Patterico's Pontifications


Trump: Where’s the Loyalty?

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:56 pm

[guest post by Dana]

It almost sounds like Trump believes that his endorsement obligates the individual to deliver for him, and when that doesn’t happen, well… Seriously?? I endorsed Brian Hagedorn and this is the thanks I get!! This is what he does to me!!



68 Responses to “Trump: Where’s the Loyalty?”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (cc9481)

  2. Ha, ha, ha! Endorsed? How many people has he hired for his cabinet and other top positions and then fired? It’s too bad you can’t fire Supreme Court Justices, state or federal, eh, Donnie boy?

    nk (1d9030)

  3. I have a clip of Michael Corleone telling Fredo, “I knew it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart, you broke my heart,” but I can’t get it to load. Maybe one of the guys can get it to work. Trump’s reaction reminded me of that.

    Dana (cc9481)

  4. As you wish, Dana. Fredo clip.

    nk (1d9030)

  5. “One thing has nothing to do with another,”

    Well this is usually true. But again I really have no idea what dim hallways my current president’s brain is wandering down.

    Victor (a225f9)

  6. In case anyone is actually interested in the case, decided 4-3:

    In the majority, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn joined the court’s three liberals to confirm Biden’s win. They found one of Trump’s arguments was without merit and his others were brought far too late.

    Trump’s challenges to Wisconsin’s voting laws “come long after the last play or even the last game,” Hagedorn wrote for the majority. “(Trump) is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”

    The three other conservatives on the court dissented, writing they believed clerks violated the law with some election practices. They argued the majority should have taken on the merits of Trump’s arguments instead of sidestepping them by saying he’d filed his lawsuit too late.

    “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast,” Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote for the dissenters.

    Sounds like Hagedorn is a John Roberts in waiting. The Bush superfans must find that appealing.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  7. @3: How did Chris Cuomo get involved in this?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  8. Classic Corporatists vs. Swamp Creatures banter.

    Bet you didn’t know the film ‘Twelve O’Clock High’ is used as a film study in American corporate management structure and techniques– when the ‘war movie’ veneer is stripped away and viewed as a metaphor for battle in the marketplace. Japanese firms had their personnel managers screen it to new hires back in the day and explained what they were actually seeing. It was fascinating- and revealing- when viewed with that perspective; the drill of loyalty to ‘this group; this group’ was particularly of interest to the corporatist POV — and the Japanese managers.

    “Loyalty is a fine thing.” – General Frank Savage [Gregory Peck] ‘Twelve O’Clock High’ 1949

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  9. Tainted Love/Baby Where Did Our Love Go by Soft Cell. Yes, Mr. Trump! You do need to go away.

    nk (1d9030)

  10. The Fredo clip in included here:

    Many common movie and TV clips appear more than once. So maybe this will work.

    This is a discussion of the movie

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  11. This is where Trump’s loyalty lies:

    Trump administration weighing legal immunity for Saudi crown prince in alleged assassination plot

    The U.S. government is weighing a request to declare Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman immune from a federal lawsuit accusing him of targeting for assassination a former top intelligence officer who could disclose damaging secrets about the prince’s ascent to power, according to legal documents related to the case.

    The Saudi government has asked that the prince be shielded from liability in response to a complaint brought by Saad Aljabri, a former Saudi counterterrorism leader and longtime U.S. intelligence ally now living in exile in Canada.

    A State Department recommendation could also lead to the dismissal of the prince as a defendant in other cases recently filed in the United States, including ones accusing him of directing the death and dismemberment of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018; and of targeting a hack and leak operation to discredit an Al Jazeera news anchor, Ghada Oueiss, in retaliation for her critical reports on Mohammed and the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. The theory of the Wisconsin lawsuit was that votes in two large urban counties in Wisconsin should be thrown out because election administrators were in technical violation of election rules, just like election administrators in a lot of other smaller counties, who, conveniently, weren’t the target of the lawsuit.

