Carl Bernstein said much the same. He reckons that Trump's current calculation is that if he allows the investigations to continue, he will be publicly found out. So he may well be gambling that it will be better to move to shut down Mueller now and expect the GOP to roll over.
In short, Carl thinks they may well prefer the rule of Trump to the rule of law. A fine collection of strict constitutionalists they've turned out to be.
If they do roll over, then the current cold civil war in the USA might get a lot hotter.
Serious question....
Just how feasible might it be for somewhere like California, in the event of a Trump re-election let us say, to decide that they don't want to be part of this Union any more and make moves towards independence?
As Simon noted, such movements exist, including one more substantial and semi-serious one that was gathering steam in early 2017. Hat tip to ya-- it's been dubbed Calexit. I'll admit I found it appealing in a letting-off-steam / we're not really serious sort of way. It lost a lot of its luster when it was revealed the campaign is being run out of Moscow
Oh! I am so using that next time someone from Western Australia gets lippy
Just how feasible might it be for somewhere like California, in the event of a Trump re-election let us say, to decide that they don't want to be part of this Union any more and make moves towards independence?
Even if it were possible, and I don't think it is post Civil War, it seems to me that the resulting problems would be overwhelming:
o Would Californians be given their choice of U.S. citizenship or California citizenship?
o Would retired Californians lose Social Security and Medicare? If so, would California move to replace them?
o What about currency and postage? Would California coin its own currency? If so, what would support its value?
o Would passports be required for Californians to travel to the U.S., and vice versa?
o Would the border be secured (and who would pay for it -- Mexico?)?
o Would U.S. citizens temporarily living in California (tourists, hospital patients, etc.) be expelled -- and vice versa for Californians temporarily living in the U.S.?
o Would tariffs be imposed on California-U.S. trade?
And so on.
However desirable it would seem for a state to be able to opt out of Trumpocracy, would it really be worth it?
Reports came in yesterday that the Cohen search warrant directed the FBI to seize information related to the Access Hollywood tape. Not a lot of details about what that means, but I can imagine a scenario where, after the tape dropped, some people in the campaign suggested that someone hush any past sexual partners.
Reports came in yesterday that the Cohen search warrant directed the FBI to seize information related to the Access Hollywood tape. Not a lot of details about what that means, but I can imagine a scenario where, after the tape dropped, some people in the campaign suggested that someone hush any past sexual partners.
Another possibility is that it's not about hush money but about coordinating with Russian intelligence, as pointed out in this tweet.
And now there are reports that the rag, Esquire, paid a former doorman $30,000 hush money to to keep quite a story that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock.
Esquire brass claim there was nothing to the story. But former reporters for the rag point out it wouldn't have paid that amount of money if there wasn't some truth to it. Esquire has boasted it helped elect the Donald.
As unlikely as conviction in a Senate trial and removal from office following impeachment may be for Trump or Pence (2/3 of the Senste would need to vote to do so and it’s hard enough - almost impossible - to get the 3/5 of the Senate needed to pass major legislation nowadays without some kind of Reconciliation procedural jiu-jitsu) - Democrats would not want it to happen unless they had control of at least the house.
If Trump is removed from office following impeachment, Pence becomes president. He then nominates a new VP which has to pass both houses of Congress by a simple majority vote (not sure if the Senate can filibuster a VP nomination under current Senate rules). The Democrats would want to be able to block any VP nomination that was too extreme. If Mueller pulled up something that made Pence impeachable (not sure if such evidence exists), Democrats would maybe hope that they could hold up a new VP’s confirmation under a President Pence until Pence himself could be impeached and removed from office by the Senate (also very unlikely), making the Speaker of the House President since here would be no new VP yet. The Democrats would want to control the House so that the Speaker would be a Democrat - Pelosi or someone new. The new President could then nominate her/his own new VP and wouldn’t need to nominate whomever Pence had nominated.
