A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[rightleft22]

There's always a Tweet:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I wonder when we will be able to
see @BarackObama's college and law
school applications and transcripts.
Why the long wait?

Excerpt from Mary Trump's book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man:

[Donald Trump] enlisted a smart kid with a reputation for being a good test taker, to take his SATs for him. Donald, who never lacked for funds, paid his buddy well.

When Trump accuses others of such things its almost always a projection of something he him self has done

[wmLambert]

There's always a Tweet:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I wonder when we will be able to
see @BarackObama's college and law
school applications and transcripts.
Why the long wait?

Excerpt from Mary Trump's book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man:

[Donald Trump] enlisted a smart kid with a reputation for being a good test taker, to take his SATs for him. Donald, who never lacked for funds, paid his buddy well.

When Trump accuses others of such things its almost always a projection of something he himself has done

Wow! Projection of a projection. I guess the point you missed was about Obama's transcripts being hidden, while Trump has totally transparency.

That accusation on page 204 of the Mary Trump bid to cash in on the November surprise elements in the Democrat Party is without facts. We'll have to find out why she and her father have been estranged from the family. In her book she even said she never even communicated with her cousins for a full decade. I'm sure she was paid a huge advance for the short book, and maybe there is something in there to look at. We'll see when it comes out.

I recall that Trump's former wives had been approached by the monied Left to create controversies against him, but they all refused stating that he was a good man. Perhaps Mary was more approachable?

[yossarian22c]

There's always a Tweet:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I wonder when we will be able to
see @BarackObama's college and law
school applications and transcripts.
Why the long wait?

Excerpt from Mary Trump's book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man:

[Donald Trump] enlisted a smart kid with a reputation for being a good test taker, to take his SATs for him. Donald, who never lacked for funds, paid his buddy well.

When Trump accuses others of such things its almost always a projection of something he himself has done

Wow! Projection of a projection. I guess the point you missed was about Obama's transcripts being hidden, while Trump has totally transparency.

Huh? What total transparency? He hasn't released his tax returns. He hasn't released his transcripts either.

[wmLambert]

...What total transparency? He hasn't released his tax returns. He hasn't released his transcripts either.

What are you talking about? Trump released all the legal documents up front, by his accountants. Then the Left started fishing for anything they could distort into an attack. Obama never released anything. Don't you think someone named as an editor of the Harvard Crimson would have something in print somewhere?

[Wayward Son]

His tax returns, Bill.  You know, those returns that Trump promised he would release way back during his first campaign once they were "not under audit" (not that ever mattered).  The things that every other major candidate for President has released since I was born, if not before.  The things that he is fighting tooth-and-nail at the Supreme Court to prevent from being given to Congress, even though the law clearly states that they have the right to look at them.  The things that are due for this year one week from today.

He lies to you about what he will do.  He thumbs his nose at norms that every modern candidate has followed in the past.  He spits on our clearly-stated laws.  And you don't understand why we think he isn't "transparent?"

[DonaldD]

Wayward, you are clearly misinformed; wmLambert, I've misplaced the link, so could you provide the link to Trump's tax returns, and where he released his school transcripts?  Thanks

[TheDrake]

If He has not produced his tax returns, it is only because He is so wise. He works in mysterious ways.

The evil doers might point out shady flaws, questionable practices, or gross exaggerations of His wealth. Although, of course being His documents, there could never be anything wrong with them, so it would all be lies.

[rightleft22]

There's always a Tweet:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I wonder when we will be able to
see @BarackObama's college and law
school applications and transcripts.
Why the long wait?

Excerpt from Mary Trump's book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man:

[Donald Trump] enlisted a smart kid with a reputation for being a good test taker, to take his SATs for him. Donald, who never lacked for funds, paid his buddy well.

When Trump accuses others of such things its almost always a projection of something he himself has done

Wow! Projection of a projection. I guess the point you missed was about Obama's transcripts being hidden, while Trump has totally transparency.

I'm rubber and your glue the projection bounces off me and sticks to you... not take backs. 

[wmLambert]

Wayward, you are clearly misinformed; wmLambert, I've misplaced the link, so could you provide the link to Trump's tax returns, and where he released his school transcripts?  Thanks

Not clever, and not funny. The current SCOTUS review is not aimed at Tax forms, because the House subpoenas do not ask for them. He gave the legal documentation of his business status before the election.

