader, this concocted dumb show of loyalty only served to suggest how unsustainable it all is.

The reason that this White House staff is so leaky, so prepared to express private anxiety and contempt, even while parading obeisance for the cameras, is that the President himself has so far been incapable of garnering its discretion or respect. Trump has made it plain that he is capable of turning his confused fury against anyone in his circle at any time. In a tweet on Friday morning, Trump confirmed that he is under investigation for firing the F.B.I. director James Comey, but blamed the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, for the legal imbroglio that Trump himself has created. The President has fired a few aides, he has made known his disdain and disappointment at many others, and he will, undoubtedly, turn against more. Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner, Jeff Sessions, Sean Spicerwho has not yet felt the lash?

Trumps egotism, his demand for one-way loyalty, and his incapacity to assume responsibility for his own untruths and mistakes were, his biographers make plain, his pattern in business and have proved to be his pattern as President.

Veteran Washington reporters tell me that they have never observed this kind of anxiety, regret, and sense of imminent personal doom among White House staffersnot to this degree, anyway. These troubled aides seem to think that they can help their own standing by turning on those around themand that by retailing information anonymously they will be able to live with themselves after serving a President who has proved so disconnected from the truth and reality.

I thought about Trump and his aides and councillors while reading The Last of the Presidents Men , Bob Woodwards 2015 book about Alexander Butterfield, a career Air Force officer who took a job as an assistant to Richard Nixon. He made the move less for ideological reasons than to indulge a yearning ambition to be in the smoketo be at the locus of power, where decisions are made.

As an undergraduate, at U.C.L.A., Butterfield knew H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and, after serving in Vietnam and being stationed in Australia, he called on Haldeman, who was Nixons most important assistant. Haldeman made Butterfield his deputy. Butterfield got what every D.C. bureaucrat craves mostaccess. He worked on Nixons schedule, his paper flow, his travel; he offered advice, took orders, no matter how bizarre or transitory. Butterfield could not have been more in the smoke than he was then. He quickly discovered that Nixon was a fantastically weird and solitary manrude, unthoughtful, broiling with resentment against the Eastern lites who had somehow wounded him, be it in his imagination or in fact. Butterfield had to manage Nixons relations with everyone from his Cabinet members to his wife, Pat, who on vacations resided separately from the President. Butterfield carried out Nixons most peculiar orders, whether they involved barring a senior economic adviser from a White House faith service or making sure that Henry Kissinger was no longer seated at state dinners next to the most attractive woman at the occasion. (Nixon, who barely acknowledged, much less touched, his own wife in public, resented Kissingers public, and well-cultivated, image as a Washington sex symbol.)

Butterfield experienced what all aides do, eventually, if they have the constant access; he was witness to the unguarded and, in Nixons case, the most unattractive behavior of a powerful man. Incident after incident revealed Nixons distaste for his fellow human beings, his racism and anti-Semitism, his overpowering personal suspicions, and his sad longings. Nixon, the most anti-social of men, needed a briefing memo just to make it through the pleasantries of a staff birthday party. One evening, Butterfield recounts to Woodward, he sat across from Nixon on a night trip back to the White House from Camp David on Marine One, and watched as Nixon, in one of the more discomfiting passages in the literature of sexual misbehavior, kept patting the bare legs of one of his secretaries, Beverly Kaye:

And hes carrying on this small talk, but still patting her. Because I can see now, Nixon being Nixon, he doesnt quite know how to stop. You know, to stop is an action in itself. So hes pat, pat, patting her. And looking at her. And feelingI can see hes feeling more distressed all the time now about the situation hes got himself into. So he keeps trying to make this small talk, and I can see him saying [to himself], you know, when the small talk is over, what the hell am I going to do? . . . Shes petrified. Shes never had this happen before. The president of the United States is patting her bare legs.

For how long? Woodward asks.

It seems like half the way to Washington but Id say a long time, minutes.

When it appeared, The Last of the Presidents Men did not receive the attention that was paid to some of Woodwards early investigative books, but its intimacy and strangeness are very much worth returning to in the Trumpian momentespecially so if you are blessed with serving the current President. It is instructive.

Butterfield, who is ninety-one and spent dozens of hours with Woodward recounting his experiences in proximity to a President who ran what was essentially a criminal operation from the White House, emerges from the telling as a man of complex motivations. He hardly charged forward in the early days of the scandal to tell what he knew. After Nixons relection, Butterfield left the White House to lead the Federal Aviation Administration. But no matter how hard Butterfield worked to swallow his hurt feelings or to submerge his knowledge of the various enemies lists and the criminal cover-up that took shape all around him during Watergate, no matter how hard he tried to rationalize Nixons venality with his achievements, particularly the diplomatic opening to China, he came to an almost inevitable moment of reckoning.