I doubt anything like this would occur outside of a certain British-inspired Netflix series but these are strange times.
Up thread I erroneously said Esquire had paid the doorman of Trump tower $30,000 to keep quiet about a Trump love child. I actually meant the Enquirer. Sorry, I did not have my usual three cups of coffee before I posted. More about the love child rumor.
Look, it's actually me. I know, I know. Dad left me with a childless Australian couple and said he'd be back to get me when he's made a mint from his Atlantic City Casinos. He even promised me a job as a croupier.
Edit for US Visa People: The information in my ESTA application is correct where it conflicts with this post.
Late breaking news: Trump is pardoning Scooter freakin Libby. (Cheney chief of staff convicted a decade ago of obstruction of justice; W refused to pardon him over Cheney objections)
A trial balloon, and a flag for Manafort, Cohen, etc
Late breaking news: Trump is pardoning Scooter freakin Libby. (Cheney chief of staff convicted a decade ago of obstruction of justice; W refused to pardon him over Cheney objections)
A trial balloon, and a flag for Manafort, Cohen, etc
Not just obstruction of justice, but also lying to the FBI and perjury before a grand jury. George W. Bush went as far as commuting Libby's sentence to time served but stopped short of a full pardon.
So yes, this could be Trump's unsubtle way of sending messages to Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, etc. that they'll never see the inside of a prison cell if they hang tough and don't testify against him.
Another possibility is that Bolton wants Libby back at the White House (they worked together on the Iraq War) and the pardon would make this possible. (If you get a pardon you can legally claim you are not a previously convicted felon, which I imagine would be a requirement to get a security clearance.)
FYI, he was interviewed Sunday night by George Stephanapolous (sp?), on the US ABC channel. Didn't watch it, but it was about 1 hr. long.
Comey is also going to be on Stephen Colbert's show Monday night (on CBS). Not sure how long that will be, but he tends to ask pertinent questions of people from the T administration.
How long will Scott Pruitt be in office? While other cabinet members have proven their incompetence, Pruitt seems to have taken the cake when it comes to corruption. First he wants to fly around in a private jet; then when he is called on that, he insists on flying first class with a security detail. He has been renting an apartment below market value from an oil industry leader (when his agency is tasked with regulating parts of the industry) and now his office has been caught overspending $43,000 for a secure phone both in his office so that he can discuss classified documents with the White House. Excuse me, in the 40 some years as an agency this is the first time the Administrator has to have a secure phone booth. Department administrators can only spend $5,000 on renovations without seeking further authorization from Congress. When Ben Carson tried to over spend his limit on a dining room set, he got slapped down from a number of people (I wonder if it has to do with something called ra**)
In addition, he:
Scaled back the Clean Power Plan, which would have mandated lower greenhouse gas emissions at existing power plants.
Released talking points on climate change aimed at playing down the role of human activity.
Postponed a rule mandating that chemical plants warn the public about possible safety issues.
Rejected a ban on a pesticide linked to nervous system damage in children.
Pushed to repeal emission standards for truck components.
Repealed a rule aimed at giving the EPA broader authority over water pollution.
Removed objective scientists from an EPA advisory board.
Is attempting to reduce the CAFE mileage standards for all vehicles in the US
Is known to demote and transfer any employee of the EPA who question his actions or his spending.
In all of this there has been very little questioning from the Republican Congress and he remains a darling of the Trump Administration. Trump hired him to do one thing: to dismantle the EPA. While the EPA was inaugurated by a Republican President, the Republican party has always thought it was an agency mired in waste. And it seems SP is doing his best to prove it.
The speculation is that Trump is keeping Pruitt around because he wants to replace Attorney General Sessions with Scott Pruitt. The Federal Vacancies Act would allow him to do so on a temporary basis without requiring Senate approval. I believe the only other lawyer serving at a cabinet level in the Trump administration is Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. (Well, Mike Pence is a lawyer and is technically a "cabinet level" officer, but he has other responsibilities.) It's not a Constitutional requirement that the Attorney General has to have a law degree, but it looks bad if he doesn't.
