A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe.
He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.

How funny would it be if it were tax fraud that did him in the end? Just like Capone, you can't nail him for anything else, but a full IRS audit is bound to find something illegal.
 
If you go back to the early posts on this thread, there were two very gung-ho members of the forum who advised they were members of the FBI/US intelligence services who were due to leave/retire, but were staying behind as Gladio operators/agents of common decency to hold Trump to account. They seem to have disappeared without trace(?).
RIP Rain Man Rain Man
 
If they were truly representatives of the US secret/intelligence services they are evidence that those services are compromised politically and therefore unfit for the task at hand. I notice they have vanished without further input to the forum. Perhaps they are worried about their jobs? One hopes so.

It's plebeian, I know, but a few of us have sworn our lives to standing immediately in harm's way defending this country; when called to action we're left precious little time to spout inane bullshit about which we know little and even less time to post pictures of our socks. There are guns to be carried and asses to kick. You know; hero shit.

The Trump camp, and probably Trump himself, was aware of a Russian effort to support Trump and undermine Clinton from at least early summer 2016.

If this is true, then I hope at least one bullet from the resulting firing squad hits Trump in the face. But that's not my lane. More's the pity. In the meantime, I've been mobilized again. I'll see you all late next year.
 
It's plebeian, I know, but a few of us have sworn our lives to standing immediately in harm's way defending this country; when called to action we're left precious little time to spout inane bullshit about which we know little and even less time to post pictures of our socks. There are guns to be carried and asses to kick. You know; hero shit.



If this is true, then I hope at least one bullet from the resulting firing squad hits Trump in the face. But that's not my lane. More's the pity. In the meantime, I've been mobilized again. I'll see you all late next year.

We want you on that wall. We NEED you on that wall!*



*You know, the one the Mexicans are paying for.
 
If this is true, then I hope at least one bullet from the resulting firing squad hits Trump in the face. But that's not my lane. More's the pity. In the meantime, I've been mobilized again. I'll see you all late next year.
Stay safe out there
 
It's plebeian, I know, but a few of us have sworn our lives to standing immediately in harm's way defending this country; when called to action we're left precious little time to spout inane bullshit about which we know little and even less time to post pictures of our socks. There are guns to be carried and asses to kick. You know; hero shit.



If this is true, then I hope at least one bullet from the resulting firing squad hits Trump in the face. But that's not my lane. More's the pity. In the meantime, I've been mobilized again. I'll see you all late next year.
At least where you are going the people weather is nice.
 
It's plebeian, I know, but a few of us have sworn our lives to standing immediately in harm's way defending this country; when called to action we're left precious little time to spout inane bullshit about which we know little and even less time to post pictures of our socks. There are guns to be carried and asses to kick. You know; hero shit.



If this is true, then I hope at least one bullet from the resulting firing squad hits Trump in the face. But that's not my lane. More's the pity. In the meantime, I've been mobilized again. I'll see you all late next year.

I wish a safe and successful tour of duty.
 
Spicer is gone

I can't use the joke at work that my peers keep setting me up to face the music like Sean Spicer.

President Trump pardoning all current & former aides and family members makes sense, but can he really pardon himself as sitting President? Even in fictitious House of Cards world, Frank Underwood had to step down and ask his newly minted President wife to pardon him. Someone send him the Netflix episode?
 
I can't use the joke at work that my peers keep setting me up to face the music like Sean Spicer.

President Trump pardoning all current & former aides and family members makes sense, but can he really pardon himself as sitting President? Even in fictitious House of Cards world, Frank Underwood had to step down and ask his newly minted President wife to pardon him. Someone send him the Netflix episode?

Well, so much for getting my Ukrainian buddy to download that series for me...
 
All the Trump supporters I know are of the rich and white category and support him largely because of how much he annoys Democrats and because he'll be lowering their taxes. I don't know anyone that buys his anti-immigration rhetoric, particularly as it pertains to previous administrations protecting gang members who mutilate 16 year old girls (as most illegal immigrants are like to do). But clearly people do, and that's astonishing to me.

