American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[FlameOn]

All is not well in Keebler town, Sessions is in hot water with Trump.

Few Republicans were quicker to embrace President Trump’s campaign last year than Jeff Sessions, and his reward was one of the most prestigious jobs in America. But more than four months into his presidency, Mr. Trump has grown sour on Mr. Sessions, now his attorney general, blaming him for various troubles that have plagued the White House.

The discontent was on display on Monday in a series of stark early-morning postings on Twitter in which the president faulted his own Justice Department for its defense of his travel ban on visitors from certain predominantly Muslim countries. Mr. Trump accused Mr. Sessions’s department of devising a “politically correct” version of the ban — as if the president had nothing to do with it.

In private, the president’s exasperation has been even sharper. He has intermittently fumed for months over Mr. Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election, according to people close to Mr. Trump who insisted on anonymity to describe internal conversations. In Mr. Trump’s view, they said, it was that recusal that eventually led to the appointment of a special counsel who took over the investigation.

...

In fact, much of the past two months of discomfort and self-inflicted pain for Mr. Trump can be tied in some way back to that recusal. Mr. Trump felt blindsided by Mr. Sessions’s decision and unleashed his fury at aides in the Oval Office the next day, according to four people familiar with the event. The next day was his fateful tweet about President Barack Obama conducting a wiretap of Trump Tower during the campaign, an allegation that was widely debunked.

However, Mr. Trump is said to be aware that firing people now, on the heels of dismissing James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, would be risky. He has invested care and meticulous attention to the next choice of an F.B.I. director in part because he will not have the option of firing another one. The same goes for Mr. Sessions, these people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/u...-sessions.html

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Or she just trusted The Intercept too much, maybe they told her they wouldn't publish the originals then did.

That's kind of the point. You don't become an NSA Analyst without knowing the ins and outs of information handling and the security mechanisms used to protect information. This would be akin to a chef schooled at Le Cordon Bleu allowing butter to burn in a pan. There are so many basic mistakes here that it seems out of the realm of possibilities of this happening as described.

This isn't like someone in the office printing a document and walking out with it. This is an organization that has the highest levels of security practices and controls in place to prevent this exact thing. Winner would've had to pull the document from the system (controlled), send the document to a printer (controlled), punch in her access code to retrieve her print job (controlled), then manage to get out of the building with the document (controlled). She would have had to evade not only the logical and physical security mechanisms to generate the document, but then evade the physical security mechanisms of walking out of the building with the piece of paper, which Security is looking and searching for when people leave the building.

So if Winner was smart enough to evade all of that security, she was all of a sudden dumb enough to not know that Data Loss Prevention technologies are used to identify the individual who printed the information? She was also dumb enough to not know that folding the paper is also an investigative give away? These may seem like small things, but to someone who handles this type of data these are really the basics that you would be aware of and not do unless you were a) extremely stupid, or b) wanted to get caught. I spoke with a couple of my military buddies who worked as contractors and held TSC, and they came away with the exact same initial feeling I had. This doesn't make sense. This smells like a plant, probably designed to get others who are leaking to thinking twice.

The guys at The Intercept know just as well as she should, it's hard not to think they burned her on purpose for some reason.

Greenwald has been under a lot of pressure since Citizen Four. Maybe this was his way of getting the heat taken off of him, or gaining access again. What this does do is pretty well kill his legitimacy with the whistleblower community.

[FlameOn]

It's becoming more and more clear that Trump's withdraw from the Paris accords is a monumentally stupid act. Apparently the US cannot even withdraw from the agreement until four years later but a subsequent president can join it in under 30 days. Take this with the fact the agreement was voluntary non-binding emissions targets AND was negotiated with US favorability in mind, Trump's decision makes absolutely no sense except to destroy what good will the US has with the international community and stoke Trump's ego.

While President Trump has vowed to formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, sparking international outrage, it doesn’t necessarily mean the end of U.S. involvement forever. A future president could have us back in the agreement in as little as 30 days, legal experts say.

Under the rules of the Paris agreement, parties are allowed to exit and reenter as they choose, although withdrawing is a much lengthier legal process than returning. And there are no provisions stipulating how much time has passed after withdrawal before a nation can begin the process of rejoining the agreement.

“A subsequent president would thus be able to submit a document stating the United States’ intention to become a party to the Agreement as soon as she or he wanted to,” Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said in an email to The Washington Post — although he added that such an action is certainly outside the norm.