It's not a Constitutional requirement that the Attorney General has to have a law degree, but it looks bad if he doesn't.
It is not constitutional because I don't think the Constitution mentions any thing about the Attorney General. It was created by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1879. The duties of the AG is as follows (according to current law 28 Code US)
Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.
Hey, it could have been a consultation about a real estate deal.
That said, given that Cohen appears to have developed a niche practice in preparing NDAs for prominent Republicans who have affairs with Playboy models and adult film actresses, it could be that this is about to get reeeeealy good.
Sean Hannity being a client of Michael Cohen’s while also doing a bunch of segments on the raid, etc. without disclosing he’s been a client of Cohen’s is honestly not even cracking the top-3 most professionally/journalistically problematic things Hannity has been doing since 2016
That said, given that Cohen appears to have developed a niche practice in preparing NDAs for prominent Republicans who have affairs with Playboy models and adult film actresses, it could be that this is about to get reeeeealy good.
Shouldn't that be "one multi-purpose NDA"? I seem to remember reading that the parties in both the Stormy Daniels and the other case were referred to by the same pseudonyms in both documents, with an explanatory note added to each identifying the actual parties...
This is so sleazy. It's hard to conceive how Trump and his hangers-on have any credibility left with any outside parties at this point. It really is the emperor's new clothes.
I seem to remember reading that the parties in both the Stormy Daniels and the other case were referred to by the same pseudonyms in both documents, with an explanatory note added to each identifying the actual parties...
Needed citation:
Cohen referred to Broidy as David Dennison and the playmate as Peggy Peterson—the same pseudonyms used in the Clifford agreement.
That said, given that Cohen appears to have developed a niche practice in preparing NDAs for prominent Republicans who have affairs with Playboy models and adult film actresses, it could be that this is about to get reeeeealy good.
Shouldn't that be "one multi-purpose NDA"? I seem to remember reading that the parties in both the Stormy Daniels and the other case were referred to by the same pseudonyms in both documents, with an explanatory note added to each identifying the actual parties...
This is so sleazy. It's hard to conceive how Trump and his hangers-on have any credibility left with any outside parties at this point. It really is the emperor's new clothes.
Sleazy yes.
But I'll be disappointed (albeit relieved) if this is what brings him down. Yes, his personal life is sordid and messy. And he uses a lot of naughty words.
But what is offensive-- what should offend Christians and Americans and all decent people-- is his flippant disregard for human life. The way he casually makes decisions about immigration and health care and going to war with about as much forethought as deciding what beverage to have with lunch. Decisions that mean quite literally life or death for thousands if not millions of human beings. His blatant disregard for such basic human decency to at least pause before considering slamming the door shut on desperate refugees/ bargaining away health care for thousands of ill children/ wiping thousands off the planet-- puts lie to any claim of "pro-life". I would love to see him go down over Russian collusion simply because it's more closely connected to the above then who he's playing footsie with or what naughty words he uses.
But in the end, however he goes down, I will spend giving thanks to the rescuing God... and Bob Mueller.
And then I will pray for deliverance from Pres. Pence.
I think Trump is doing even more long-term damage by bringing the institution he represents into disrepute, and endangering the independence of all threee pillars of government in the US, than he is by any single policy decision.
I agree Eutychus, but I wonder if taking the Presidency down a peg or two will ultimately be good for governance in the United States? I posit it as a potential silver lining only.
My big concern is that a really serious international crisis emerges once Trump has been thoroughly made a laughing-stock and his lawyer's lawyers have started having to hire lawyers.
This US domestic mess leaves a gaping hole on the world stage, as does the severe shortage of State Department appointees with the corresponding shortfall of diplomatic experience building up day by day.
In just one of many, many examples, can you believe the US doesn't have a serving ambassador to South Korea?