    But upholding election law technicalities, even selectively, must be the highest priority of this country, the greatest democracy [Sorry, Republic] that there has ever been.

    Victor (a225f9)

  13. I cringe when a see a Trump tweet. Why would the President of the United States use an exclamation point? It’s downright buffoonish, considering the office, not to mention gilding the lily. The simple fact that the words come from the leader of the most powerful country on earth make them inherently strong. I don’t know which is the better descriptor of Trump: Clown or professional wrestler imitator.

    norcal (b4d7b1)

  14. But upholding election law technicalities, even selectively, must be the highest priority of this country, the greatest democracy [Sorry, Republic] that there has ever been.

    Ah yes, but yay for upholding election law technicalities that kept the Green Party off the ballot, ensuring those votes went to Biden.

    And, Hagedorn voted with the liberals there too.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  15. It’s painfully obvious DJT doesn’t understand or care about the role of the judiciary. His tweets are cringeworthy, but after 4 years of seeing this form of presidential behavior, I’ve gotten desensitized to where I feel it’s a waste of my energy to get worked up over it. He’s out of office in a month, thankfully.

    HCI (92ea66)

  16. Thanks, nk. The very tech-savvy JVW is looking into why it won’t embed in the actual post. I just hyperlinked it.

    Dana (cc9481)

  17. Green Party? Is that the one with Jill Stein? The same Jill Stein that had dinner with Putin and Mike Flynn in Moscow? That Jill Stein?

    Challenging her was an act of patriotism and just plain common sense. Only unpatriotic, orange-worshipping, Russian useful idiots would complain about keeping her off the ballot. But we already knew that about “them”.

    I won’t even bother to mention to mention that the Green Party challenge was filed months before the election, not a month after. “They” would neither understand nor care.

    nk (1d9030)

  18. We’re fortunate Trump is lazy and incompetent. If he’d worked harder at corruption he’d have done far more damage.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  19. Challenging her was an act of patriotism and just plain common sense. Only unpatriotic, orange-worshipping, Russian useful idiots would complain about keeping her off the ballot.

    The “she” was Howie Hawkins, a “he”. Stein wasn’t on the ballot, nk, but anything to shoehorn in your Russia collusion conspiracy theories, eh?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  20. Keeping the Green Party off the ballot ensures the votes go to Biden? How does that work? Most of the Greenies I know kind of detest Democrats. Of course in some states it’s mostly the Republicans that keep the Green Party afloat, and I assume they do for a reason.

    But as noted if there are going to be challenges based on election law technicalities that were known before an election, what general political/legal theory would have there be a challenge that could result in changing the election result that waits until after the election to see how it will go?

    I seriously don’t understand that says someone eligible to vote who does so in good faith and casts a completely legible vote should have their vote thrown out because an election official mistakenly used one form instead of two.

    But I guess TPS reports must have that cover sheet, right?

    Victor (a225f9)

  21. 15.It’s painfully obvious DJT doesn’t understand or care about the role of the judiciary.

    Few corporatists do or care to; capitalists use it as either a tool as a means to an end or a wall of protection.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  22. No wonder he pardoned Blagojevich.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  23. Officials finally found a case of a dead person voting, accusing a Republican of pretending to be his dead mom to vote for Trump

    Cynically, it’s possible it was just the first Trump voter they found.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  24. Thank you for the correction, beer ‘n pretzels. As Gru would say, my torn:

    On August 19, the staff of the Wisconsin Elections Commission recommended that Hawkins be removed from the ballot due to his petitions not having enough signatures when the signatures for the out-of-date postal address for Walker were removed.[47] On August 20, the commission voted three to three to remove Hawkins from the ballot; all of the Democratic members of the commission voted to remove Hawkins while the Republican members voted to keep him on the ballot.[48]