The question at the heart of Mazars is whether the subpoenas issued by the House committee are a valid exercise of congressional power. Following a principle enunciated first as dicta (commentary not essential to a decision) in Kilbourn v. Thompson [105 U.S. 168 (1880)] and reaffirmed several times since, Congress may use its investigative powers, including both subpoenas and the ability to call and examine witnesses, only in aid of a legislative function. It may not investigate solely to expose embarrassing or illegal behavior or to gather evidence that might be used in a legal proceeding. Any governmental power to investigate with these ends as goals is impermissible. Justice Brennan put the matter this way: “Investigation conducted solely to … punish the investigated, either by publicity or prosecution, is indefensible—it exceeds the congressional power: exposure for the sake of exposure is not legislative inquiry.” Hutchinson v. U.S. [369 U.S. 599, 624 (1962)

The only reason thay ask to see the tax forms is to fish for dirt. They are not allowed to do that. What Trump already gave was sufficient and transparent.

[DonaldD]

You argued he was transparent - presumably, as compared to all the other presidents.  Of course every single president since Nixon has voluntarily provided their tax information.  So by that metric alone, Trump is far less transparent.  I know you won't admit it, but it is axiomatic.

If you are arguing that he is transparent as compared to a private citizen, but not transparent as compared to other presidents, I suppose you could try to make that case, but nobody will really care.

[yossarian22c]

...What total transparency? He hasn't released his tax returns. He hasn't released his transcripts either.

What are you talking about? Trump released all the legal documents up front, by his accountants. Then the Left started fishing for anything they could distort into an attack. Obama never released anything. Don't you think someone named as an editor of the Harvard Crimson would have something in print somewhere?

You made a comment about Obama's college record and Trump being totally transparent in comparison. Trump providing the legally required financial disclosures doesn't count as being "totally transparent." He hasn't provided any of the documentation he accused Obama of hiding, school transcripts and hasn't provided tax documents like every other presidential candidate in the last half century. See the man, don't just take his word for how awesome, transparent, and great he is.

[wmLambert]

...Trump providing the legally required financial disclosures doesn't count as being "totally transparent." He hasn't provided any of the documentation he accused Obama of hiding, school transcripts and hasn't provided tax documents like every other presidential candidate in the last half century. See the man, don't just take his word for how awesome, transparent, and great he is.

A billionaire with thousands of pages of tax information is required to present an understandable report on his taxes, but not every data point which might not even make it into his filing. Trump did that day one. He also explained there were audits occurring which complicate filing.

The SCOTUS report today confirmed that Trump has the same rights and protections as the average citizen and that Congress is denied any fishing license. They will not contest that, because as soon as they did, they would be exposed themselves, and be forced to explain their own wealth they've amassed during their terms in office.

[DonaldD]

You do realize that none of the other presidents who voluntarily provided their tax filing information were legally required  to do so, either, right?  And that their voluntary acts of providing that information, as opposed to Trump's refusing to voluntarily provide the same information, not to mention fighting congress over it, shows just how much more transparent they were than is Trump..?  I know, I know, you will not be able to accept that, although it's pretty obvious to everybody else.

[TheDeamon]

You do realize that none of the other presidents who voluntarily provided their tax filing information were legally required  to do so, either, right?  And that their voluntary acts of providing that information, as opposed to Trump's refusing to voluntarily provide the same information, not to mention fighting congress over it, shows just how much more transparent they were than is Trump..?  I know, I know, you will not be able to accept that, although it's pretty obvious to everybody else.

No, that simply demonstrates that they had been preparing their finances for years prior to running for office to make sure that nothing objectionable could be found.

Only we seem to have found out how well that worked out for Romney, didn't we?

[DonaldD]

You're trolling wmLambert, aren't you?   

[TheDrake]

Look, there is something to the idea that it is unfair to critically analyze taxes. Because almost every living breathing person in these United States would have no moral qualms about cheating on their taxes. Bartenders and servers don't report all their tips. People don't pay sales tax for things bought on craigslist. People hire nannies and landscapers, pay them under the table. People create BS LLC's and try to claim a chunk of their house as a business expense. Let's face it, we are all cheaters and the politicians are just better at hiding it.

[Wayward Son]

That is so cynical, Drake, and so...convenient.

You truly think that politicians are so much smarter than the average Joe?  You guys think that they plan, years ahead, taking into account every contingency in case they get elected, especially to a high office, so they won't get caught? 

Politicians aren't much smarter than we are.  They are playing it by ear, just like everyone else.  Sure, they find advisors to help them avoid the obvious pitfalls, but they are not super-geniuses that play 4D chess and can out-think every reporter and prosecutor around and cover every track.  Most of them are as honest as most people.