[ETA from that article: "Trump has the capacity to deeply offend without even being cognizant of it, pointing to a lack of awareness and an incompetence that is simply staggering."]
Comey is also going to be on Stephen Colbert's show Monday night (on CBS). Not sure how long that will be, but he tends to ask pertinent questions of people from the T administration.
Comey is going to be Colbert's guest Tuesday, April 17th. Sorry for any confusion.
I'm disappointed by what I've seen from Comey over the last few days. The focus on snark and the feeling of a personal vendetta motivated by financial gain feed into the same sort of problems in terms of damage to institutions I was mentioning a minute ago.
This US domestic mess leaves a gaping hole on the world stage, as does the severe shortage of State Department appointees with the corresponding shortfall of diplomatic experience building up day by day.
In just one of many, many examples, can you believe the US doesn't have a serving ambassador to South Korea?
I wonder how much this matters, as long as there are competent professionals in the embassy doing the real work. Canberra is, apparently, seen as a good posting for ex-pollies and donors, and the USA has sent some right doozies as ambassador. It hasn't seemed to matter much - unless they attempt to interfere in domestic politics, and that's not unknown - as they aren't the ones doing the work.
In fact I don't think there's a USA ambassador in Canberra at the moment. Given the sort of person Trump is likely to send, it's probably better that way.
Trump's wholesale dismissals of even those with broad across-the-floor support emptied the State Department of valuable experience. And not having an ambassador is not just about the lack of an experienced person, as the article points out it's a crass diplomatic snub from which nothing is to be gained.
I'm disappointed by what I've seen from Comey over the last few days. The focus on snark and the feeling of a personal vendetta motivated by financial gain feed into the same sort of problems in terms of damage to institutions I was mentioning a minute ago.
Agreed. It's book promotion, aided by snark. I think he dented his own credibility in the ABC interview.
If Trump is dismissing the professionals as well as not appointing political ambassadors, that is indeed serious. Or is the distinction as clear in US as it is in Australia or Britain, where most ambassadors/high commissioners are professionals who've come through the foreign affairs dept, and only a few (and usually to less contentious and quite pleasant places) are ex-pollies etc?
Mind you, Australia sends a political ambassador (ex-pollie) to Washington, and I doubt he's much good. He certainly wasn't as Treasurer.
The thing that has most bothered me about Trump from day one is that has such a president been written as fiction it might have raised a few laughs but such a character would have been written off as too far-fetched and unlikely because of the danger they would pose, not just to the rest of the world but to the people of the USA.
I find it literally incredible that there appear to be so many supposedly intelligent people in Washington who can square their conscience with taking a post from this buffoon. It calls into question the probity of many that they appear sanguine about taking the Trump shilling - what will they argue after the whole house-of-cards comes down, coercion or madness?
Unfortunately I think a lot of people will just cash in and get out. Witness the number of GOP members of Congress not putting themselves up for re-election in the midterms. For many, Trump has only ever been a means to an end - one they thought they could control.
Besides, it's only now his operation is coming under the levels of scrutiny reserved for the office of President that the buffoonery is really becoming apparent. Hindsight is perfect, but by all accounts Trump is a convincing con artist who, far from his media persona, is extremely winning in person.
Let he (or she) who has never been conned cast the first stone.
I find it literally incredible that there appear to be so many supposedly intelligent people in Washington who can square their conscience with taking a post from this buffoon.
If Trump is dismissing the professionals as well as not appointing political ambassadors, that is indeed serious. Or is the distinction as clear in US as it is in Australia or Britain, where most ambassadors/high commissioners are professionals who've come through the foreign affairs dept, and only a few (and usually to less contentious and quite pleasant places) are ex-pollies etc?
Mind you, Australia sends a political ambassador (ex-pollie) to Washington, and I doubt he's much good. He certainly wasn't as Treasurer.