    On September 3, Hawkins filed a lawsuit to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[49] On September 10, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered election officials to stop mailing out ballots until the court ruled on whether or not Hawkins and/or Kanye West could appear on the ballot.[50] The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled four to three in favor of the election commission on September 14, citing that Hawkins had waited too long to file a lawsuit and that it would cause too much disruption to place his name on the ballot.[51]

    nk (1d9030)

  25. Trump has exhibited on numerous occasions he lacks the (how should I put it?) manhood (?) to do anything himself on 20th of January or before. But as Michael Cohn said he likes to suggest what he wants done to his minions through innuendo and lets them carry it out. My guess is it will involve Powell’s, Flynn, Gaetz and Jordon passing the word to the Proud Boys and Qanon to cause havoc Biden’s first 100 days.

    Bowling Alone (27d313)

  26. Aw shucks, Bowling Alone. I don’t gamble, but I was wondering if the bookmakers had odds on
    1) Whether he would glue himself to the Resolute desk; and
    2) Whether he would use super glue or denture adhesive?

    nk (1d9030)

  27. @14 The law does not exist in order to reinforce reflexive tribalism. Judges don’t exist in order to pay back the guy who nominated them (in fact they very definitely should NOT be doing that). Theoretically, that means they should be looking at the law through legal and not political eyes. Someone quoted Popehat? yesterday basically saying that something seeming crimey doesn’t make ti a crime. Something seeming legal or non-legal from one political viewpoint or another doesn’t make it legal or non-legal.

    Nic (896fdf)

  28. Trump has always seen everything as transactional, so this is no surprise.

    In corporate business, it’s probably a decent strategy. Not so much in government,

    LYT (805659)

  29. @29. Thing is, the data shows the corporatist mindset is increasingly preferred in the executive. So the battle remains will the swamp workers adapt to the corporatist or vice versa. A Biden-type will make excuses; a Trump-type won’t tolerate them.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  30. Why is Congress passing a five thousand page bill without reading it that sends billions of dollars overseas and to useless pet projects while state governments are destroying businesses and their citizens lives?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  31. NJRob (eb56c3) — 12/22/2020 @ 6:15 am

    Why is Congress passing a five thousand page bill without reading it

    Because that’s the way the leadership gets little things that maybe wouldn’t get the votes on their own through Congress. This bill actually several other bills tacked onto it because it looked like it was the only train leaving the station. The people for these things (or, in some cases against it) know what to look for in the bill)

    It’s more that many members have no control over what’s in the bill than they don’t know what’s in it – at least once somebody has noticed. House members have very little, unless they can get many others to threaten not to vote for the bill, but in a situation like this (with bills coming to a vote with no objection) one Senator can stop it. No Senator wants to stop it altogether, because this is must pass legislation. Congress regularly tees off must pass legislation. Appropriations bills usually. Pr the coronavirus bill, now.

    that sends billions of dollars overseas


    and to useless pet projects

    That’s the easiest way you get unanimous consent, or overcome opposition.

    while state governments are destroying businesses and their citizens lives?

    The CARES bill is supposed to take care of that, but really doesn’t. And it’s not the mot efficient use of money. The most efficient would be paying fixed debt payments that existed in February 2020 plus a bit more. That could even be done in the form of a low interest loan that might later be unpaid.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  32. 26. Bowling Alone (27d313) — 12/21/2020 @ 7:59 pm

    But as Michael Cohn said he likes to suggest what he wants done to his minions through innuendo and lets them carry it out. My guess is it will involve Powell’s, Flynn, Gaetz and Jordon passing the word to the Proud Boys and Qanon to cause havoc Biden’s first 100 days.

    Do you mean Michael Cohen? Qanon isn’t an in-person group. Is Jordan Jim Jordan? I wouldn’t link him to demonstrations.

    Of all the things Trump tweets, “resistance” and demonstrations after an inauguration of Biden isn;t one of them. And what would be the point of him causing havoc?

