The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Skinypupy]

...or the end of the United States as the leader of the free world.

Seems a little late for that.

[stessier]

I'm guessing the "only these airports" thing has to do with the screening at the airports. Again, not totally crazy.

Actually, pretty crazy because screening at the airports isn't done by the airline staff and doesn't vary based on which airline you are boarding to fly to the U.S., and yet the new restrictions do not apply to U.S.-based carriers. Which immediately makes the entire new policy just a form of retaliation against foreign carriers.

The one I saw said "all flight originating from these countries". If it's only foreign carriers, then yeah, that changes it.

Yes, it's only foreign carriers.

The UK is following suit - but it appears to apply to all airlines from 6 countries. So perhaps just incompetence from DHS rather than malice.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm guessing the "only these airports" thing has to do with the screening at the airports. Again, not totally crazy.

Actually, pretty crazy because screening at the airports isn't done by the airline staff and doesn't vary based on which airline you are boarding to fly to the U.S., and yet the new restrictions do not apply to U.S.-based carriers. Which immediately makes the entire new policy just a form of retaliation against foreign carriers.

The one I saw said "all flight originating from these countries". If it's only foreign carriers, then yeah, that changes it.

Yes, it's only foreign carriers.

The UK is following suit - but it appears to apply to all airlines from 6 countries. So perhaps just incompetence from DHS rather than malice.

Incompetence born of malice.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'd happily dispense with the self proclaimed "leader of the free world" title anyway. Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries. Not to mention it's just douchey.

[Paingod]

Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries.

It's really hard to get excited about 20th place in freedom.

We're #20! We're #20! We're #20! 'Murica, F&%K YEAH!

[gilraen]

I'm guessing the "only these airports" thing has to do with the screening at the airports. Again, not totally crazy.

Actually, pretty crazy because screening at the airports isn't done by the airline staff and doesn't vary based on which airline you are boarding to fly to the U.S., and yet the new restrictions do not apply to U.S.-based carriers. Which immediately makes the entire new policy just a form of retaliation against foreign carriers.

The one I saw said "all flight originating from these countries". If it's only foreign carriers, then yeah, that changes it.

Yes, it's only foreign carriers.

The UK is following suit - but it appears to apply to all airlines from 6 countries. So perhaps just incompetence from DHS rather than malice.

It will create a massive problem for business travelers - many companies explicitly forbid putting work-issued laptops and tablets into checked luggage.

[Holman]

I'd happily dispense with the self proclaimed "leader of the free world" title anyway. Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries. Not to mention it's just douchey.

The "title" means nothing, but the earned status means that we basically lead in deciding how international conduct is judged. It gives us (meaning the U.S. and respectable allies) weight in putting certain limits around what other countries, corporations, and various international groups can get away with.

On the one hand, it's arrogant. On the other hand, U.S. leadership (as opposed to Russian or Chinese or nobody's) is the only reason international attention to human rights, international media access, and (up to Trump) relatively free movement around the globe are a thing.

America has dirty hands, but American leadership in these areas has still been good for humanity. Humanity has a lot to lose if the U.S. falls to the level of just another grasping oligarchy.

[LordMortis]

Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries.

It's really hard to get excited about 20th place in freedom.

We're #20! We're #20! We're #20! 'Murica, F&%K YEAH!

We need someone to number symbol make us grate again.

MUGA!

[Defiant]

U.S. Limits Devices for Passengers on Foreign Airlines From Eight Countries.

You'll never guess the religion of those eight countries!

Passengers on foreign airlines headed to the United States from 10 airports in eight majority-Muslim countries have been barred from carrying electronic devices larger than a cellphone under a new flight restriction enacted on Tuesday by the Trump administration.

Officials called the directive an attempt to address gaps in foreign airport security, and said it was not based on any specific or credible threat of an imminent attack.

The Department of Homeland Security said the restricted items included laptop computers, tablets, cameras, travel printers and games bigger than a phone. The restrictions would not apply to aircraft crews, officials said in a briefing to reporters on Monday night that outlined the terms of the ban.

The new policy took effect at 3 a.m. E.D.T. on Tuesday, and must be followed within 96 hours by airlines flying to the United States from airports in Amman, Jordan; Cairo; Istanbul; Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia; Kuwait City; Casablanca, Morocco; Doha, Qatar; and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

It applies only to flights on foreign carriers, and not American-operated airlines. Officials did not say how long the ban would remain in place or if other airports would be added.

So is this: (1) related to genuine security concerns; (2) part of Trump's broader effort to punish / stigmatize travel from Muslim countries; or (3) prompted by the fact that long-haul carriers based in the Middle East (e.g., Qatar Airlines) have been taking major market share from U.S. long-haul carriers due to their generally superior product?