And as you say, it's a snub
The Ambassador to Washington is probably the most important post in Australia's Diplomatic Corp and is often given to a senior politician. Kim Beazley was the immediate past holder of the post, and he was a highly experienced and competent politician. Joe Hockey isn't of his calibre I grant you, but I'm not worried. The single most important job of our Ambassador is to make friends, and to facilitate the making of friends between Australians and Americans up and down the chain. Hockey is highly skilled for that sort of role, and he has just the sort of Sydney bonhomie that the Americans love. Also, I know this is only tangentially relevant, but to have a bloke who's Dad immigrated here from the Middle East (His Dad is an Armenian Christian) appointed to such a senior and critical posting speaks volumes for the community's acceptance of people from migrant backgrounds and flies in the face of the anti-immigrant rhetoric being pushed by the right in Hockey's own party.
There was recently an announcement that an Admiral in the US Navy who headed up the Pacific Fleet was to take up residence as US Ambassador to Australia. I'm not sure if the formalities preceding the appointment have been finalised, and I don't know if the appointment requires Congressional approval. If he is appointed, it will represent a significant upgrade of the job, which was previously in the 'cushy reward' category. In some ways I'm grateful that such a senior military officer has been appointed, as it demonstrates that the Trump Administration is taking our part of the world very seriously. On the other hand, being a backwater and a cushy appointment sounds safer.
My big concern is that a really serious international crisis emerges once Trump has been thoroughly made a laughing-stock and his lawyer's lawyers have started having to hire lawyers.
This US domestic mess leaves a gaping hole on the world stage, as does the severe shortage of State Department appointees with the corresponding shortfall of diplomatic experience building up day by day.
In just one of many, many examples, can you believe the US doesn't have a serving ambassador to South Korea?
[ETA from that article: "Trump has the capacity to deeply offend without even being cognizant of it, pointing to a lack of awareness and an incompetence that is simply staggering."]
I think the willingness of May and Macron to bomb Syria shows that the rest of the leadership of the West will close ranks behind or perhaps around Trump on the international stage. I also suspect that if something really serious does happen, most Americans will rally behind the leader they are stuck with.
Trump hasn't actually screwed up with actions on the international scene yet (we will see with Nth Korea). He just talks an immense amount of shit. I don't think that will end up being particularly damaging to anything except perhaps American prestige. And the next President is going to have to beat off world leaders with a stick or she is going to get hugged and kissed to death. Honestly, if you thought the negotiation of the Paris Agreement was emotional, just wait till you see the party at the next President's first international conference.
I think the willingness of May and Macron to bomb Syria shows that the rest of the leadership of the West will close ranks behind or perhaps around Trump on the international stage.
Call me chauvinistic, but I like to think that Macron actually led the charge. He was the first to claim hard intelligence on the use of chemical weapons, I believe. France has its own interests in the region as well as in Iran, and a long history of targeted military strikes abroad (e.g. in Mali).
Trump hasn't actually screwed up with actions on the international scene yet (we will see with Nth Korea).
Yes he has. He has devalued the value of the word of the American delegation in any international negotiations.
You think as soon as he leaves office, the rest of the world will suddenly start trusting American diplomacy again like Trump never happened? I have my doubts.
yeah, I think it will be easy to paint him as an aberration, especially f he is a one-term President. Everyone will want him to be an aberration and he walks talks and acts like an aberration. Being an aberration is his thing.
It's not just about Trump. I think he's tainted the institutions. Comey frankly isn't doing much better right now, as I said. It's hard not to think he's been pushing a personal agenda the whole time.
Trust, and even more so diplomatic trust, is something that gets built up over years and can be breached in an instant. Trump has breached trust in innumerable ways, with knock-on effects all over the place.
Handling Trump is clearly a challenge to everyone. There has never been anyone in the WH less suited to the office. He makes Tricky Dicky look positively angelic.