In February, 1971, Nixon came up with the idea of putting a voice-activated taping system in his offices. Butterfield was charged with the installation. Haldeman told Butterfield that Nixon wanted the system installed on his telephones and in the Oval Office, his office in the Executive Office Building, the Cabinet Room, and the Lincoln Sitting Room. Kissinger was not to know; neither was his senior-most secretary, Rose Mary Woods. Only a few aides and the President were aware that no conversation was now truly confidential. Tiny holes were drilled into the Presidents desktop to make way for the microphones. A set of Sony 800B tape recorders was set up in the White House basement.

It was all for the sake of history, Nixon said. Kennedy and Johnson had taped selectively, but Nixon wanted it all for the recordhis own recordsbut no one was to know. Goddamn it, this cannot get out, Nixon told Butterfield. Mums the word.

In the end, of course, the tapes were Nixons undoing. In July, 1973, when Senate Watergate investigators asked Butterfield point-blank whether the White House taped conversations, Butterfield decided that his loyalty was not to the cesspool of Nixons White House but to the truth. And by confirming what so few knewthat there were tapes of Nixon and his cronies discussing Watergate and its cover-upButterfield helped end a Presidency.

Donald Trump now faces an investigation led by Robert Mueller, late of the F.B.I., and it could last many months. There is hardly any guarantee that the Administration will be found guilty of collusion with Russia, or with Russians, on any score; to predict that is to leap ahead of any publicly available evidence. Nor is there any guarantee, despite the testimony of Comey, and the testimony coming from other top national-security figures, that there will be a charge of obstruction of justice. This is bound to take some time.

But, while Trumps personality is different from Nixons, there is little evidence that the show of bogus loyalty performed last week has any basis in real life. Will Bannon, Spicer, Conway, Sessions, Kushner, and many others who have been battered in one way or another by Trump keep their counsel? Will all of them risk their futures to protect someone whose focus is on himself alone, the rest be damned? Will none of them conclude that they are working for a President whose honesty is on a par with his loyalty to others? The government is already filled with public servants and bureaucrats who have found ways to protest this Presidents actions and describe them to investigators and reporters. Will the inner circle follow? Have they already?

Alexander Butterfield, day after day, would hear Nixon say, Were going to nail those sons of bitches. He heard the lies; he watched the President try to crush his opponents with surveillance and dirty tricks. It disgusted him, but, for a good while, he assumed that the Presidency would endure; it was too powerful an institution to fall. But then momentum toward the truth began to build a wave, as Butterfield called it. He was, all along, ambivalent, torn between loyalty to the Presidentor, at least, to the idea of the Presidencyand a desire to do the right thing. When his time came, though, Butterfield testified.

Continued here:
Who in the White House Will Turn Against Donald Trump? - The New Yorker

Donald Trump doesn’t get the special counsel investigation. And he’s never going to. – CNN

From his rise in Manhattan social circles to his career as a real estate developer to his time as a reality TV star, he's always employed these same basic tactics. If someone writes or says something Trump doesn't like, he either threatens to or actually sues while simultaneously pushing out a counter-narrative aimed at discrediting the initial report and turning the story toward more favorable ground for him.

Everything is to be treated as a tabloid story that can be shaped, changed, rebutted, knocked down and torn apart though force of will -- and words.

It's worked remarkably well for Trump. And so it shouldn't be all that surprising that he's brought that blueprint to Washington with him.

Except that the White House -- and the political and legal worlds it touches -- isn't the same thing that Trump is used to facing. Not at all. The rules governing this world aren't the rules of the tabloids of New York City media. Bob Mueller isn't some "Page Six" reporter.

Trump doesn't seem to have even the slightest understanding of that distinction. His twin tweets Thursday morning make that point better than I ever could.

This is standard-issue stuff in the Trump playbook. When attacked, attack back -- harder. Go after the story in big, broad ways -- "total hoax" is one way Trump has described the federal investigation -- and assume that the average person won't consume enough details or follow it closely enough to see whether you're right or wrong.