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  33. Smarkets (Malta) Limited is licensed and regulated in Great Britain by the Gambling Commission under account number 39173. Licensed and regulated outside of the UK by Malta Gaming Authority (MGA/B2C/162/2008 issued May 12th, 2009)

    This event cannot be traded in your jurisdiction
    This event is not tradeable while in play

    I’m not sure what odds they are giving or what they mean by “leave the White House”

    It seems like they are all betting that he won’t, but do they mean attend the inauguration?

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)


    This was December 9.

    Trump always exaggerates. It never got as high as 97% in any British betting site. At 8:20 pm EST it was 74.1 percent at Betfair. “About an hour later” Smarkets had Trump at “odds that implied a 63.7 percent chance of winning” In the US overnight hours, neither Ladbrokes nor 888Sport, got even as high as an implied 75 percent chance of Trump winning.

    Of course, as this web page notes, the betting markets don’t have to be right.

    The Atlanta Falcons twice this season had win probabilities greater than 99 percent, including a 99.9 percent chance against the Dallas Cowboys. Sure enough, the Falcons lost both games.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  35. 24. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/21/2020 @ 6:52 pm

    Cynically, it’s possible it was just the first Trump voter they found.

    They got a lot of tips. He was the only [erson prosecutors indicted. This probably wasn’t the first election he did that. He’s 70 years old. He not only voted for his mother but he had also registered his dead mother-in-law to vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  36. Why is Congress passing a five thousand page bill without reading it that sends billions of dollars overseas and to useless pet projects while state governments are destroying businesses and their citizens lives?

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 12/22/2020 @ 6:15 am

    Because they are corrupt and hopelessly unaccountable. Because the voters barely care.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  37. Because a supremely dysfunctional Congress divided between a reformist House and obstructionist Senate will ever barely get anything done and spends weeks trying to get Mitch to release his clammy grip on legislation and so only one bill or two will ever pass, and thus gets everything stuffed into it, including foreign aid projects that are probably a good idea and “pet projects” that are also somebody’s good idea that would otherwise never get passed on their own ?

    And by electing two Republican Senators in Georgia we ensure that this state of things will continue for at least the next two years?

    Victor (a225f9)

  38. Because a supremely dysfunctional Congress divided between a reformist House and obstructionist Senate will ever barely get anything done and spends weeks trying to get Mitch to release his clammy grip on legislation and so only one bill or two will ever pass,

    That is the good thing.

    And by electing two Republican Senators in Georgia

    That is the bad thing.

    It is a dilemma.

    nk (1d9030)

  39. a supremely dysfunctional Congress divided between a reformist House and obstructionist Senate

    If a Democrat-majority Senate were blocking legislation coming from a Republican-controlled House, would those senators be “obstructionists” stopping “reform”? Or would they be something nicer?

    What looks like “reform” to part of the country often looks like deform to another part. In principle, a divided Congress has the benefit of compelling legislators to make laws broadly acceptable across the population.

    What might happen instead is the kind of horse trading where each side gets items from its desiderata list that aren’t actually broadly desired among the electorate. But that doesn’t mean it’s preferable that Dems should always get their way (because who could object to something labeled “reform”?), while R. voters get more reason to see the federal government as a hostile power.

    Radegunda (b6cc34)

  40. nk, split the difference and still be 51R-49D…would you prefer the True Georgia pair of Perdue-Warnock or the Designing Women/Cobb County grouping of Loeffler-Ossoff?

    urbanleftbehind (6d7430)

  41. Radegunda,

    I appreciate your point of view and like many of your posts. We have different views on politics, which is fine, but will color my descriptions. I used “reformist” as the most neutral term I could think of to describe the general Democratic desire right now to get progressive legislation passed and “obstructionist” to describe the basic Republican Senate position that nothing should get passed beside judicial appointments and perhaps protections for business. If you think there is a kinder way of describing the current Senate, I’d be interested.