I'm a bit behind in the thread but... Analysis: Trump won’t allow you to use iPads or laptops on certain airlines. Here’s why.

It gives two alternative explanations - 1) Security and 2) To target competitor airlines to US airlines (by driving business class travelers away from them)

I'm inclined to believe the first, but the administrations previous actions have strained their credibility, making it tough for me to take what they have said at face value.

It does strike me odd that it doesn't apply to all flights from those airports, just those from foreign carriers.

[Defiant]

While I'm satisfied that we're in the top free states (at least for now) though we certainly have had issues (*cough*gerrymandering*cough*), I'm more skeptical of the metrics at the micro-level. The weight different metrics are given as well as honest differing of opinions on freedom (Does having laws on the books against hate crimes make it more or less free?) make the exact positions somewhat debatable can lead to weirdness like this where a 2.5% drop in the rating moves you from having too much direct democracy to no longer being considered a "full democracy".

As to "leader of the free world" I would assume that's more a reference to the US being a free country that is a superpower, not that the US is the most free country in the world.

[Kraken]

As to "leader of the free world" I would assume that's more a reference to the US being a free country that is a superpower, not that the US is the most free country in the world.

I find it funny that that title devolved on Angela Merkel by almost unanimous acclaim after Trump was elected. My WW2-veteran dad would have been flummoxed.

[Max Peck]

As to "leader of the free world" I would assume that's more a reference to the US being a free country that is a superpower, not that the US is the most free country in the world.

I find it funny that that title devolved on Angela Merkel by almost unanimous acclaim after Trump was elected. My WW2-veteran dad would have been flummoxed.

Doubly so, when you consider that she grew up in East Germany.

[Pyperkub]

...or the end of the United States as the leader of the free world.

Yup, we're no longer the good guys:

The United States has pulled its participation from hearings planned for today by a regional human rights body that has enjoyed the support of every U.S. administration since its founding.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'll buy most of what Holman said above, but would love to hear from our non-US OO brethren how they feel about the term, particularly when applied to the US president as it often is.

[Jaymann]

I'll buy most of what Holman said above, but would love to hear from our non-US OO brethren how they feel about the term, particularly when applied to the US president as it often is.

Bring on TiLT with the Norwegian wood!

[Holman]

I'll buy most of what Holman said above, but would love to hear from our non-US OO brethren how they feel about the term, particularly when applied to the US president as it often is.

Obviously I'm me and not some Canadian, but I'll add that I think most non-U.S. first-worlders see "Leader of the Free World" as a functional position rather than as a term of deep reverence. GWB was still the leader of the free world even if you thought invading Iraq was the stupidest possible move.

Trump fails the role not just through his lack of qualifications but through his admiration for unfreedom.

[hepcat]

I'd happily dispense with the self proclaimed "leader of the free world" title anyway. Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries. Not to mention it's just douchey.

It was a Cold War propaganda term that was used by more than just the United States to designate our status as the biggest democratic superpower of that period. And it reinforced the view that we were the biggest opposition to what was considered an oppressive regime on the other end of the spectrum. Has it fallen out of use? Mostly, yes. But I used it to highlight what's at stake with Trump in office. So read it as you would a historical reference and not as a boast.

[Holman]

Leadership of the Free World is precisely what's at stake in Trump's demolition of the U.S. State Department and foreign aid.

We occupy our position not merely because of missiles and aircraft carriers but because we spend money, resources, and prestige on projects that actually improve living conditions around the globe. Economic assistance, disease eradication, education, and infrastructure depend on our assistance on every continent.

Most people on the planet are far more threatened by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or poor sanitation than by ISIS or Al Qaeda. They have the United States Agency for International Development to thank, but of course that's on Trump's chopping block because, you know, "America First."

[Carpet_pissr]

We occupy our position not merely because of missiles and aircraft carriers but because we spend money, resources, and prestige on projects that actually improve living conditions around the globe.

As do umpteen other countries. Surely no one thinks USAID is unique in the world? Really trying hard not to veer us off topic but this particular concept bugs the shit out of me. Sorry.

[Isgrimnur]

Wiki

UK and Germany together spend more than we do separately. And we're 20th in percentage of GNI.

[Zaxxon]

We're 20th as a percentage of Gross Natl Income.

[Defiant]

[Holman]

We occupy our position not merely because of missiles and aircraft carriers but because we spend money, resources, and prestige on projects that actually improve living conditions around the globe.