But this investigation isn't anything like what Trump has faced before. He can't simply say this is all a "witch hunt" or a "hoax" and have it disappear. Short of firing Mueller, which seems to me incredibly unlikely -- particularly after the leak of the obstruction investigation -- Trump can't stop it. The investigation will proceed no matter what Trump says about it or who involved in it he calls names. It will also, eventually, reach some conclusions about the nature of Russia's hacking of the election and whether or not there was any collusion in that effort by any member of the Trump campaign.

That train has already left the station. And Trump's ability to derail it is decidedly limited.

That doesn't mean Trump's use of his tried and true "attack, pivot, declare victory" strategy against Mueller and the special counsel investigation won't have any impact.

The more Trump casts the investigation as biased and unfairly targeted at him, the more his supporters will believe that it is. Which means that if Trump either fires Mueller -- again, that is so hard to imagine -- or works to discredit the final conclusions of the special counsel, there will be a ready bloc of his supporters eager to adopt and spread that message.

"I told you this whole special counsel was a witch hunt," you can imagine Trump saying to nods from his supporters. "Of course they concluded I was in the wrong. They had decided that before they even started investigating. We need to drain the swamp and make America great again."

That line will work with his supporters. But it won't change the underlying facts Mueller unearths -- and the reverberations they could cause among everyone outside of Trump's most loyal backers.

Trump is a blunt instrument. He knows one way of doing things. And that way has always worked for him. But this investigation is both more serious than anything Trump has faced before.

Almost everyone grasps that. Everyone except Donald John Trump, that is.

Originally posted here:
Donald Trump doesn't get the special counsel investigation. And he's never going to. - CNN

Donald Trump Blocked Me on Twitter for Telling Him He’s Not as Cool as Witches – Newsweek

I reply to President Donald Trump'stweets sometimes.

I'm not proud of it. It's a compulsion, like biting fingernails or eating all the Doritos in the bag at once. When I wake up and see a blustery new message from our tweeter-in-chief, what am I supposed to do?Walk away? Perform yoga stretches? No. I carve out a snarkyretort. If I'm fast enough, I watch the likes and retweets roll in at lightning speed. (This is the 2017 equivalent of commenting "FIRST!" on an explosive message board thread.)

Sometimes, I try to debunk the misinformation Trump sharesthe false claimsabout an apologyletter from The New York Times, for instance, or the lies about his approval ratings. Other times, I just tweet Borat jokes.

Culture Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek Culture delivered to your inbox

Again: Not proud. The sight of some verified nobody pumping out atweetstorm in Trump's mentions has become such aclich that there are now numerous profiles of the people who do this every day. The genre is very ripe forparody:

I won't pretend this is some noble act of resistance (or, as they say, #resistance). It's just a quick shot ofdopamine when my tweet blows up. Plus, it'smomentarily satisfying to be able to talk back to Trump on the public medium he can'tstay away from. There isno historical precedent for Trump'sTwitter. The president of the United States communicates directly with us in unfiltered outbursts when he's at his angriest, and we get to respond. It's weird. Sometimes he even sees the responses. And then he gets madder.

On Thursday, Trump, or somebody with access to his account, must have seen my response to one of his tweets.I know this, because he blocked me.

The block came shortly after Trump tweeted about being caught in"the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history." (Presumably, he is referring to the Russia investigation.) The president's use of the phrase "witch hunt" is curious butahistorical. I sent a snarky reply telling Trump to stop comparing himself to witches, who've been persecuted far more than he is:

A few minutes later, I checked to see if Trump had done any more tweets. Instead, I found that he had blocked me. (If you're new to Twitter, this means I can't tweet at him or read his tweets anymore.)

Was I blocked due to a pattern of behavior or because that one joke hurt Trump's feelings? No idea.It would be flattering to think that the president has read the articles I've written about him, like the one in which I relayed the stories behind his terrible movie cameos or the one where I profiled his celebrity admirers. But that seems unlikely, since they don't get discussedonFox&Friends. Plus, Trump doesn't really seem to read,anyway.