    In fact Republicans controlled all four branches of the government (I throw in the Court) for two years and I find it hard to remember much that was reformist. Tax cuts and judges seem to be the agenda now and for always. I find it hard to imagine a reformist Republican House being blocked by an obstructionist Democratic Senate but again, my politics are different from yours.

    And I agree, that in a divided country a divided Congress fulfills a purposes. It ensures very little will happen except the absolute minimum legislation needed to keep the country running, like a defense bill, or budget bill or in the middle of an economic/public health crisis, perhaps a Covid relief bill.

    But what annoys me is those who pretend to false naivete as to the consequence of a divided Congress. Which means that instead of having a series of separate pieces of legislation that could be examined and debated on we get instead a few mammoth pieces, 5,000 pages or so, that get passed at the last minute because all the weeks until now have been consumed in interbranch intransigence. Don’t praise divided Congress and then act surprised and displeased by the result.

    You raise the possibility of horse trading. Except who wants to get exposed these days as traitors to the ideological cause for a pet project? When instances of this happened during negotiation for the Affordable Care Act, the legislators involved were subjected to national scorn.

    As for one group of voters seeing Congress federal government as a hostile power – well, welcome to the club. You have a picture of what a plurality of the population thought on Jan. 20 2016.

    Victor (a225f9)

  42. Do we think that the current hyper-partisanship is sustainable….and in the end good for democracy and America? Is it healthy that staffing the judiciary has become the chief focus of our politics….where we are almost begging the judiciary to become a super legislature to move forward either liberal or conservative policy that is effectively dead in a paralyzed Congress? What is either Party’s honest-to-God national agenda….other than scoring cheap political points and raising money from increasingly angry and paranoid true believers? The GOP is hammering about putting the President-elect’s son in prison…as if that is an important and necessary priority of government (he shouldn’t be above the law, but is the focus proportionate?). Is there nothing that we can work on in good faith together? Because if the answer is genuinely “no”, then the festering problem of debt will eventually sink both the left and right sections of our national ship. Does Trumpism elevate seriousness or is it just entertainment and a distraction from problems that government really should be focused on?

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  43. Grow up and stop acting like a PUTZ Finkelman !

    Bowling Alone (27d313)

  44. @30– another scenario: What about when a Dem president vetoes legislation passed by a GOP-majority Congress? Is that obstruction of reform?

    Or what about when a few Democratic senators filibustered a bill to fix the growing problem in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after Dems insisted in hearings that there were no problems at all? That bill — which G.W. Bush had been calling for since early in his presidency — would have been a genuine reform of something that was in urgent need of it.

    The Dems who led the filibuster were the biggest recipients of campaign donations from Fannie Mae. One of them was Barack Obama — who was subsequently swept in as the hero to clean up the mess allegedly made by Bush. Then Obama presided over an unusually slow economic recovery by historical measures.

    Earlier in his career, Obama was the lawyer representing ACORN when the organization sued B of A to demand looser mortgage lending standards. Some people see that as “reform.” Others would observe that it was the origin of a terribly damaging problem.

    Radegunda (b6cc34)

  45. Gavin Newsom has named California AG Alex Padilla to replace Kamala Harris. Not a surprise as Newsom and Padilla are old friends. Padilla also followed Harris when she became a Senator.

    Rip Murdock (ef7400)

  46. Doesn’t Harris have to resign first?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  47. @48-
    As long as Padilla doesn’t take the oath, I’m sure it’s fine.