It is only the truly corrupt, like Trump, who use the blunt instruments of denial, obstruction, intimidation, lawyers and dirty tricks to cover their sins.  But you can smell them a mile away, just like the majority of voters could smell Trump before he was elected.

While I admit I haven't been perfect in my taxes, there is still a big difference between someone who overestimates a clothing donation to charity and someone who underestimates the value of his real estate holdings for tax purposes, but overestimates their value when applying for a loan.  There is a difference between minor sins and major ones.  And I am truly sorry that you consider yourself to be one of those "cheaters" who thinks he has committed some major sins.

[Wayward Son]

The President of the United States says:

“I know many in business and politics that work out endlessly, in some cases to a point of exhaustion. It is their number one passion in life, but nobody complains. My ‘exercise’ is playing, almost never during the week, a quick round of golf. Obama played more and much longer rounds, no problem. When I play, Fake News CNN, and others, park themselves anywhere they can to get a picture, then scream ‘President Trump is playing golf.’ Actually, I play VERY fast, get a lot of work done on the golf course, and also get a ‘tiny’ bit of exercise. Not bad!”

CNN points out that he has played more golf at this point in his Presidency.  (Just in case you ever doubted it. )

[DonaldD]

...and the covidiot-in-chief retweets... @chuckwoolery:

The most outrageous lies are the ones about Covid 19. Everyone is lying. The CDC, Media, Democrats, our Doctors, not all but most ,that we are told to trust. I think it's all about the election and keeping the economy from coming back, which is about the election. I'm sick of it.

This man is the head of your government. The country actually chose him. 

Jesus wept.

[Wayward Son]

"Numbers [of shooting in cities] are going to be coming down even if we have to go in and take over cities, because we can’t let that happen."

Tanks in the streets, anyone?

[TheDrake]

"Numbers [of shooting in cities] are going to be coming down even if we have to go in and take over cities, because we can’t let that happen."

Tanks in the streets, anyone?

You mean more than the usual number of tanks operated by municipalities?

[DonaldD]

With the approval of the White House Press Office, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro pens a hit piece on Dr. Anthony Fauci in USA Today: Anthony Fauci has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has a good bedside manner with the public, but he has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.

So when you ask me whether I listen to Dr. Fauci's advice, my answer is: only with skepticism and caution.

The question is - why? Do they believe this will help the president with his trust deficit?  Is it just meat for the base? 

Because it comes off as the most mendacious and thin skinned politician in modern history transparently attempting to smear a fairly trusted apolitical public servant, one whose believability is polling at more than twice that of the administration...

[Wayward Son]

And then there's this bit of deep thinking from our President:

Absentee Ballots are fine because you have to go through a precise process to get your voting privilege. Not so with Mail-Ins. Rigged Election!!!

The answer is quite obvious, of course.

Either A) Only allow Absentee Ballots for the next election, or B) make the process for Mail-Ins be the same as for Absentee Ballots.  How long do you think it would take the states to implement one or both of these solutions? 

[DonaldD]

Mike Pence: "...but to be very clear, we don't want CDC guidance to be a reason why people don't reopen their schools."

Wait... what?  Is that like not wanting FDA regulations on e.coli to cause meat to be pulled off grocery store shelves, or not wanting DOT regulations to cause exploding cars to be kept off the roads?

[DonaldD]

And then there's this bit of deep thinking from our President:

Absentee Ballots are fine because you have to go through a precise process to get your voting privilege. Not so with Mail-Ins. Rigged Election!!!

The answer is quite obvious, of course.

Either A) Only allow Absentee Ballots for the next election, or B) make the process for Mail-Ins be the same as for Absentee Ballots.  How long do you think it would take the states to implement one or both of these solutions? 

Well, since 'B' is actually already a fact...

[TheDeamon]

Either A) Only allow Absentee Ballots for the next election, or B) make the process for Mail-Ins be the same as for Absentee Ballots.  How long do you think it would take the states to implement one or both of these solutions? 

Well, since 'B' is actually already a fact...

Uh, not with what the Democrats were wanting to do.

They were going to simply mail the ballot to the registered voter, not request for a ballot needed.

For an absentee ballot, you have to request it.

[Wayward Son]

Uh, not with what the Democrats were wanting to do.

They were going to simply mail the ballot to the registered voter, not request for a ballot needed.

For an absentee ballot, you have to request it.

Where did you hear that?  Show me the proof of that statement, that they will "simply mail the ballot to the registered voter."

