[barmar]

The White House has already raised their flag back to full staff. They had it at half staff for only 2 days after McCain's death.

Trump can't even fein compassion with a purely symbolic gesture. His only statement has been a perfunctory tweet expressing sympathy for the family, nothing about McCain himself.

McCain has shot back from beyond the grave -- he left instructions to invite Bush and Obama to his funeral, but not Trump. But I doubt Trump really gives a damn.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-August-27, 09:28, said:

The White House has already raised their flag back to full staff. They had it at half staff for only 2 days after McCain's death.

Trump can't even fein compassion with a purely symbolic gesture. His only statement has been a perfunctory tweet expressing sympathy for the family, nothing about McCain himself.

McCain has shot back from beyond the grave -- he left instructions to invite Bush and Obama to his funeral, but not Trump. But I doubt Trump really gives a damn.

This really doesn't bother me as I know Dennison will not change and has always been a petty, vindictive little man with an ego problem.

What is no longer possible to accept or forgive is continued support of him.

[PassedOut]

I had never heard of Bruce Ohr until Trump put him on his enemies list. Now I see why he made Trump's list: Bruce Ohr Fought Russian Organized Crime. Now He’s a Target of Trump.

Quote

WASHINGTON — When a lawyer for one of Russia’s most powerful reputed crime bosses arrived at F.B.I. headquarters one day around 2006, he wanted to cut a deal. The Russian, Semion Y. Mogilevich, had been indicted three years earlier by the department on charges of defrauding a company outside Philadelphia out of $150 million and could not travel for fear of arrest.

As the lawyer made his pitch, a supervising F.B.I. agent and a senior career Justice Department official, Bruce G. Ohr, both listened intently, according to a former bureau official who described the meeting. The case was significant for American law enforcement. It had made headlines and laid the groundwork for Justice Department efforts to combat Russian organized crime overseas.

Finally, the F.B.I. agent spoke. No deal, he said; Mr. Mogilevich must surrender. Mr. Ohr said little, but his unwillingness to negotiate was signal enough: The Justice Department would not compromise with the Russian mafia.

“Occasionally you run across people from the Justice Department who have an air of superiority toward agents, and Bruce had none of that,” said Chris Swecker, a former senior F.B.I. official who worked with Mr. Ohr. “He was just the opposite. He was well liked at the F.B.I. and fought for their cases.”

In nearly three decades at the Justice Department, Mr. Ohr has made a career of supporting and facilitating important cases that targeted Russian organized crime. Now he is a target of President Trump, who has put his security clearance under review and attacked him publicly, and allies. They have cast Mr. Ohr and his wife — who worked as a contractor at the same research firm that produced a damaging dossier of information about Mr. Trump — as villains, part of a pro-Clinton cabal out to destroy the president.

But Mr. Ohr, 56, is far from corrupt, friends and former colleagues said. An experienced law enforcement official, he has a deep understanding of the underworld of Russian organized crime, they said, including raising concerns about at least one oligarch whose name has resurfaced amid the scrutiny of contacts between Trump associates and Russia.

Surely it's an honor these days to make Trump's enemies list.

[Chas_P]

barmar, on 2018-August-27, 09:28, said:

The White House has already raised their flag back to full staff. They had it at half staff for only 2 days after McCain's death.

From VA.gov:



"The flag is to be flown at half-staff at all federal buildings, grounds and naval vessels in the Washington, D.C., area on the day and day after the death of a United States senator, representative, territorial delegate, or the resident commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It should also be flown at half-staff on all federal facilities in the state, congressional district, territory, or commonwealth of these officials."

So it appears that protocol was followed. As I understand it, the President, by proclamation, may order flags back to half-staff until the body is buried and the President has done that.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2018-August-27, 17:46, said:

From VA.gov:



"The flag is to be flown at half-staff at all federal buildings, grounds and naval vessels in the Washington, D.C., area on the day and day after the death of a United States senator, representative, territorial delegate, or the resident commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It should also be flown at half-staff on all federal facilities in the state, congressional district, territory, or commonwealth of these officials."

So it appears that protocol was followed. As I understand it, the President, by proclamation, may order flags back to half-staff until the body is buried and the President has done that.

Well, yes, in a way. I also looked up the rules and saw that if the flag was flown at half mast for Saturday and Sunday then this complied with the rules.

I saw this as a missed opportunity. Trump could hardly praise McCain, it would sound phony and anyway McCain had made it clear that Trump's thoughts were not wanted. So I thought the flag presented an opportunity to acknowledge that while he and McCain did not get along he could still honor the Senator, and have a national honor for the Senator, by extending the time to, say, Wednesday.