    Rip Murdock (ef7400)

  48. Grow up and stop acting like a PUTZ Finkelman !

    Bowling Alone (27d313) — 12/22/2020 @ 9:37 am

    You’re the putz, drive-by! Why don’t you take a hike? We like Sammy around here.

    nk (1d9030)

  49. urbanleftbehind @42. The only one who really rubs me the wrong way, like a Donald Trump who was assigned a female gender at birth, is Kelly Loeffler. The other three are “about what you’d expect from Georgia” is my feeling. I blame the end of Reconstruction.

    nk (1d9030)

  50. 47. After he is recalled, he’ll realize he shudda hit the silk and named himself.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  51. @43 — thank you for your reply, Victor. I won’t try to pick it apart except to note that divided Congresses in the past appear to have been more capable of finding compromises, and that Congress does pass a fair amount of uncontroversial legislation.

    Maybe your definition of “reform” is something like Obama’s stated goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” which a large portion of Americans don’t want. For a philosophical conservative, “reform” means trying out small changes and seeing if they work out before doing anything more sweeping. For a progressive, reform might mean changing whole systems in ways that sound good on paper and that progressive eggheads are sure they can implement successfully, because they’re smart and have good intentions. I think the gradualist approach to reform tends to work better than the revolutionary one, which can destroy the foundations of systems that have been slowly building through generations of trial and error, and leave a void if the experiment crashes.

    I would also note that obstruction of reform doesn’t go just one way. For example, conservatives have long observed that the public school systems tend to serve teachers’ unions — which are a major constituency and source of campaign cash for the Democratic Party, and which make clear that they are meant to serve teachers first, not students. It is mostly conservatives — though with local liberal allies — who have promoted measures to loosen the grip of the teachers’ unions and give non-wealthy students more options to attend schools that serve them better. A lot of politicians who oppose school voucher programs, and portray them as an assault on education, send their own children to private schools.

    Another issue: Actuaries have long been saying that Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable in their current form and will inevitably collapse, after funds have been siphoned away from various other programs in an effort to shore them up. As far as I know, it is only Republicans or conservatives who have publicly acknowledged the problem and (tentatively) tried to do something about it. I remember when my Dem neighbors put up lawn signs saying “Keep Your Hands Off MY Social Security!” No one was going to take away their Social Security, but only try to ensure that their children and grandchildren would have something too. And that was unacceptable to people who claim to be on the side of caring and compassion.

    Then Trump and his “populist” boosters came along and made it a virtue to be indifferent to the problem.

    The Dem approach often comes down to: Raise taxes on the rich! If someone points out that the numbers still wouldn’t add up, Dems say: You just don’t care about anyone except your rich friends! I think D’s are just as capable of being cynical and self-interested as R’s.

    We don’t really have a dynamic where Dems are always trying to make things better and R’s don’t want anything good to be done. Often there’s a different view of what kind of reform would actually make more things better than worse. Sometimes the envisioned goal is different, but sometimes it’s a matter of different means to the same goal — e.g. how do we get a better education to more children? On that issue, it’s encouraging that self-identified progressives and conservatives have sometimes worked together because they really do have the same goal.

    Radegunda (b6cc34)

  52. There are several sewage treatment plants and landfills in my area that Trump could put his name on. The Donald J. Trump Transfer Station of Snohomish County has a nice ring. Trump Trash Dump for short.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  53. Dana — sorry for going OT. I really appreciate Victor’s contributions to this forum.

    To bring it back on topic: I guess I’ve demonstrated that supporting a conservative philosophy of governance doesn’t mean being loyal to DJT. I’m mystified that so many of Trump’s high-profile supporters have been unwilling to acknowledge that in the end he will always put his own ego and self-interest ahead of any policy principle or sound jurisprudence.

    The selfish insanity we’re seeing from Trump was entirely predictable, and was predicted by people who have been excoriated as sellouts and traitors.

    Radegunda (b6cc34)

  54. #54 — I have a certain affection for Snohomish County (even if spellcheck thinks I must have meant Gnomish) and would hate to see it sullied by the Trump name on something that serves a useful purpose.

    Radegunda (b6cc34)

  55. Radegunda,

    I always liked Snohomish, both the county and the town, where there seemed to be an unusually large number of cool old houses.