I don't know of any state that has a different process for absentee ballots vs "mail in" ballots.  It would be stupid for such a thing to happen.  You have an existing system, developed over years, to ensure the identity of the voter, and suddenly you throw that out just because?  Why would any state do that?

I believe you have been lied to, Deamon.  And now you are spreading those lies.  But please, prove me wrong.  Show me the states that just simply mail the ballots and do not follow the process they have for absentee ballots.  Show me the ones that are specifically proposing that.  I will gladly join you in condemning it.

But it better be solid proof, and not just some rumor from the lying President or one of his lying minions.

[TheDrake]

The most recent House Democrat proposal mandates that every state mail a ballot to every registered address in the country for the 2020 election, even when the state suspects a registered voter has moved or died. Not only does this type of mandate waste taxpayer dollars by sending undeliverable mail, but it is impossible for the states to safely implement this system before voting begins.

linky

Those proposals include calls from Democrats and election-law reformers to preemptively mail all eligible voters a ballot, as five states do now, or to require all states to allow their residents to vote absentee for any reason. In the 28 states that already allow this “no excuse” absentee balloting, partisan struggles are nevertheless looming over whether to make the voting process easier.

linky

[TheDrake]

I believe you have been lied to, Deamon.  And now you are spreading those lies.  But please, prove me wrong.

I think you should probably do your own research before calling someone a liar. I found those links in three minutes.

[DonaldD]

With the approval of the White House Press Office, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro pens a hit piece on Dr. Anthony Fauci in USA Today: Anthony Fauci has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has a good bedside manner with the public, but he has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.

So when you ask me whether I listen to Dr. Fauci's advice, my answer is: only with skepticism and caution.

The question is - why? Do they believe this will help the president with his trust deficit?  Is it just meat for the base? 

Because it comes off as the most mendacious and thin skinned politician in modern history transparently attempting to smear a fairly trusted apolitical public servant, one whose believability is polling at more than twice that of the administration...

And Dr Fauci responds - candidly:

Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease specialist and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said a list of his alleged mistakes circulated by anonymous White House aides is "nonsense" and "totally wrong."

"I think if you talk to reasonable people in the White House, they realize that was a major mistake on their part, because it doesn't do anything but reflect poorly on them," he told The Atlantic of the list. "And I don't think that was their intention. I cannot figure out in my wildest dreams why they would want to do that."

 
Fauci argued the politicization of the pandemic response "distracts from what I hope would be the common effort of getting this thing under control, rather than this back-and-forth distraction, which just doesn't make any sense."

He also went on to criticize Navarro, who has repeatedly questioned Fauci's credibility and wrote a controversial Tuesday op-ed in USA Today accusing Fauci of having "been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on."

"When you ask me whether I listen to Dr. Fauci's advice, my answer is: only with skepticism and caution," Navarro wrote.

"I can't explain [him]. He's in a world by himself. So I don't even want to go there," Fauci said of Navarro.

Pass the popcorn.

[Wayward Son]

I believe you have been lied to, Deamon.  And now you are spreading those lies.  But please, prove me wrong.

I think you should probably do your own research before calling someone a liar. I found those links in three minutes.

I'm not calling you a liar, Drake.  I'm saying that you are not vetting your information properly, and so are falling for lies.  For instance:

The most recent House Democrat proposal mandates that every state mail a ballot to every registered address in the country for the 2020 election, even when the state suspects a registered voter has moved or died. Not only does this type of mandate waste taxpayer dollars by sending undeliverable mail, but it is impossible for the states to safely implement this system before voting begins.

linky

That is an opinion piece that simply states it.  Which proposal is it?  What is the wording?  Is he interpreting it correctly, or spinning it?  I have no information from that piece to answer those questions, and neither do you.

Those proposals include calls from Democrats and election-law reformers to preemptively mail all eligible voters a ballot, as five states do now, or to require all states to allow their residents to vote absentee for any reason. In the 28 states that already allow this “no excuse” absentee balloting, partisan struggles are nevertheless looming over whether to make the voting process easier.

linky

I would contend that "preemptively mail ... voters a ballot" is not the same as "simply."  "Simply" implies just sending them out nilly-willy, without properly vetting the votes that come back.  "Preemptively" means using all the safety procedure currently being used for Absentee ballots, without the requirement of having to request one.  Which means they would be as safe from voter fraud as the preemptive ballots.

And if sending them out like five states do now is making them less secure, what does that mean for the current absentee ballots in those five states?  Should we conclude that those five states are currently rife with fraud and all their votes shouldn't count?