“Countries don’t typically withdraw from complex international agreements that they led the way in negotiating,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c5c3b37a1813

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't really get "rage" from this guy. I don't think he cares enough to get really rage-y or that stressed about it. His world-class ego seems like a magic shield.

I sure don't see him lasting 3.5 more years though, but he seems more like a quitter than a die-er.

It would be scary if he quit and cited the terrible government and press for his uselessness, driving his supporters to a frenzy.

I bet he'd like to quit - maybe he already would have - but I don't think he can with the very real possibility he and his family could end up behind bars if he did. He now has to stay to protect his ass and try to slow-down whatever may be coming down through the investigations.

Man, do I ever hope they all end up in handcuffs.

[photon]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's kind of the point. You don't become an NSA Analyst without knowing the ins and outs of information handling and the security mechanisms used to protect information.

Reading the accounts of what she did, it certainly seems like she didn't think things through at all. I mean even I know about the almost-invisible dots thing...

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/ho...inner.html?m=1

Still the simplest explanation is usually the easiest; she thought she was protecting her country, didn't know as much as she should, and was careless.

Originally Posted by New Era

Greenwald has been under a lot of pressure since Citizen Four. Maybe this was his way of getting the heat taken off of him, or gaining access again. What this does do is pretty well kill his legitimacy with the whistleblower community.

Yeah I can't imagine anyone leaking to The Intercept again anytime soon.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Reading the accounts of what she did, it certainly seems like she didn't think things through at all. I mean even I know about the almost-invisible dots thing...

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/ho...inner.html?m=1

Still the simplest explanation is usually the easiest; she thought she was protecting her country, didn't know as much as she should, and was careless.

Reality Winner

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politi...inkId=38404904

Six years airforce and a background in military intel. This is just getting more bizarre more unbelievable. Still doesn't pass the sniff test.

A pretty good take on the events.

http://observer.com/2017/06/reality-...eak-explained/

[photon]

Is Trump breaking up with Qatar on Twitter? What does this mean for their military base there?

[Fuzz]

He'll believe anything people tell him, eh?

Saudi Arabia: "don't look at us, it's those Qatar guys!"

The Saudi's must be laughing their ass off right now.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by photon

Is Trump breaking up with Qatar on Twitter? What does this mean for their military base there?

It'll come out later this week that he had no idea there was a US base there.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

He'll believe anything people tell him, eh?

Saudi Arabia: "don't look at us, it's those Qatar guys!"

The Saudi's must be laughing their ass off right now.

I'm not sure any American president - Orange Spongecake or otherwise - would have the balls to expose Saudi Arabia and call them out for supporting terror.

[photon]

Top lawyers with at least four major law firms rebuffed White House overtures to represent President Trump in the Russia investigations, in part over concerns that the president would be unwilling to listen to their advice, according to five sources familiar with discussions about the matter.

The unwillingness of some of the country’s most prestigious attorneys and their law firms to represent Trump has complicated the administration’s efforts to mount a coherent defense strategy to deal with probes being conducted by four congressional committees as well as Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.

The president’s chief lawyer now in charge of the case is Marc E. Kasowitz, a tough New York civil litigator who for years has aggressively represented Trump in multiple business and public relations disputes — often with threats of countersuits and menacing public statements — but who has little experience dealing with complex congressional and Justice Department investigations that are inevitably influenced by media coverage and public opinion.

Before Kasowitz was retained, however, some of the biggest law firms and their best-known attorneys turned down overtures when they were sounded out by White House officials to see if they would be willing to represent the president, the sources said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-top-...122423972.html

This part made me chuckle...

“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm not sure any American president - Orange Spongecake or otherwise - would have the balls to expose Saudi Arabia and call them out for supporting terror.

Didn't Obama allow US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia?

I have to admit, as long as he doesn't get any Canadians killed, I'm glad Trump won. This is about as entertaining as it gets in a long long time. That and after he is done, he will prob go to jail and the Trumpf name is forever stained.

[FlameOn]

Trump's legal defense dream team is not going to be ready in time for the Comey hearings Thursday. Apparently four of the country's top law firms have refused to represent Trump because they are concerned "he won't listen or pay"

Top lawyers with at least four major law firms rebuffed White House overtures to represent President Trump in the Russia investigations, in part over concerns that the president would be unwilling to listen to their advice, according to five sources familiar with discussions about the matter.