    Your thoughtful response demands an even more thoughtful reply which I will be mulling over but lunch calls at the moment.

    Very briefly, though, I am going to try not to exaggerate and claim that Republicans never seek reform, when the more honest point would be that I disagree with the reforms proposed. And perhaps Reformist was probably just a bad label to put on the House, when progressive, or Democratic serves as well. I will though, and hope later to justify more fully, claim that presently the party putting forth ideas, big, small, systematic and specific to fix ongoing problems is the Democratic party, and the one that literally copied their 2016 party agenda for 2020 is the other one. Tax cuts and judges is a little bit of an exaggeration, but right now not much

    Victor (a225f9)

  56. 48.49. They are probably using the wrong language. This was probably an announcement of an intention to appoint. What else can it be?

    This is similar to the way Joe Biden has announced “appointments” to Cabinet positions, although there, there’s a reason to name someone early: confirmation hearings.

    Here, the only reason for Governor Gavin Newsome to do that is so that the new Senator will be prepared to take his seat on Day 1, (January 20?) instead of having to spend a little while packing, and that they should stop lobbying him.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  57. 51, Trump’s support of that Doug Collins dude (not the once perm-haired ex Bulls coach) for the GA Senate seat was a poorly-thought-out way of hiding a crush on Kelly Loeffler from #3 and the favorite daughter.

    urbanleftbehind (bcc0bf)

  58. @54. They’re reserved for Reagan.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  59. Trump labels $600 checks to Americans ridiculously low [it is]. Calls on Congress to amend Covid bill for $2000 checks to go t Americans. [He’s right.]

    Ice cream is expensive, Nancy. So are freezers and the electric bills that pay to run them in California– when the electric company chooses to keep the power on in a breeze.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  60. Trump Pardons Two Russia Inquiry Figures and Blackwater Guards

    In an audacious pre-Christmas round of pardons, President Trump granted clemency on Tuesday to two people convicted in the special counsel’s Russia inquiry, four Blackwater guards convicted in connection with the killing of Iraqi civilians and three corrupt former Republican members of Congress.

    Among those pardoned was George Papadopoulos, who was a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and pleaded guilty in 2017 to making false statements to federal officials as part of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
    Mr. Trump’s pardon list also included four former U.S. service members who were convicted of killing Iraqi civilians while working as contractors in 2007.

    One of them, Nicholas Slatten, had been sentenced to life in prison after the Justice Department had gone to great lengths to prosecute him. Mr. Slatten had been a contractor for the controversial company Blackwater and was sentenced for his role in the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square in Baghdad — a massacre that left one of the most lasting stains on the United States of the war.

    The three former members of Congress pardoned by Mr. Trump were Duncan Hunter of California, Chris Collins of New York and Steve Stockman of Texas.
    A tabulation by the Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith found that of the 45 pardons or commutations Mr. Trump had granted up until Tuesday, 88 percent aided someone with a personal tie to the president or furthered his political aims.

    Rip Murdock (80e6b4)

  61. I’m guessing a post on Trump’s pardons is being written, but they’re about loyalty to him, not justice or legacy building.
    The nut of it is that Trump pardoned two felons from the Mueller investigation, three corrupt Congressmen and four war criminals who worked for Blackwater, a company run by Betsy de Vos’ brother, Erik Prince.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  62. The First Step Act, explained
    The measure, which Trump signed into law, is the most significant criminal justice reform legislation in years.

    Fair is fair and credit where is due. It has not been only cronies, photo-ops with Kim Kardashian, and guys who look good in Navy whites.

    nk (1d9030)

  63. Trump’s going to corrupt everything he touches in the next few weeks. It looks like Pence is up next. (The secrets that man could tell you.)