And while making "the voting process easier" could make it less secure, you can't categorically state that it is until you see what precautions are implemented.

When Trump spews obvious BS like:
"But in California, the governor sent, I hear, or is sending millions of ballots all over the state... Millions. To anybody. To anybody. People that aren't citizens, illegals, anybody that walks in California is gonna get a ballot."

or makes the false assertion:

"Unless you’re an absentee, in which case they have to go through a whole process. In order to vote, they have to go through a very strict process. The equivalent of going to a voting machine, or maybe even sometimes better."

or tweets:
Because of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, 2020 will be the most RIGGED Election in our nations history - unless this stupidity is ended... We voted during World War One & World War Two with no problem, but now they are using Covid in order to cheat by using Mail-Ins!

you need to look carefully at what the basis of such accusations are.  Because some people will just echo Trump's BS.  And some will take a kernel of truth and spin it into lie.  A lie that says that mail-in ballots cannot be trusted, but absentee ballots are perfectly safe, because of maybe some minor, insignificant differences of who gets them now vs later and what they have to do to request them.

[TheDrake]

I don't care what Trump is saying or how he said it. If you don't like the Atlantic or the Denver Post as sources, how about the actual text of the bill?

Bill text

“(3) SPECIAL RULES IN CASE OF EMERGENCY PERIODS.—

“(A) AUTOMATIC MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO ALL VOTERS.—If the area in which an election is held is in an area in which an emergency or disaster which is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(g)(1)) is declared during the period described in subparagraph (C)—

“(i) paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply with respect to the election; and

“(ii) not later than 2 weeks before the date of the election, the appropriate State or local election official shall transmit by mail absentee ballots and balloting materials for the election to all individuals who are registered to vote in such election or, in the case of any State that does not register voters, all individuals who are in the State’s central voter file (or if the State does not keep a central voter file, to all individuals who are eligible to vote in such election).

“(B) AFFIRMATION.—If an individual receives an absentee ballot from a State or local election official pursuant to subparagraph (A) and returns the voted ballot to the official, the ballot shall not be counted in the election unless the individual includes with the ballot a signed affirmation that—

“(i) the individual has not and will not cast another ballot with respect to the election; and

“(ii) acknowledges that a material misstatement of fact in completing the ballot may constitute grounds for conviction of perjury.

“(C) PERIOD DESCRIBED.—The period described in this subparagraph with respect to an election is the period which begins 120 days before the date of the election and ends 30 days before the date of the election.

“(D) APPLICATION TO NOVEMBER 2020 GENERAL ELECTION.—Because of the public health emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) resulting from the COVID–19 pandemic, the special rules set forth in this paragraph shall apply with respect to the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in November 2020 in each State.

Sure reads like all registered voters are going to get ballots under this bill, introduced by house democrats and passed by house democrats.

[DonaldD]

Russia used Trump's intelligence sharing to try to assassinate Chechen dissidents in Europe

Russia routinely exploited a US policy of increased information sharing to target Chechen dissidents, according to three law-enforcement and intelligence officials in Europe.

The practice emerged after the Trump administration backed a policy of sharing more secret information with Russia, in hope of strengthening relations.

Another NATO military intelligence official who regularly deals with Russian intelligence matters confirmed the nature of Russia's activity.

He said NATO had limited some parts of its relationship with the US because of its closeness to Russia. Specifically some worried that US officials would send them its intelligence.

The official also spoke anonymously because he lacked permission to speak publicly. He said: "I don't want to say we locked the Americans out, but we certainly noticed the very public leak of intelligence to the Russians in 2017.

"This is why key protections of intelligence information are in place. You can't always count on your friends to keep secrets."

[DonaldD]

He (Navarro) made a statement representing himself. He shouldn't be doing that: no I've got a very good relationship with Anthony.

I guess Trump will be firing Navarro soon...

[Wayward Son]

I don't care what Trump is saying or how he said it. If you don't like the Atlantic or the Denver Post as sources, how about the actual text of the bill?

...

Sure reads like all registered voters are going to get ballots under this bill, introduced by house democrats and passed by house democrats.

Thank you very much, Drake.  You are right; this does read as requiring all ballots be sent to all registered voters, so they can return them by mail.  (A logistical nightmare from what I've read, and something that probably could not be accomplished in the time remaining before the election.)

This is what I was looking for.  Source material, not opinions.  I did not think this existed, and thought that this was just more spin as in Trump's words, where he says this has already been enacted.

