All Things Trump

[Seabass]

This guy's bullshit is so comically transparent, I just can't wrap my head around how so many continue to fall for it.

Trump: Obama Was for ‘Open Borders’ – Also, His Immigration Policies Were the Same As Mine
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... icies.html
The Trump administration’s “family separation” policy put conservatives in a tight spot. Republicans can defend subjecting adult “illegals” to cruel and unusual punishment without breaking a sweat. But the party of “family values” found it decidedly more difficult to rationalize the torture of tender-age children, no matter their immigration status. Thus, the Evangelical right finally discovered the limits of its self-abasement, and came out against the policy. Other conservatives cast about for an “anti-anti-family separation” argument — which is to say, for a means of attacking liberal opposition to the practice without actually defending family separation, itself.

And Democrats promptly provided them with one: On Twitter, progressives began circulating heart-rending images of migrant children trapped in cages — without realizing that those photos were taken when Barack Obama was still president. Conservatives pounced. Trump himself denounced the dishonesty of Democrats who tried to blame him for his predecessor’s cruelty. Reactionaries started poring over the more draconian side of Obama’s immigration record. Soon, they were resurfacing years-old, left-wing critiques of that record — including a piece I had written in January 2016 on the Obama administration’s mishandling of unaccompanied child migrants.

Conservatives found great satisfaction in decrying Democrats’ (often genuine) hypocrisies on immigration policy. In fact, they found that activity so satisfying, they completely forgot that Donald Trump’s entire presidential campaign proceeded from the premise that Barack Obama had refused to enforce America’s borders, and that this had created a crisis of illegal immigration (that Trump, alone, could fix).

And Trump forgot this along with them. On Monday, the president tweeted, “Such a difference in the media coverage of the same immigration policies between the Obama Administration and ours. Actually, we have done a far better job in that our facilities are cleaner and better run than were the facilities under Obama. Fake News is working overtime!”

It is important to note that Trump’s claim here is false. While there is some overlap between this administration’s policies and those of its predecessor, the Obama White House never tried to deter asylum seekers by separating them en masse from their children.

But the broader problem with Trump’s tweet is that it’s completely irreconcilable with virtually everything else he’s ever said about immigration policy in the United States. “Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of this administration,” Trump lamented in September 2016. Just last week, Trump denounced the “extremist open-border Democrats” — and argued that the party wanted “illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13,” because they see MS-13 gang members as “potential voters!”

So: Democrats do not believe in the nation-state, and want to maximize illegal immigration to the United States for their own political benefit — and, also, the last time Democrats held the White House, they implemented the “same immigration policies” as Trump, except that the Democrats weren’t as nice to child migrants.

In recent days, several pundits have argued that Democrats should give Trump most of what he wants on immigration, for the sake of placating his nativist base. But that argument presumes that Trump’s base is concerned with the realities of American immigration policy, as opposed to the thrill of “owning the libs,” and putting nonwhite Americans in their place. Conservatives’ mutually contradictory critiques of Barack Obama’s immigration record suggest that this simply isn’t the case.

[Scot Dutchy]

He is something for 42; defining poverty in the USA. More book fiddling.

Trump administration claims only 250,000 Americans live in extreme poverty, despite UN estimates of 18m

US ambassador calls UN report 'politically motivated,' while expert says US estimate is a 'total joke'

The Trump administration has said the United Nations is overestimating the number of Americans in “extreme poverty” by about 18.25 million people, reflecting a stark disagreement about the extent of poverty in the nation and the resources needed to fight it.

In May, Philip Alston, special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights for the UN, published a report saying 40 million Americans live in poverty and 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty.

But rebuking the report on Friday, US officials told the United Nations Human Rights Council there only appear to be approximately 250,000 Americans in extreme poverty, calling Mr Alston’s numbers “exaggerated”.

Once again it is all based on surveys not facts.

[Tero]

Finnish man my age (but hates Finland and all government ) was all fired up because ”Trump is going to win Nov.”
No president has gained seats in midterm!

Me to him:
It’s just not going to happen. Democrats might be disappointed to gain only 10 seats and none in the senate.
Read the gallup polls instead of Fox and Wall street jrnl.
538/Nate Silver
Imagine this scenario: In November’s elections for the U.S. House, Democrats win the national House vote by a few percentage points and gain nearly 20 additional House seats,The relationship between the national House vote and how many seats change hands is inexact, but this scenario is plausible.
....by both winning open seats and defeating some longtime GOP incumbents. In the Senate, Democrats pick up Nevada; win races in states President Trump carried in 2016, including in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and West Virginia; and only narrowly lose in the GOP strongholds of Indiana, Missouriand Tennessee.

That sounds like a pretty good night for Democrats. But it wouldn’t be. That scenario would leave Republicans with a majority of, say, 222-213 in the House and a 51-49 advantage in the Senate.

[Tero]

Trump staffed court decides to ban Muslims!

In her fiery dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of “blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security.”

Keith Ellison, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a candidate to be Minnesota’s attorney general, attacked the decision as running contrary to American values.

“Today’s decision undermines the core value of religious tolerance on which America was founded,” he said in his statement. “I am deeply disappointed that this ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia.”

[Tero]

Court supports anti-abortion scam centers
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/60642767 ... cy-centers

[Tero]

Q: Who will be exempted from the travel ban?

A: Anyone with a valid tourist or terrorist visa.