FWIW, I'm biased because I have a passing familiarity with crime statistics (which paint a very different picture from Donald's) and am tragically exposed to immigrants, legal and illegal, on a regular basis (my wife, my father, and I all volunteer at a community center teaching English and providing general help with acculturation). They sometimes bring....tamales.

So I know that there are people untainted by positive experience or cold statistics, and I guess I'm just surprised at how many encounter illegal immigrant gang related violence on such a regular basis.

But frankly, it seems like poverty is the best predictor of criminality. And since this is America, where hard work leads to success (unlike in Europe or East Asia), people who are poor are poor by choice. If we want to make America safe and put America first for the first time since Reagan, we should probably harass anyone with a household income less than 35k until either they stop being poor or they move to a country that doesn't mind crime.
 
Last edited:
While the president told his fans that he hoped that "obstructionists, meaning Democrats" would "finally do what's right" and join efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, Trump predicted that Republicans will likely have to go it alone — as they did Tuesday. "Today we won 51 to 50 and didn't get a single Democrat vote," he said. "Think of that."

-- uhm, won't semi intelligent people ask why a party that had a majority needed anyone in opposition to even vote for them? Think of that. If people had voted on party lines, VP Pence could have taken a vacation. Are we just recycling minority government speeches to elicit more sympathy?
 
I just saw that Trump is reversing the Obama administration's policy of admitting the transgendered into the military, where some of these freaks are even getting their "gender-reassignment surgery" at taxpayers' expense.

I was surprised to see that a number of conservative Republicans are opposing the President's order. Well, I always used to show people my right fist and say, "This is for the Democrats," and my left fist and say "This is for the Republicans!" I really despise the GOP and institutional mainstream conservatism almost as much as I do the Democrats.

All I can say is, "God bless President Trump!" I'd really like him to start his own movement based on patriotism and populism and upend the whole rotten, entrenched two-party system.

As to my comment about the fists, I can recall one female co-worker asking me, "Are you trying to tell me you're into fisting?" I replied, "No, but come to think it over, it wouldn't be a bad way to deal with many of these damned politicians."
 
But frankly, it seems like poverty is the best predictor of criminality. And since this is America, where hard work leads to success (unlike in Europe or East Asia), people who are poor are poor by choice. If we want to make America safe and put America first for the first time since Reagan, we should probably harass anyone with a household income less than 35k until either they stop being poor or they move to a country that doesn't mind crime.

If that were the case, then crime would increase during recessions and decrease during booms.
 
All I can say is, "God bless President Trump!" I'd really like him to start his own movement based on patriotism and populism and upend the whole rotten, entrenched two-party system.

Whilst I share your frustration with entrenched 2 party systems, alternatives such as MMP and similar systems of their ilk can lead lame duck governments and all sorts of internal politicking with list MPs etc. I fear you'd be just opening a whole other can of worms if there was any attempt to overhaul the current system. It would just give the weasels even more wriggle room to game the system whilst all the kinks were ironed out and the pork barrelling would be a sight to behold.

Also, I am genuinely baffled by the sports fan mentality that people seem to bring with them into supporting political parties/candidates. Each person has a set of values, a set of unique personal circumstances and finances that should determine how they vote, no? Find the candidate that best aligns your set of values and cast your vote their way. That doesn't mean you need to back the man to the hilt. That also doesn't mean that people voted for an alternative are idiots.

The name calling and partisanship that goes on from both sides of the spectrum is juvenile in the extreme. The willy waving, the tit for tat sniping and constant claims of the moral high ground just seem like a gross form of pageantry and dare I say it, exactly what the powers the be want. Whilst everyone is feeling smugly superior in comparison to the other side and distracted with the bickering, the people with the true power are busy getting exactly what they want.