As do umpteen other countries. Surely no one thinks USAID is unique in the world? Really trying hard not to veer us off topic but this particular concept bugs the shit out of me. Sorry.

No one could argue that we're alone in giving aid, but it's hard to believe that international NGO's and non-US benevolence would thrive as well in a world run from from Beijing or completely dominated by regional rivalries. This is especially true in areas like women's rights, gay rights, education, and economic development of the sort that isn't state-monopolized.

[Paingod]

The United States has pulled its participation from hearings planned for today by a regional human rights body that has enjoyed the support of every U.S. administration since its founding.

It's probably hard to keep up when you don't have any people to send. Rex can't be everywhere at once.

[El Guapo]

[malchior]

That is his charm - he speaks to that complete imbecile inside of everyone. Or something. I'm not sure anymore. Reality is becoming very fuzzy at the edges.

[tgb]

The Democracy Blooper Reel appear endless.

[El Guapo]

From the Washington Post:

Trump withdraws reappointment nomination of popular whistleblower advocate

By Joe Davidson

From left, Shirine Moazed and Elizabeth McMurray look on as special counsel Carolyn Lerner hands whistleblower James Parsons an honorary award in 2012. (Photo by Daniel C. Britt / The Washington Post) Truth tellers are especially important and potentially vulnerable in an administration afflicted with serial mendacity. An important refuge from management retaliation for federal truth tellers — a.k.a. whistleblowers — is the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), a small, understaffed independent agency that regularly challenges the biggest dudes on the block.

But now, whistleblowers and their advocates are worried that the office’s vigilance under Carolyn Lerner could be endangered by President Trump’s notice to the Senate “withdrawing from further Senate consideration” her reappointment nomination.

This worry is fueled by the Trump administration’s early agency gag orders, as well as the stern White House rebuke of State Department workers who complained — on an approved, internal dissent channel — about Trump’s first immigration executive order left a chill. The “new administration hasn’t demonstrated any tolerance for those who dissent against its actions,” said Tom Devine, legal counsel of the Government Accountability Project, which represents whistleblowers.

Regardless of administration, federal agencies have too often punished, not praised, whistleblowers. Careers have been ruined, workers have been banished, performance ratings have been fixed by vengeful managers who did not like employees exposing mismanagement. When Lerner became special counsel in 2011, the office was mired in the muck of controversy surrounding the previous special counsel. Just as employee advocates cheered her predecessor’s departure, they, and bipartisan members of Congress, are now hailing Lerner’s tenure and pushing for her retention.

Trump could still decide to nominate her, making her appointment his rather than an Obama administration’s holdover. The White House did not respond to questions about Lerner’s nomination.
Lerner is one of the few Obama administration appointees who gets as much praise from Republicans as she enjoys from Democrats. In fact, the member of Congress leading an effort to retain her is Republican Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa.

Along with three other House Whistleblower Protection Caucus co-chairs, Blum praised her in a letter to Senate leaders: “Under Ms. Lerner’s leadership, OSC has increased both the number of claims it investigates and the number of cases resolved. OSC has won bipartisan praise for its work, including resolving multiple cases of retaliation against whistleblowers at the Veterans Administration, resulting in meaningful reforms meant to improve the care of our nation’s veterans. We believe Ms. Lerner has earned a second term.”

In addition to Blum, it was signed by Republican Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.), and Democrat Reps. Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), and Jackie Speier (Calif.). Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that deals with federal workforce issues, called Lerner “a model of effectiveness and independence.”

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supports Lerner’s renomination, saying: “Whistleblowers often face retribution for trying to tell the truth and make government better. Protecting them is an important, non-partisan job that the Office of Special Counsel has done well under Carolyn Lerner’s leadership.”

As kind as the Capitol Hill praise is, it pales compared with passionate testimonials from whistleblowers Lerner assisted.

“She’s fearless,” said Robert MacLean, a Transportation Security Administration air marshal who took the first federal whistleblower case to the Supreme Court. He won and said the court’s decision was based largely on OSC’s findings that opposed the Obama administration’s defense of the agency.
“Her investigations are exhausting,” he added. “She doesn’t leave a rock unturned. Her investigations are very meticulous.”

Brandon Coleman, a Trump supporter, said withdrawing Lerner’s nomination “is a horrible move for someone who truly wants to ‘drain the swamp.’ The VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) tried to destroy my career and sent me home for 460 days for doing nothing wrong other than telling the truth that suicidal vets were escaping from the Phoenix VA hospital. If not for Ms. Lerner and the OSC, I would not have won my case, nor would I be a VA employee today.”