As you note, he did this. But when and why? He did it after many people expressed horror at him not doing it. Only Trump could fail to anticipate the reaction to his raising the flag to full mast on Monday morning. Doing it the way he did ot makes him look like an idiot for not seeing what would happen when the flag appeared at full mast, and it males him look like a hypocrite for his belated announcement. I don't go in for armchair psychology but this did remind me of my high school psychology class where it was explained that one characteristic of a psychopath is that he simply does not understand why people object to his behavior. The psychopath shoots Joe and Steve objects. Why should Steve object, he didn't shoot Steve. I repeat, I am no psychologist and I am not claiming Trump is a psychopath. But I do think that any reasonably normal human would have anticipated the reaction to a flag at full staff on Monday morning. Trump just doesn't see why it would be a problem. I find this stunning. To me, it is as if he is from a different species. Some like this. I don't.

Added: I have changed my mind about it being a missed opportunity. It was a seized opportunity. Before the flag at full mast on Monday, people were talking about McCain. After the raised flag, they were talking about Trump. I once thought that Trump's statement that he preferred people who weren't captured was a stand-out in stupidity, even for Trump. Well, yes it was a stand-out. It did the trick. People were again talking about Trump. At self-promotion, at putting himself center stage, the man is a genius. We have to give credit where credit is due.

[ggwhiz]

A simple man could easily have a simple explanation. Gross incompetence.

It has been said that the only person hired by Trump that was qualified for the job was Stormy Daniels.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2018-August-28, 07:10, said:

A simple man could easily have a simple explanation. Gross incompetence.

They say "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But in Trump's case, it's often hard to decide. It often seems like he says lots of things without thinking, but it could all be part of his master plan as Ken suggests.

And it's not clear which is worse to have as POTUS: an idiot or an evil autocrat.

Bush was a bit incompetent, but his heart was in the right place.

[PassedOut]

Government regulation: Trump’s economic adviser: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

Quote

Negative search results don't appear about the leaders in China. Why should they appear in the US?

[Winstonm]

Here in Oklahoma, the Republican primary races are a referendum on Dennison - it's really distressing to see ads blasting an opponent for "supporting the Mueller probe".

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2018-August-27, 19:26, said:

To me, it is as if he is from a different species. Some like this. I don't.

There are plenty of things I don't like about Trump either. He is a narcissistic loudmouth with the morals of an alley cat. And I thought his saying McCain was not a hero was despicable.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2018-August-28, 13:39, said:

There are plenty of things I don't like about Trump either. He is a narcissistic loudmouth with the morals of an alley cat. And I thought his saying McCain was not a hero was despicable.

I perhaps put more weight on this than some do. Example: We recently signed a new trade deal with Mexico. Is this good? I don't know. I haven't read it, I probably wouldn't be able to evaluate it if I did. But I thoroughly distrust Trump. Or take interference in our elections. Some Republicans, and probably non-Republicans, have argued that there is more at stake than just exactly who did what in 2016, so we should not focus just on Trump. I am inclined to agree. But I am very wary of any suggestions since I think they may well be more designed to sabotage Mueller than to really address what needs to be addressed. And I really don't think it is a good idea to tick off friends in the international community, often with pointless insults. Some Republican, I forget who, was being interviewed and said "I'm not from the wing of the party that thinks Putin is our friend".

It comes down to this: Having a narcissistic loudmouth in the oval office is not going to be good in the long run, whatever short term victories he might be able to claim. I don't trust him, I don't trust him at all, I cannot understand why anyone would agree to work for him, I expect foreign leaders to be less and less willing to try to work with him. Politics isn't tiddly-winks, got that, but one way to get things done is for two people who trust each other, or at least provisionally trust each other, to work together. I can't see that happening with Trump.

[Winstonm]

This, Ken, the type of thing of which your refer. Quote is from WaPo:

Quote

At least twice this month, Trump vented to White House advisers and his lawyers about the “endless investigation” of his campaign and said he needs to fire Sessions for saddling his presidency with the controversy, according to two of the people.

It is hard to imagine someone in this high office whose ego necessitates him blaming Sessions for an investigation that his people's actions caused to happen. Without all the Russian contacts, lies about those contacts, and a history of attempting to work with Russians, there would be nothing to investigate.

There is only a witch hunt because there is solid reason to believe witches are present.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2018-August-28, 15:11, said:

I perhaps put more weight on this than some do. Example: We recently signed a new trade deal with Mexico. Is this good? I don't know. I haven't read it, I probably wouldn't be able to evaluate it if I did. But I thoroughly distrust Trump. Or take interference in our elections. Some Republicans, and probably non-Republicans, have argued that there is more at stake than just exactly who did what in 2016, so we should not focus just on Trump. I am inclined to agree. But I am very wary of any suggestions since I think they may well be more designed to sabotage Mueller than to really address what needs to be addressed. And I really don't think it is a good idea to tick off friends in the international community, often with pointless insults. Some Republican, I forget who, was being interviewed and said "I'm not from the wing of the party that thinks Putin is our friend".

It comes down to this: Having a narcissistic loudmouth in the oval office is not going to be good in the long run, whatever short term victories he might be able to claim. I don't trust him, I don't trust him at all, I cannot understand why anyone would agree to work for him, I expect foreign leaders to be less and less willing to try to work with him. Politics isn't tiddly-winks, got that, but one way to get things done is for two people who trust each other, or at least provisionally trust each other, to work together. I can't see that happening with Trump.