Although I agree with Eutychus re Comey, I think Comey's mob boss observation is pretty accurate. Trump is just tone deaf re separation of powers.
I remember when Bush II was leaving the office it was said he left our foreign affairs in such a shambles that it would take quite a while for it to recover. Obama was roundly criticized by conservatives for going on what they were calling an "Apology Tour."
Now, having been twice burned, I would think it will take a long while before many foreign governments can trust the U.S. again.
Handling Trump is clearly a challenge to everyone.
There is a story going about how Ryan and Kelly met in an elevator a while ago. They exchanged pleasantries and talked about their families, but one of the staffers who was with them said they studiously avoided the elephant in the room--how difficult it was to handle trump.
Comments
Oh! I am so using that next time someone from Western Australia gets lippy
o Would Californians be given their choice of U.S. citizenship or California citizenship?
o Would retired Californians lose Social Security and Medicare? If so, would California move to replace them?
o What about currency and postage? Would California coin its own currency? If so, what would support its value?
o Would passports be required for Californians to travel to the U.S., and vice versa?
o Would the border be secured (and who would pay for it -- Mexico?)?
o Would U.S. citizens temporarily living in California (tourists, hospital patients, etc.) be expelled -- and vice versa for Californians temporarily living in the U.S.?
o Would tariffs be imposed on California-U.S. trade?
And so on.
However desirable it would seem for a state to be able to opt out of Trumpocracy, would it really be worth it?
No, the world is too complex these days, alas, however attractive the idea might be.
IJ
Another possibility is that it's not about hush money but about coordinating with Russian intelligence, as pointed out in this tweet.
The timing seems suspiciously convenient. Not a "smoking gun", but at the very least worthy of investigation. Hence the warrant.
Esquire brass claim there was nothing to the story. But former reporters for the rag point out it wouldn't have paid that amount of money if there wasn't some truth to it. Esquire has boasted it helped elect the Donald.
If Trump is removed from office following impeachment, Pence becomes president. He then nominates a new VP which has to pass both houses of Congress by a simple majority vote (not sure if the Senate can filibuster a VP nomination under current Senate rules). The Democrats would want to be able to block any VP nomination that was too extreme. If Mueller pulled up something that made Pence impeachable (not sure if such evidence exists), Democrats would maybe hope that they could hold up a new VP’s confirmation under a President Pence until Pence himself could be impeached and removed from office by the Senate (also very unlikely), making the Speaker of the House President since here would be no new VP yet. The Democrats would want to control the House so that the Speaker would be a Democrat - Pelosi or someone new. The new President could then nominate her/his own new VP and wouldn’t need to nominate whomever Pence had nominated.
I doubt anything like this would occur outside of a certain British-inspired Netflix series but these are strange times.
Apologies for the Mail link but I have seen this story in quite a few places. Bannon never really went all the way away.
It all reads very desperate to me.
Edit for US Visa People: The information in my ESTA application is correct where it conflicts with this post.
A trial balloon, and a flag for Manafort, Cohen, etc
Not just obstruction of justice, but also lying to the FBI and perjury before a grand jury. George W. Bush went as far as commuting Libby's sentence to time served but stopped short of a full pardon.
So yes, this could be Trump's unsubtle way of sending messages to Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, etc. that they'll never see the inside of a prison cell if they hang tough and don't testify against him.
Another possibility is that Bolton wants Libby back at the White House (they worked together on the Iraq War) and the pardon would make this possible. (If you get a pardon you can legally claim you are not a previously convicted felon, which I imagine would be a requirement to get a security clearance.)
Yet another possibility is that everything's about to come crashing down and various Republican factions are getting whatever they can while there's still time. (What Trump has been promised in return, since he doesn't really care about Republican priorities, is interesting to speculate about.)
Note that none of these possibilities are mutually exclusive.
FYI, he was interviewed Sunday night by George Stephanapolous (sp?), on the US ABC channel. Didn't watch it, but it was about 1 hr. long.