I will try to vet my information better in the future, although it is very difficult to search for something that you think does not exist.

[TheDrake]

Appreciate that, Wayward. It can be hard to find. I had looked for the Bill or a direct quote earlier, they are always preferable to paraphrasing and summaries. I had to find an article where Pelosi had rebranded the initiative with a different name from the actual bill, and then try to figure out what the actual bill was called. It took a few hops and false starts.

I would prefer universal absentee balloting or vote by mail with existing mechanisms. As it stands in Texas, you have to meet strict criteria. Including proving that you will be out of the county for the start of early voting to election day.

This really could skew votes in favor of the anti-mask, covid-hoax, let's reopen voting bloc. As well as suppress votes in areas where there tend to be long lines, aka urban districts. Which is of course why Trump and his allies don't want it to change, not entirely because of rampant fraud fears.

[DonaldD]

The corollary of that is the president's willingness to demonize mail-in voting will suppress the votes of his own supporters who, without mail-in voting, will otherwise not be able to vote (see the states with 100% mail in voting, plus the very real risk that people will not feel safe voting in person, even if they support the President).  And let's not forget he doesn't get a say in the mechanics of the vote - that is in the hands of the states.

Whereas the anti-Trump voters will not listen to his slamming the mail-in voting process - quite the opposite.

So when mail-in voting becomes far more widespread, as it will, his detractors will be prepared to take advantage of it in ways that his supporters will not.

[TheDrake]

So when mail-in voting becomes far more widespread, as it will, his detractors will be prepared to take advantage of it in ways that his supporters will not.

If it will. I can pretty much guarantee Texas isn't going to budge. Just look at the mess our governor already made.

[DonaldD]

Mike Pence: "...but to be very clear, we don't want CDC guidance to be a reason why people don't reopen their schools."

Wait... what?  Is that like not wanting FDA regulations on e.coli to cause meat to be pulled off grocery store shelves, or not wanting DOT regulations to cause exploding cars to be kept off the roads?

OK. Wow.  I thought that Pence misspoke, but was too dense to realize it.

But no: White House blocks CDC from testifying on reopening schools next week.

The administration is literally keeping the government agency tasked with "conduct[ing] critical science and provid[ing] health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and respond[ing] when these arise" from providing that information before the House Education and Labor Committee hearing on reopening schools.

The White House is blocking US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield and other officials from the agency from testifying before a House Education and Labor Committee hearing on reopening schools next week, just as the debate over sending children back to classrooms has flared up across the US.

White House officials informed the committee of its decision in an email, a staff member on the House panel told CNN.

W.
T.
Serious.
F.
??

I know a sitting president by tradition cannot be indicted, but Trump's term will eventually run out, and he has to wonder whether anybody aside from himself will pardon him

[TheDrake]

The power move would be to invite WHO officials to testify.

[DonaldD]

"I'll be right eventually. I will be right eventually. You know I said, 'It's going to disappear.' I'll say it again

People keep bringing up questions about Biden's declining mental acuity; that seems more than a little disingenuous, given that Trump proves on a daily basis that he is mentally unfit for the job.

Sure, the Trump campaign is pretty consistent on this, in that they continuously accuse others of Trump's own failings.  But why other people allow themselves to be used in this was is disappointing.

[DonaldD]

That interview with Chris Wallace just keeps on giving:

TRUMP: "I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election."

WALLACE: "Are you suggesting that you might not accept the results?"

TRUMP: "I have to see."

WALLACE: "Can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?

TRUMP: "I have to see."

Sure, he might need to be evicted forcefully from the White House if he loses the election, and there is no indication (well, little) that any significant number of people or federal agencies would support him in refusing to leave, but the fact is Trump cannot even agree that, should he lose the vote, he would accept the results (meaning, I suppose, that he might take actions to attempt to stay in power.)

I wonder what it will take for some people to believe that the damage he is doing to your body politic is more important than short term policy gains...

[DonaldD]

Ay carumba:

What was perhaps the most bizarre exchange of the whole interview came when Wallace asked Trump if Biden was “senile” after the president claimed that “Biden can’t put two sentences together.” Trump refused to answer the question. “I don’t want to say that,” Trump said. “I’d say he’s not competent to be president. … He doesn’t even know he’s alive.” Wallace then pointed out that a Fox poll had found that more people believe Biden is more mentally sound than Trump.

“I’ll tell you what, let’s take a test. Let’s take a test right now. Let’s go down, Joe and I will take a test. Let him take the same test that I took,” Trump said. The president had previously boasted that he “aced” a cognitive test.