Franz Gayl, a Marine Corps civilian who blew the whistle on the lack of protective equipment for combat vehicles, was succinct: “Carolyn Lerner is awesome.”

Added Devine: “She’ll be a tough act to follow. When she arrived, the office was a national disgrace. Now it has the most impressive track record in history.”

Yet, he also complained about an OSC approach that is sometimes “too cautious.” OSC, he said, should take a more aggressive approach to suing agencies on behalf of whistleblowers. Lawsuits, Devine argued, would encourage agencies to treat whistleblowers fairly and could set precedents strengthening whistleblower protection laws.

An OSC spokesman said Lerner was not available for an interview. During Senate testimony last year, she outlined OSC progress under her leadership, including a 38 percent increase, from 2014 to 2015, in favorable actions for employees and a 50 percent increase, from 2011 to 2015, in the number of cases received and resolved. Meanwhile, OSC’s cost to resolve cases is down 45 percent, leading to record productivity.

“This dramatic increase in filings indicates that whistleblowers believe they can make a difference by bringing a claim to OSC,” Lerner said.

Lerner’s statistics are impressive, but for MacLean, her work is personal.
“I’m kind of biased,” he said, “because she pretty much saved my life.”

Presumably someone just told Trump what the Office of the Special Counsel does.

[AjD]

Just published, from the Associated Press:

Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics for Putin’s Benefit

[geezer]

Thankfully that Douglas fellow he debated is finally getting some notice firbthe great work he's been doing though (yes - not the same Douglas/ss. It's 2x the joke in one post!)

[LordMortis]

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/323038/ ... ium=button

[Isgrimnur]

Public figure, Streisand effect, etc.

[El Guapo]

Just published, from the Associated Press:

Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics for Putin’s Benefit

That summary of the article drastically understates things. Another way of summarizing the AP report is: Trumps long-time associate and campaign manager during the Republican primary was being paid $10 million a year by a close associate of Vladimir Putin to influence politics in America and elsewhere.

[malchior]

We're fucked - this is flat out bananas. Short summary. Comey and entire intelligence community goes out of their way to say there was no wiretapping. Nunes says he independently heard about incidental surveillance and ran right over to the White House to tell the President.

[Holman]

We're fucked - this is flat out bananas. Short summary. Comey and entire intelligence community goes out of their way to say there was no wiretapping but still Nunes says he independently heard about incidental surveillance and ran right over to the White House to tell the President.

If Nunes is allowed to keep his clearance and position WRT this investigation, we're officially a banana republic.

When all of this is over, we'd better see anyone who did anything (even if they just helped with the cover-up) in jail for decades.

[malchior]

Special Prosecutor is needed now - Nunes might have literally told the President about an investigation against him or associates. How can he lead the investigation going forward? Oh yeah I forgot - apparently we are ethically rudderless in the time of Trump.

Good twitter thread about this

[Holman]

Don't forget that Nunes and Gowdy tried their absurd best to steer the Comey testimony into being about the need to catch and prosecute the leakers. Both kept reminding everyone that the leaks were crimes.

What Nunes did today was by his own standards a serious crime, and there is no possible whistleblower defense here.

[Skinypupy]

Special Prosecutor is needed now - Nunes might have literally told the President about an investigation against him or associates. How can he lead the investigation going forward? Oh yeah I forgot - apparently we are ethically rudderless in the time of Trump.

Good twitter thread about this

For those who can't see it, here's the text:

1. This week every intel agency worth a damn has told Congress that Obama absolutely did NOT spy/tap Trump's phone

2. So Trump WH looks terrible because he lied and implied his predecessor committed a crime.

3. So Nunes, gets a call from a "source" that claims intel agencies got "incidentally" picked up some stuff on Trump campaign?

Nunes, briefs Ryan, then runs to the WH to brief Trump. Then speaks to reporters without briefing the Intel Comt!?!?!?

5. Nunes acting on a "source" seems to have used his extremely important position to give Trump light cover on a manic tweet.

6. This is very dangerous. I have trouble seeing somebody like Mike Rogers doing this. Intel Chairmen don't act like this.

7. Lastly, who was the Trump Campaign talking to that got them swept up? Nunes might want to care about that...

And I'm sure Nunes got a pat on the head at and least three "Who's a good boy?" today.

[Holman]

Rep. Schiff (Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee) solidly rebuked Nunes today.

Hopefully this means he'll be calling for an independent investigation.

[Smoove_B]

Meanwhile we must continue to beat the drum of confirming a Supreme Court Justice as quickly as possible and doing everything we can to speed up the destruction of Obamacare -- because that is what is most important here. Jesus H. Christ.