Related: The ridiculous stories behind Donald Trump's movie and TV cameos

I'm not the first to be blocked. Trump has been making liberal use of the feature lately. He blocked the writer Bess Kalb, who frequently mocks his tweets. He evenblocked Stephen King the other day. Fellow author J.K. Rowling kindly offered to DM Trump's tweets to King:

In fact, Ashley Feinberg, over at Wired, has a running list of people Trump has blocked on Twitter. For a certain breed of journalist, being insulted by Trump is a badge of honor. CNN'sChris Cillizza, for instance, has had an unflattering quote from Trump in his Twitter bio for yearsproof that even a broken clock is right twice a day:

Chris Cillizza's Twitter bio. twitter.com

So I'm not alone. After I revealed I'd been blocked, I got some interesting replies. Random Trump-haters started tweeting at me with a strange mix of congratulations ("Welcome to the #BlockedByTrump club drinks are at 6," tweeted@BrandonTXNeely) and messages of condolence. "Wow, another one down," tweeted@MissNeverTrump, as though I'd been slain on the front lines of some war. One person shared a memethat says, "Live your life in such a way that Donald Trump blocks you on Twitter." (I assume this is an ancient Greek proverb.) Even the actress who voicedDil Pickles on Rugrats swung by to voice her support.

Meanwhile, I received a new wave ofvitriol from Trump supporters. One guy asked me if I support the recent shooting ofRepublicanRepresentative Steve Scalise. (I don't!) Another Twitter user called me a "dumb ass dork not worth anybody's time." (Tough, but fair.)

The weird thing about being blocked by Trump is that I can no longer look at his tweets, unless I open an incognito browser that was probably intended for porn, not statements from the president. This has worrisome constitutional implications. TheKnight First Amendment Institute has argued that Trump is violating people's right to free speech when he blocks them on Twitter.The Institute has threatened to file a lawsuit. "If theres any kind of forum the government is operating for expression, it may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint," a senior fellow at the Institute told Wired.

Meanwhile, I now have no idea whether Trump has tweeted in the last hour. Is this whatfreedom feels like?

Actually, you know what? J. K. Rowling, if you're reading this, can you DM Trump's tweets to me, too?

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump Blocked Me on Twitter for Telling Him He's Not as Cool as Witches - Newsweek

Senate passes Russia sanctions bill, pushing back against Trump – CNN

The Senate approved the bill 98-2, with Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont voting against the measure. The bill, which includes both Russian and Iranian sanctions, now heads to the House, which still needs to pass it before it goes to President Donald Trump's desk.

The measure is widely seen as a rebuke to Trump, as it hits Russia with new sanctions to punish Moscow for its interference in US elections, as well as over Moscow's aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

The bill establishes a review process for Congress to have a say whether the White House eases Russia sanctions. It also establishes new sanctions against those conducting cyberattacks on behalf of the Russian government as well as supplying arms to Syrian President Bashar Assad, and it allows for sanctions to hit Russia's mining, metals, shipping and railways sectors.

"We moved to make the Congress, not the President, the final arbiter of sanctions relief when necessary," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "Any idea of the President that he can lift sanctions on his own for whatever reason are dashed by this legislation."

The Russia sanctions measure was added as an amendment to an Iranian sanctions bill, after a deal was struck between the heads of the Senate Foreign Relations and Banking Committees. The Russia amendment was added to the sanctions bill in a 97-2 vote on Wednesday.

Despite the overwhelming vote, the Russia sanctions package was no sure thing. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker of Tennessee had initially been hesitant to take it up, as the administration had expressed a hope it could improve relations with Moscow.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said this week that he was wary of Congress taking actions that could interfere with the administration's efforts to improve relations with Russia.

"What I wouldn't want to do is close the channels off," Tillerson told a Senate committee.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that the Trump administration is "committed to existing sanctions against Russia" but is "still reviewing the new Russia sanctions amendment."

"We will keep them in place until Moscow fully honors its commitment to resolve the crisis in Ukraine," Sanders said. "We believe the existing executive branch sanctions regime is the best tool for compelling Russia to fulfill its commitments."

Still, Corker and other Republicans said they expect Trump to sign the bill if it's passed by the House.

"I called over myself yesterday and just shared some thoughts with them. But look, this bill is going to become law," Corker told reporters on Wednesday. "I've had conversations with Tillerson more generally about our relationship with Russia, not about details (of the legislation)."

The Senate also passed two amendments before approving the bill. The first was a technical change that the sanctions would not apply to NASA and commercial space launches, as Russian rocket engines are used for the American Atlas V and Antares rockets.

The second reaffirmed "the strategic importance of Article 5" in NATO, the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all members of the alliance.

CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.