“Incidentally, I took the test too when I heard that you passed it,” Wallace said.

When Trump asked how he did, Wallace answered: “Well, it’s not the hardest test. They have a picture and it says, ‘What’s that?’ and it’s an elephant.”

Trump took offense at what he said was a “misrepresentation,” insisting that while “the first few questions are easy,” they get harder. “I’ll bet you couldn’t even answer the last five questions.”

Wallace then said, “Well, one of them was count back from 100 by seven.”

[DonaldD]

Trump said Monday he will send federal law enforcement to certain cities, "all run by very liberal Democrats," in the latest example of his "law and order" messaging.

Trump railed against Portland and others, saying in the Oval Office that he will be sending in some federal law enforcement.

"We're not going to let New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore and all of these, Oakland is a mess. We're not going to let this happen in our country. All run by liberal Democrats," Trump said.

First, he refuses to state that he would respect the results of the election, and now he is going to send federal shock troops into "liberal" enclaves, in the hopes of fomenting unrest that he thinks will help him with his electoral chances.  What could possibly go wrong?

The world is watching in horror as this fascist program plays itself out in real time, in what was once a leading democracy.

[DonaldD]

Trump tweets support (I think ??) for wearing masks, while tweeting a picture of himself wearing a mask.

We are United in our effort to defeat the Invisible China Virus, and many people say that it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance. There is nobody more Patriotic than me, your favorite President!

[yossarian22c]

Trump tweets support (I think ??) for wearing masks, while tweeting a picture of himself wearing a mask.

We are United in our effort to defeat the Invisible China Virus, and many people say that it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance. There is nobody more Patriotic than me, your favorite President!

Its amazing how he can walk the line between support for masks and mocking them at the same time. And how he makes statements like that without taking a real position on the issue, "many people say" not "it is" or "I say."

"nobody more patriotic than me"  He is bold for a draft dodging narcissist.

[Fenring]

Trump said Monday he will send federal law enforcement to certain cities, "all run by very liberal Democrats," in the latest example of his "law and order" messaging.

Trump railed against Portland and others, saying in the Oval Office that he will be sending in some federal law enforcement.

"We're not going to let New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore and all of these, Oakland is a mess. We're not going to let this happen in our country. All run by liberal Democrats," Trump said.

First, he refuses to state that he would respect the results of the election, and now he is going to send federal shock troops into "liberal" enclaves, in the hopes of fomenting unrest that he thinks will help him with his electoral chances.  What could possibly go wrong?

The world is watching in horror as this fascist program plays itself out in real time, in what was once a leading democracy.

I went ahead and copy-pasted the entire quote to see the context, and it led me to CNN and FOX articles which are specifically about Trump sending DHS agents to Chicago. The quote did not lead me to any other article other than this one:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/20/politics/trump-administration-federal-agents-chicago/index.html

The Department of Homeland Security plans to send more than 150 Homeland Security Investigations agents to Chicago for a 60-day stint, according to a source familiar with the deployment. Homeland Security Investigations is a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that serves as the investigative arm of DHS and specializes in countering cross-border criminal activity.

The effort appears to be separate from the federal presence in Portland, Oregon, which was part of the President's demand that federal buildings be protected from protesters.

The article is about this deployment to Chicago, and it mentions Trump's statements about sending Federal agents to help police blue areas as backdrop. The article goes on to elaborate on the matter of agents being sent to Chicago:

Chicago's mayor warned Monday about such plans in the wake of criticisms of how federal agents are facing off with protesters in Portland.

"I have great concerns about that particularly given the track record in the city of Portland. I spent a lot of time yesterday talking with the mayor or Portland to get a sense of what has happened there. We don't need federal agents without any insignia taking people off the streets and holding them, I think, unlawfully. That's not what we need," Mayor Lori Lightfoot said.

Lightfoot said that instead the federal government could help stem the violence by cracking down on illegal guns.

Ok, so far it reads as a condemnation of Trump sending in agents to police Chicago, right? Except I actually cut out a bit that comes before the first quote I mentioned above:

One senior law enforcement official told CNN that there are plans to send federal agents to Chicago through the end of the summer. The agents will focus on illegal gun sales and gun violence and outstanding warrants, among other targets, according to one of the sources. Both sources said an announcement could be made in the coming days.