Q: Wait, didn’t Trump say America’s federal courts are weak and unjust?

A: Sure, except when they’re strong and fair!
More
https://politics.theonion.com/everythin ... 1827144285

https://politics.theonion.com/%5Bobject%20Object%5D

[Joe]

Federal judge rebukes Mueller team for questionable tactics: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/38 ... le-tactics

An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months — namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of President Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against Trump.

This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing — he will compose! Here is what he said about that: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.”
I have been using this “compose” metaphor for decades, and I am gratified that a judge borrowed it to express an important civil liberties concern. Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. I have seen it used by prosecutors who threaten wives, parents, siblings and, in one case, the innocent son of a potential witness who was about to graduate law school. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly, as Judge Ellis has done.

Defenders of Mueller’s tactic argue that the threatened witnesses and their relatives are generally guilty of some crime, or else they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the prosecutor’s threats. This may be true, but the crimes they are threatened to be charged with are often highly technical, elastic charges that are brought only as leverage. They are dropped as soon as the witness cooperates. This was precisely the point Judge Ellis was making with regard to Manafort.

A similar point could be made with regard to President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and perhaps to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Indeed, Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution.

Civil libertarians have long criticized this tactic, since the time it was used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his minions to pressure witnesses to testify against suspected communists in the 1950s. In recent decades it has been deployed against mobsters, terrorists and corporate predators. But Judges Ellis has accused Mueller of using this questionable approach to develop a political case against the duly elected president of the United States.

For those who argue that everything is fair, if the goal is to prevent a president from being above the law, Judge Ellis provided a compelling response: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He was referring to the manner by which the special counsel was using his power to “tighten the screws” on Manafort by indicting him for an alleged crime that the judge believes has nothing to do “with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate.”

Civil libertarians should be applauding Judge Ellis for seeking to cabin the “unfettered power” of the special counsel to do “anything he wants.” But no, because his ruling may help Trump, and because Trump has applauded it, the civil liberties and criminal defense communities have not been heard from.

I guess he didn't mean it quite as harshly as it sounded.

Judge denies Manafort's request to dismiss case in Virginia

In a long-awaited ruling, federal Judge TS Ellis on Tuesday denied Paul Manafort's request to dismiss the financial criminal charges he faces in Virginia.

Manafort had argued special counsel Robert Mueller had no authority to bring the case, because it was not related to his work for the 2016 Trump campaign, and Ellis expressed his own frustrations with the special counsel's probe in a hearing on the request.

Still, Ellis certified that Manafort's case will continue to move toward a late July trial.

"This case is a reminder that ultimately, our system of checks and balances and limitations on each branch's powers, although exquisitely designed, ultimately works only if people of virtue, sensitivity, and courage, not affected by the winds of public opinion, choose to work within the confines of the law," Ellis wrote Tuesday.

"Let us hope that the people in charge of this prosecution, including the Special Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General, are such people," Ellis added. "Although this case will continue, those involved should be sensitive to the danger unleashed when political disagreements are transformed into partisan prosecutions."

[Brian Peacock]

Wise words.

[Seabass]

Another Trump "accomplishment"! Crying children make America great!

[Brian Peacock]

#MAKEAMERICASADAGAIN

[Tero]

None of this is happening:

Trump said he was getting other countries to reduce and eliminate tariffs and trade barriers, and to open up markets.

(Like what country? )

A group from Harley-Davidson met Trump at the White House last year.
“When I had Harley-Davidson officials over to the White House, I chided them about tariffs in other countries, like India, being too high,” Trump tweeted. “Companies are now coming back to America. Harley must know that they won’t be able to sell back into U.S. without paying a big tax!”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ff-big-tax

[Brian Peacock]

Where's Trump manufacturing his ranges of branded products these days?

[Svartalf]

if it's in the US, my name is Emmanuel Macron and I'm posting from the Elysée Palace

[Scot Dutchy]

Dictatorship next

Abortion rights in 'dire, immediate danger' as Anthony Kennedy retires

Potential nominees shortlisted by Trump are believed to be jurists who would overturn the landmark decision Roe v Wade

The US supreme court legalized abortion in 1973. Now, 45 years later, activists say the departure of the court’s moderate, Justice Anthony Kennedy, represents the most direct threat to reproductive freedom since abortion was legalized.
Pro-choice advocates said Kennedy’s retirement represents a “dire, immediate danger” to women’s reproductive freedom. Though the supreme court is not expected to rule on abortion matters in the near future, all of the potential nominees shortlisted by the Trump administration are believed to be jurists who would overturn the landmark decision, Roe v Wade, given the opportunity.

“Today, Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, and because President Trump will nominate the next supreme court justice, a woman’s constitutional right to access legal abortion is in dire, immediate danger – along with the fundamental rights of all Americans,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“Our country faces a moment of deep crisis – a crisis of rights, of values and of leadership,” she said. “The deeply-divided decisions from the supreme court this week are a clear warning that our most cherished values are in jeopardy, and now hang in the balance. Women will not go back to the days when abortion was illegal in this country.”

Anti-abortion activists, meanwhile, described Kennedy’s retirement as a turning point in the movement.

“Justice Kennedy’s retirement from the supreme court makes a pivotal moment for the fight to ensure every unborn child is welcomed and protected under the law,” said Susan B Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser.

[Svartalf]

how long will it take to possibly repair the damage of the trump SCOTUS nominations? 20 years, 40, 50?