Comey is also going to be on Stephen Colbert's show Monday night (on CBS). Not sure how long that will be, but he tends to ask pertinent questions of people from the T administration.
In addition, he:
Scaled back the Clean Power Plan, which would have mandated lower greenhouse gas emissions at existing power plants.
Released talking points on climate change aimed at playing down the role of human activity.
Postponed a rule mandating that chemical plants warn the public about possible safety issues.
Rejected a ban on a pesticide linked to nervous system damage in children.
Pushed to repeal emission standards for truck components.
Repealed a rule aimed at giving the EPA broader authority over water pollution.
Removed objective scientists from an EPA advisory board.
Is attempting to reduce the CAFE mileage standards for all vehicles in the US
Is known to demote and transfer any employee of the EPA who question his actions or his spending.
In all of this there has been very little questioning from the Republican Congress and he remains a darling of the Trump Administration. Trump hired him to do one thing: to dismantle the EPA. While the EPA was inaugurated by a Republican President, the Republican party has always thought it was an agency mired in waste. And it seems SP is doing his best to prove it.
How long, O Lord, how long?
The speculation is that Trump is keeping Pruitt around because he wants to replace Attorney General Sessions with Scott Pruitt. The Federal Vacancies Act would allow him to do so on a temporary basis without requiring Senate approval. I believe the only other lawyer serving at a cabinet level in the Trump administration is Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. (Well, Mike Pence is a lawyer and is technically a "cabinet level" officer, but he has other responsibilities.) It's not a Constitutional requirement that the Attorney General has to have a law degree, but it looks bad if he doesn't.
"Not all of my choices were good, but they were great ones,” the president said
It is not constitutional because I don't think the Constitution mentions any thing about the Attorney General. It was created by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1879. The duties of the AG is as follows (according to current law 28 Code US)
Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.
That said, given that Cohen appears to have developed a niche practice in preparing NDAs for prominent Republicans who have affairs with Playboy models and adult film actresses, it could be that this is about to get reeeeealy good.
From Hannity's first reaction to the Cohen raid:
Hannity, of course, didn't need to use his imagination to know where it was going to lead.
This is so sleazy. It's hard to conceive how Trump and his hangers-on have any credibility left with any outside parties at this point. It really is the emperor's new clothes.
Sleazy yes.
But I'll be disappointed (albeit relieved) if this is what brings him down. Yes, his personal life is sordid and messy. And he uses a lot of naughty words.
But what is offensive-- what should offend Christians and Americans and all decent people-- is his flippant disregard for human life. The way he casually makes decisions about immigration and health care and going to war with about as much forethought as deciding what beverage to have with lunch. Decisions that mean quite literally life or death for thousands if not millions of human beings. His blatant disregard for such basic human decency to at least pause before considering slamming the door shut on desperate refugees/ bargaining away health care for thousands of ill children/ wiping thousands off the planet-- puts lie to any claim of "pro-life". I would love to see him go down over Russian collusion simply because it's more closely connected to the above then who he's playing footsie with or what naughty words he uses.
But in the end, however he goes down, I will spend giving thanks to the rescuing God... and Bob Mueller.
And then I will pray for deliverance from Pres. Pence.
This US domestic mess leaves a gaping hole on the world stage, as does the severe shortage of State Department appointees with the corresponding shortfall of diplomatic experience building up day by day.
In just one of many, many examples, can you believe the US doesn't have a serving ambassador to South Korea?
[ETA from that article: "Trump has the capacity to deeply offend without even being cognizant of it, pointing to a lack of awareness and an incompetence that is simply staggering."]
Comey is going to be Colbert's guest Tuesday, April 17th. Sorry for any confusion.
I wonder how much this matters, as long as there are competent professionals in the embassy doing the real work. Canberra is, apparently, seen as a good posting for ex-pollies and donors, and the USA has sent some right doozies as ambassador. It hasn't seemed to matter much - unless they attempt to interfere in domestic politics, and that's not unknown - as they aren't the ones doing the work.