Read more:
Senate passes Russia sanctions bill, pushing back against Trump - CNN

Donald Trump Is Now Facing Three Emoluments Lawsuits – Slate Magazine

President Donald Trump departs the White House on June 7 in Washington.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Have you filed an emoluments lawsuit against Donald Trump yet? If not, you better act fastthe docket is getting crowded. The attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland filed a suit on Monday alleging that the presidents receipt of foreign gifts and payments violated the Constitution. Two days later, nearly 200 members of Congress also sued Trump for the same purportedly unconstitutional conduct. Trumps attorneys at the Department of Justice, meanwhile, are busy fighting another emoluments lawsuit, this one filed back in January on behalf of an ethics watchdog and Trumps business competitors.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

Do any of these lawsuits have a real chance of success? And what would success even look like in this deeply ambiguous and heretofore uncharted area of constitutional law?

The very first emoluments suit is beginning to provide an answer to those questions. Spearheaded by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, this lawsuit elevated the emoluments problem from academic blogs to front-page headlines. The Constitutions Foreign Emoluments Clause declares that no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. CREW reads this clause very broadly, arguing that it bars the president from receiving any payment from a foreign government.

CREW hopes to obtain a court order compelling Trump to divest from his business empire, which continues to receive cash from foreign, state-owned corporations. Its secondary goal is much more modest: The group wants to get to discovery, allowing it to demand financial records from Trump and his business empireincluding the presidents tax returns. To get to that point, however, CREW must prove it is an injured party and thus has standing to sue in court. CREW alleges that Trump injured the group by forcing it to divert valuable resources to an investigation into his ethics violations. This theory of standing was clearly a long shot. So, in March, CREW brought a restaurant association and a luxury hotel booker into its suit; both claim Trumps emoluments violations are causing them to lose business, a more solid ground for standing.

Even if CREW cant get past this threshold, it has already scored one political victory: The lawsuit forced the Justice Department to defend Trumps acquisition of wealth. In its lengthy brief, the DOJ argued that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies only to benefits arising from services the president provides to the foreign state. Under the DOJs theory, Trump wont run afoul of the Constitution unless he receives payment from a foreign government for engaging in some official act.

This cramped interpretation is designed to ensure that private commercial transactions fall outside the clauses scope. To bolster that proposition, the brief embarked upon a comically tone-deaf tour of presidential profiteering through the ages. We learned that, during their presidencies, George Washington owned a gristmill; Thomas Jefferson, a nail factory; James Madison and James Monroe, tobacco plantations. According to the DOJ, these enterprises are constitutionally analogous to Trumps empire which, to give just one of many examples, allows the president to receive millions of dollars from a state-controlled Chinese bank.

The DOJs thesis is probably wrong; a wealth of historical evidence suggests the Framers viewed an emolument as any good or service of value, not one specific kind of bribery. But even if Trumps lawyers are right, their brief is still politically deleterious. The DOJ is now defending the chief executives constitutional right to rake in as much money as he can from foreign states, so long as the exchange doesnt involve a demonstrable quid pro quo. Trump and his lawyers are defining corruption downward. First, we were told the president would separate himself from his businesses. Now we have learned that he wont, but he promises not to take any outright bribes. As far as presidential ethics go, only Richard Nixon set a lower bar.

Top Comment

Birther v. Emoluments. There was no evidence, none, that Obama was born in Kenya. The one misprint was by a literary agent who flat admitted she messed it up. More...

Should a federal judge toss out CREWs suit, Trumps opponents will have at least two more bites at the apple. The Washington and Maryland suit is especially interesting, since both jurisdictions have a strong case for standing. Maryland argues that Trumps D.C. hotel is drawing foreign business out of the state, reducing its tax revenue; the District of Columbia alleges the hotel is drawing business away from its convention center, which is taxpayer-owned. The congressional lawsuit, on the other hand, asserts Trump is injuring members of Congress by depriving them of the opportunity to vote on his emoluments. Because the Constitution allows the president to receive emoluments with the consent of the Congress, these representatives argue they must be able to allow or prohibit Trumps acceptance of foreign payments.

That theory is certainly creative, although law professor and emoluments expert Andy Grewal doubts it will succeed since Congress could vote on Trumps emoluments and has simply chosen not to. Either way, both suits will force the Justice Department to continue defending Trumps profiteering. If one makes it past the standing stage, the plaintiffs will enter the promised land of discovery (and tax returns). The emoluments litigation has already put Trump on the defensive and forced his lawyers to justify presidential enrichment; it now poses a real threat of unveiling his secretive business dealings as well. What started as a single long-shot lawsuit may soon turn into a nightmare for the president.

Read more:
Donald Trump Is Now Facing Three Emoluments Lawsuits - Slate Magazine