    But what’s in it for him? Does he gain anything if he challenges results in his electoral college role? Might he actually be forced to stand up to Trump?

    noel (9fead1)

  64. If x or y recipient or recipients of a pardon bothers so many, the response should not be teeth gnashing or even state/county level prosecutions on other charges, but a hit squad activated during the virtual inaugural ball. Such an act will make pardons the equivalent of Medusa’s gaze.

    urbanleftbehind (a6c8cb)

  65. urbanleftbehind, this is America. We don’t “bada-bing, bada-boom”, here.

    Although the thought did cross my mind that if Flynn tells Trump that he has arranged a clandestine meeting with top generals to discuss imposing martial law, Trump shouldn’t go.

    nk (1d9030)

  66. 65. Mike Pence has no role in a possible challenge of the Electors, except to vote in the Senate in case of a tie. (although apparently some people are telling Donald Trump differently) Donald Trump is growing a little sour on Mike Pence.

    Things have reached the point that many White House aides are just waiting for January 20 to arrive and hoping that Donald Trump doesn’t do anything off the wall by then.

    He’s agreed to stop listening to Sidney Powell

    More from Maggie Haberman: (and Michael S. Schmidt)

    With four weeks left in President Trump’s term, he is at perhaps his most unleashed…He remains the most powerful person in the world, yet he is focused on the one area in which he is powerless to get what he wants: a way to avoid leaving office as a loser.

    He spends his days flailing for any hope, if not of actually reversing the outcome of the election then at least of building a coherent case that he was robbed of a second term….

    ….For the moment, Mr. Trump has told advisers he is willing to stop listening to Sidney Powell, the lawyer who has appealed to him by peddling a conspiracy theory about the election, and people like Patrick Byrne, the former chief executive of, who was present for a wild, nearly five-hour meeting in the Oval Office and then the presidential residence last Friday.

    But current advisers have described a daily struggle to keep Mr. Trump from giving in to his impulse to listen to those who are telling him what he wants to hear. And former advisers say the most worrisome issue is the gradual disappearance of the core group of West Wing aides who, often working in unison, consistently could get him to turn away from risky, legally dubious and dangerous ideas….

    …..Mr. Trump has turned to aides like Peter Navarro, a trade adviser who has been trying to gather evidence of election fraud to bolster his boss’s claims. And he is listening to Republicans who insist that Vice President Mike Pence could help sway the election during the normally routine process of ratifying the election early next month, despite the fact that it is not realistically possible….

    ….But in the White House, the president is turning on his closest of allies. He has complained to allies that Mr. Pence, who has been mocked for unflinching loyalty over the past four years, should be doing more to defend him. And he is angry that Mr. McConnell has recognized President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the winner of the election.

    This week, Mr. Trump had an assistant send a chart featuring the timing of his endorsement of Mr. McConnell overlaid on polling data to claim he was responsible for Mr. McConnell winning re-election this year — a claim political professionals would dispute — and to suggest the majority leader was ungrateful for his help….

    ….The White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has objected to some of the president’s desires, like appointing Ms. Powell as special counsel examining voter fraud, but he also made a trip to Georgia on Tuesday to investigate ballot safety measures. Mr. Meadows, a former House member, has also leaned into the effort by his old colleagues to challenge the vote in Congress, something that might keep the president from engaging further with Ms. Powell, but which many Republicans consider destructive to their party.

    Other advisers have simply absented themselves at a time when the president is particularly unsteady…Jared Kushner,…has responded to people seeking his help with Mr. Trump by saying that the president is his children’s grandfather…

    …Mr. Trump has spent his days watching television, calling Republicans in search of advice on how to challenge the electoral outcome and urging them to defend him on television. As always, he turns to Twitter for boosts of support and to vent his anger. He has not gone golfing since the weather has turned colder, and is cloistered in the White House, shuffling from the residence to the Oval Office….

    Some advisers are hoping that Trumps’ trip to Mar-a-Lago, “will give him a change of scenery and a change of perspective. “

    Sammy Finkelman (081278)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1373 secs.