In fact I don't think there's a USA ambassador in Canberra at the moment. Given the sort of person Trump is likely to send, it's probably better that way.
Agreed. It's book promotion, aided by snark. I think he dented his own credibility in the ABC interview.
Mind you, Australia sends a political ambassador (ex-pollie) to Washington, and I doubt he's much good. He certainly wasn't as Treasurer.
And as you say, it's a snub
I find it literally incredible that there appear to be so many supposedly intelligent people in Washington who can square their conscience with taking a post from this buffoon. It calls into question the probity of many that they appear sanguine about taking the Trump shilling - what will they argue after the whole house-of-cards comes down, coercion or madness?
Besides, it's only now his operation is coming under the levels of scrutiny reserved for the office of President that the buffoonery is really becoming apparent. Hindsight is perfect, but by all accounts Trump is a convincing con artist who, far from his media persona, is extremely winning in person.
Let he (or she) who has never been conned cast the first stone.
The Ambassador to Washington is probably the most important post in Australia's Diplomatic Corp and is often given to a senior politician. Kim Beazley was the immediate past holder of the post, and he was a highly experienced and competent politician. Joe Hockey isn't of his calibre I grant you, but I'm not worried. The single most important job of our Ambassador is to make friends, and to facilitate the making of friends between Australians and Americans up and down the chain. Hockey is highly skilled for that sort of role, and he has just the sort of Sydney bonhomie that the Americans love. Also, I know this is only tangentially relevant, but to have a bloke who's Dad immigrated here from the Middle East (His Dad is an Armenian Christian) appointed to such a senior and critical posting speaks volumes for the community's acceptance of people from migrant backgrounds and flies in the face of the anti-immigrant rhetoric being pushed by the right in Hockey's own party.
There was recently an announcement that an Admiral in the US Navy who headed up the Pacific Fleet was to take up residence as US Ambassador to Australia. I'm not sure if the formalities preceding the appointment have been finalised, and I don't know if the appointment requires Congressional approval. If he is appointed, it will represent a significant upgrade of the job, which was previously in the 'cushy reward' category. In some ways I'm grateful that such a senior military officer has been appointed, as it demonstrates that the Trump Administration is taking our part of the world very seriously. On the other hand, being a backwater and a cushy appointment sounds safer.
I think the willingness of May and Macron to bomb Syria shows that the rest of the leadership of the West will close ranks behind or perhaps around Trump on the international stage. I also suspect that if something really serious does happen, most Americans will rally behind the leader they are stuck with.
Trump hasn't actually screwed up with actions on the international scene yet (we will see with Nth Korea). He just talks an immense amount of shit. I don't think that will end up being particularly damaging to anything except perhaps American prestige. And the next President is going to have to beat off world leaders with a stick or she is going to get hugged and kissed to death. Honestly, if you thought the negotiation of the Paris Agreement was emotional, just wait till you see the party at the next President's first international conference.
If Pence is the next President, all bets are off.
Yes he has. He has devalued the value of the word of the American delegation in any international negotiations.
Trust, and even more so diplomatic trust, is something that gets built up over years and can be breached in an instant. Trump has breached trust in innumerable ways, with knock-on effects all over the place.
Anyone in future who sups with an American president will need a long spoon.
IJ
Although I agree with Eutychus re Comey, I think Comey's mob boss observation is pretty accurate. Trump is just tone deaf re separation of powers.
Now, having been twice burned, I would think it will take a long while before many foreign governments can trust the U.S. again.
There is a story going about how Ryan and Kelly met in an elevator a while ago. They exchanged pleasantries and talked about their families, but one of the staffers who was with them said they studiously avoided the elephant in the room--how difficult it was to handle trump.
How long until humpy-trumpy denies it? Stormy wants to know.