The unwillingness of some of the country’s most prestigious attorneys and their law firms to represent Trump has complicated the administration’s efforts to mount a coherent defense strategy to deal with probes being conducted by four congressional committees as well as Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.

The president’s chief lawyer now in charge of the case is Marc E. Kasowitz, a tough New York civil litigator who for years has aggressively represented Trump in multiple business and public relations disputes — often with threats of countersuits and menacing public statements — but who has little experience dealing with complex congressional and Justice Department investigations that are inevitably influenced by media coverage and public opinion.

Before Kasowitz was retained, however, some of the biggest law firms and their best-known attorneys turned down overtures when they were sounded out by White House officials to see if they would be willing to represent the president, the sources said.

Among them, sources said, were some of the most high-profile names in the legal profession, including Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly; Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis; and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell.
...

With CNN's clock already counting down to fired FBI Director Jim Comey's testimony on Thursday morning, where's the White House war room? Remember the scandal-containment unit that was supposed to quarantine the rest of the White House from Russia questions, so that President Trump could pursue a positive agenda, with the Clinton-style scandal machinery handling the investigations?

White House Counsel Don McGahn had drawn up an org chart that Trump's team liked. But Game Day is 48 hours away, and the boxes aren't filled.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-top-...122423972.html
https://www.axios.com/its-comey-time...434511779.html

Meanwhile the Meuller's DOJ investigation has stacked the team with heavy hitter prosecutors from the Enron and Watergate scandals. Barring some huge strawman incident, I expect the president will be in some deep legal trouble and his support to erode sub 35%
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-trump-239163

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It'll come out later this week that he had no idea there was a US base there.

The largest base in the region.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by New Era

The largest base in the region.

Well just build a wall around it! And make Qatar pay for it!

[ernie]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Meanwhile the Meuller's DOJ investigation has stacked the team with heavy hitter prosecutors from the Enron and Watergate scandals. Barring some huge strawman incident, I expect the president will be in some deep legal trouble and his support to erode sub 35%

It almost seems like a foregone conclusion at this point that this goes deep into the administration. Or at least there are a heck of a lot of senior administration officials that do things that can only really be explained with "wow they must be guilty".


But the interesting thing will truly be if this manages to truly pull in senior members of the GOP party itself. If that happens, that will be the point where the democrats need to capitalize. Right now the GOP and GOP voters can hide behind the administration as being the problem. They can't afford to have the investigation start to point to the party itself.

[DuffMan]

I'm starting to think Trump may be an idiot.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Didn't Obama allow US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia?

I have to admit, as long as he doesn't get any Canadians killed, I'm glad Trump won. This is about as entertaining as it gets in a long long time. That and after he is done, he will prob go to jail and the Trumpf name is forever stained.

No, he tried to block it.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I'm starting to think Trump may be an idiot.

Saw a report that he plans to live tweet the Comey testimony. I am giddy with excitement if this is true.

[HotHotHeat]

Trump’s freaking out, and it’s only Tuesday

If one measures President Trump’s emotional state by the number of early morning tweets, or the number of exclamation points and all-capitalized words, then he seems to be, well, losing it. New criticism on multiple fronts seems to have triggered his most recent meltdown.

Since the terrorist mayhem in London, Trump has been harshly condemned for attacking the mayor of London. He chose to double down with: “Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his ‘no reason to be alarmed’ statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!” He has been taunted for invoking the travel ban in the middle of a tragedy (that may or may not involve immigrants) — and giving away that it is a travel ban. (In his retort, he insisted on using “TRAVEL BAN” — all caps, a “tell” that he’s under stress.) And he has been blasted for the slow pace of his nominations, which leaves hundreds of positions unfilled and which courts danger if a disaster strikes in an area for whom he has not bothered to nominate anyone. (“Dems are taking forever to approve my people, including Ambassadors. They are nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Want approvals.” Again, with the all-capital letters?)

You can see why Trump might be a wee bit on edge this week. During the campaign, he would get caught in an endless loop — outrageous statement, followed by scorching news coverage, followed by Trump’s doubling down. But then Trump could create a new outrage of equal of greater newsiness — or simply holler, “Crooked Hillary!” Neither of those seem to be plausible tactics now. Trump is trapped, in other words, and — as more than one reader has observed — is lashing out like a wounded beast. If you think it’s bad now, just wait until Thursday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.ab2078f79400

Who's EXCITED!!!?