Time will tell. FWIW I also find the endless delusional assaults and calls for impeachment from the Dems and MSM to be equally despicable.

[hrothgar]

Chas_P, on 2018-August-29, 18:39, said:

Time will tell. FWIW I also find the endless delusional assaults and calls for impeachment from the Dems and MSM to be equally despicable.

Assume for the the moment that clear evidence is produced showing that Trump ordered a felony violation of campaign finance rules.
(Please note, violating these laws carry a 10 year long jail term)
Are calls for impeachment delusional?

Assume for the moment that clear evidence is released showing that Trump has obstructed justice.
Are calls for impeachment still delusional?

Alternatively, what if we have clear evidence that the Trump organization was heavily involved in money laundering?
Are calls for impeachment still delusional?

Note: I'm not interested in your assessment of whether any of these is likely.

I am asking whether you believe that Trump should be impeached if he has committed felonies.

[Vampyr]

Now Trump is calling for violence should his party lose the mid-term elections. I do not know whether incitement to violence is a felony, but it seems like it should be, since it seems likely that at least some of the resulting acts of violence will themselves be felonies.

[Chas_P]

hrothgar, on 2018-August-29, 22:10, said:

I am asking whether you believe that Trump should be impeached if he has committed felonies.

Yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[barmar]

Chas_P, on 2018-August-30, 07:56, said:

Yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which can be tricky, I assume you have to prove that they meant it seriously, or could know that people would take it seriously.

Didn't something like this happen at a campaign rally, where Trump suggested violence against Clinton supporters who were interrupting it?

[Winstonm]

Richard asked a legitimate question about impeachable offenses but the response maintains the criminal verdict must precede the impeachment. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard to which the jury in a criminal trial must judge after hearing all the testimony and seeing all the evidence.


I am fine with this as it means Dennison would have to be indicted and tried on criminal charges prior to impeachment. Impeachment would then be a formality to remove him from office so he could be fitted for his orange jumpsuit.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2018-August-29, 18:39, said:

Time will tell. FWIW I also find the endless delusional assaults and calls for impeachment from the Dems and MSM to be equally despicable.

For me, and this will partly be a response to Richard as well, it depends. The Stormy Daniels thin has become a big issue. So first some simple statements:
1. Married men are not supposed to have sex with women other than their wive, married women are not supposed to have sex with men other than their husbands.2. Rule 1 is not always followed. A woman who has sex with a married man is supposed to shut up about it, and, continuing the sexual equality view, a man who has sex with a married woman is supposed to shut up about it.3. In particular, people are not supposed to make money or become famous by blabbing about it.

I think most people agree with all three of these statements.

So: What to do when these rules are violated. I don't want to see a president brought down by it, male or female, D or R. Back to Monica for a moment. I never got the impression she was pressured into having sex with Bill, the trouble came because she shot ioff her mouth to Linda. I was far more sympathetic to Paula Jones. Back to Stormy. Whatever they did, it was not illegal or at least nobody has said they were doing anything illegal. And so Donald saw it as a good idea to give her some money. The whole thing is repulsive, I often look at pictures of Melania and see a woman who would rather be anywhere than where she is. Maybe I could buy her a new jacket that says eff it all, and she could wear it as she catches a cab to somewhere else, anywhere else. I would applaud and I think many others would also. I understand Trump is legally vulnerable here in several ways. I would much prefer we do not bring him to impeachment over this.

Firing Mueller would be different, even though he might well be legally entitled to do so. Using presidential powers to derail a legitimate investigation is serious. He could ask Dick Nixon about that if he has doubts. And that leads to another comparison. The stuff with Nixon came from a break-in to Democratic offices. Breaking into opposition offices, or to bring it into the modern world hacking into their computers, is serious. Far more serious that getting into bed with a consenting adult human.

So: He was not suppose to do it with Stormy, she was not supposed to use this for money or fame, he was not supposed to pay her off, I don't want to see this lead to impeachment. But he needs to keep his hands off Mueller, or I can quickly change my mind.

The Dens need to think of this as they go into the fall campaign. There are reasons why Nixon got driven from office and Clinton didn't. People see hiring thugs to break into offices differently than they see sleeping with someone that you are not supposed to.

[barmar]

The Stormy Daniels dallyance by itself is not that big a deal. If he used campaign funds to pay her off, that's a little more criminal, but not an impeachable offense, either.

But this all goes to a pattern of behavior that's indicative of Trump's character. It makes it more credible that he and his family are guilty of much more serious offenses, including the holy grail of collusion with Russia. Dominoes all around him are tumbling, everyone seems to be guilty of something. Could anyone believe that this was all happening without his knowledge? And if that were really true, it would mean that he's a lousy manager, and POTUS is the most important managerial position in the world. So either he's really guilty, or he's even less qualified for his position than we thought.