So hold on: the article is apparently about casting shade on Trump releasing shock troops into Chicago just as he promised to do in liberal cities, and seemingly quotes the mayor as basically telling him not to do that. But the article clearly states - in a sequence that hides the fact - that Trump is actually not sending "shock troops" into Chicago at all, but is actually sending DHS investigators in to crack down on illegal gun sales, which is exactly what Mayor Lightfoot suggested the Federal government should be doing.

DonaldD, assuming this was your source, it appears to me that you've misrepresented the facts stated in the article, although to be fair you've interpreted it in the way the writer probably intended you did. Again, I'm assuming this was your source, but if it was this is a piece of pure propaganda spin, trying to make the reader think Trump is sending in shock troops when in fact (despite the article being deliberately unclear about it) the quotes clearly say that Trump is *not* doing the thing Mayor Lightfoot asked him not to, and is rather doing what she asked him to. So much for the fascist takeover 

And believe me, this is the least of what I see daily on my social media about Trump setting himself up as dictator for life and surrounding himself with the SS.

[Wayward Son]

Unfortunately you missed what Lightfoot wants in your analysis, Fenring.

What Mayor Lori Lightfoot asked for was:

Please stop with the rhetoric and find the moral courage to simply support the needed actions listed above: enact common-sense gun laws, partner with our law enforcement actors through providing investigative resources, deliver on community-based resources for public safety, and invest in our neighborhoods and residents...

In the end, we very much want to partner with an executive branch that respects our city, inclusive of all of our residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, country of origin, religion, sexual orientation or ability...

What we do not need, and what will certainly make our community less safe is secret, federal agents deployed to Chicago...  Any other form of militarized assistance within our borders that would not be within our control or within the direct command of the Chicago Police Department would spell disaster.

She doesn't want the Federal government stepping in and doing whatever they please or think is a good idea, even if it is to address the problems she specifically listed.  She want helps, locally directed and controlled, so that the help actually doesn't make things worse.

Now you believe that Trump isn't sending in shock troops.  But will they be coordinating with local police and the local police will be in charge?  If they are not going to coordinate, how effective do you think they will be, being unfamiliar with the city?  And if they are going to coordinate, why hasn't the Chicago police chief informed her of his talks with the Federal agents coming in? 

Seriously, is this the reaction of a person getting the help she wants and feels she needs?

Mr. President or not—I don’t care one bit what your name is. I will not allow troops in Chicago, and I will do everything in my power to stop you.

This indicates to me that Trump hasn't directed his agents to work with the Chicago police to aid them however they ask.  He had directed them to go in and do something.  And what else are they going to do but direct action on the street?  You can't be nuanced in unfamiliar territory. 

Now, I may be wrong.  The agents may work in the background with the Chicago police and we won't even see them.  They may only work as directed by the Chicago police.  This may be a very quiet operation that does a lot of good.

Want to make a bet on it? 

[Wayward Son]

Meanwhile, clueless in the White House tweets:

“Thank you for the good reviews and comments on my interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. We may have set a record for doing such an interview in the heat. It was 100 degrees, making things very interesting!”

[DonaldD]

So hold on: the article is apparently about casting shade on Trump releasing shock troops into Chicago just as he promised to do in liberal cities, and seemingly quotes the mayor as basically telling him not to do that. But the article clearly states - in a sequence that hides the fact - that Trump is actually not sending "shock troops" into Chicago at all, but is actually sending DHS investigators in to crack down on illegal gun sales, which is exactly what Mayor Lightfoot suggested the Federal government should be doing.

Or, you can listen to what Trump says out loud, verbally:

Trump: I’m going to do something, that I can tell you - because we’re not gonna let New York and Chicago and Philadelphia and Detroit … and Baltimore, and all of these… Oakland is a mess. We’re not gonna let this happen in our country.  All run by liberal Democrats.
Q: [So] will you send more federal law enforcement to these cities?
Trump: More federal law enforcement, that I can tell you.  In Portland, they’ve done a fantastic job. They’ve been there 3 days… and they really have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. No problem.  They grab ‘em, a lot people in jail

It's pretty unequivocal - he is looking to send troops to all those "liberal" places in pretty much exactly the same way as he did in Portland - to "grab 'em" and throw them "in jail". Not "we're looking at helping local law enforcement" or even "we will work with local law enforcement" and certainly not "we will do so while respecting citizens' rights to peaceably assemble and exercise their constitutional rights".

I know, I know, we like to reinterpret things Trump says because, yes, he's stupid and doesn't understand sentence structure or context.  But if any normal adult had put all those words together, there would be pretty much no ambiguity whatsoever:  he announced he wants to send troops to those cities in the same way as he did to Portland.