With all that said, I'd be interested to hear your alternative to the current status quo is? Perhaps a third party led by Trump or one of his acolytes based on patriotism and populism? In this case I'd ask you to clarify, please. What do you define as being patriotic? How do we test for levels of patriotism? Is that how the leader of the party is chosen? How do we find out if they're a true patriot or not?. For all we know, they could be lying to appear to be more patriotic than they really are. I bet we unearth a bunch of scoundrels hiding in this sweet refuge called patriotism. Anyway, these burning questions are why I'm interested in some clarification. As for now it just sounds like an empty catch cry used to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And I do concede that there are an awful lot of those low information mouth breathing idiots about, surely we should be aiming higher rather than lower, no?

And isn't populism by it's very nature just going to be a bunch of over simplistic solutions to what are truly complex problems? I mean, that's why populism works in the short term. Throw around a few catchy phrases and engage in a bit of sloganeering and, for the love of God, do not go into any details whatsoever. The devil is in the details you see. That's what they'll crucify you on. Problems will arise later on, when swept to victory on a wave of resentment against the establishment and hope that their is some substance to those vague promises made, you're forced to actually find workable solutions to these very tricky and complex issues.

Sorry to call you out, but the two pillars on which you're calling for the third party to be hoisted up upon seem rather flimsy. If a genuine third party wanted to establish itself within the current political system, I think the only chance would be for moderates from both sides to split away and form their own party which appealed to the centre ground. The centre voting block, being afraid of both ends of the political spectrum, would hopefully be willing to break traditional party lines and vote for this third party. That's the only way I could see it being sustainable. Going for the extreme end of either end will lead to an extremely negative campaign and would have to focus on the resentment that those people were feeling. If elected, that resentment would quickly turn back towards the party they just voted in if the solutions to all their problems aren't miraculously solved overnight and I think that the political party would cease to exist in that form as politicians jumped ship and started running for the hills.

At the end of the day I'm not doghouse and not elite so it doesn't really concern me and there's very little I can do to change things. As long as I am left alone enough to make a decent living, still get to sleep with beautiful women, drink good booze and be merry in the company of good friends when time permits and afford the things I need (and don't necessarily need but want from time to time) then I'm a happy camper. Asking for anything beyond that is just greedy. I just enjoy this for what it is - god and pure pantomime theatre.
 
America would be well served by 7 or so parties. Moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, Bernie Sanders liberals, Tea Party, Alt-Right, Leftists, and libertarians. The two party system is broken and ridiculous, on that I think we all agree.

I agree with F&H: I don't think either pillar is a sound basis for a party or political movement.

There is nothing wrong with populism in the sense that it entails concern for the "common man." Neither of our parties have been particularly concerned for the common man of late. Trump isn't either: as I explained to the late great OfficePants, if he were, he'd be focused on how to compensate for blue collar job loss due to improvements in capital (75-85% of job loss) as opposed to that caused by global trade (which is split between factors like offshoring and competition from foreign companies). Or at least talk honestly about this. Like most populist politicians however, Trump uses populist demagoguery as a tool by which to gain and consolidate power. He cares as much about the common man as Hillary Clinton or Jen Bush, and if more, only because they are mechanisms of aggrandizement.

You can be a populist without oversimplifying everything to a tremendous degree, but probably not a very effective one.

Patriotism is wonderful. It's love of one's country and a willingness to defend it and work to improve it. Politicians aside (since they care about getting elected more than improving the country thanks to an attraction-selection-attrition like process as well as poorly set up political structures), I don't think either of the major ideological clusters has a monopoly on that. The whole America First rhetoric gives me a headache because I don't think anyone of any note wants to put anything before America. A microcosm: both sides have $100 to give to charity, and one side wants to give $99 to Americans in need and $1 to Rwandans in need, and the other wants to give $97 to Americans and $3 to Rwandans. Both are putting America first.

Now if it comes to putting American companies before American people....that's another matter entirely.

Regardless, it is a poor pillar for a political party because it prescribes nothing and as an ideology provides little basis for policy. My wife feels safer with a gun in the house. I think that sense of safety, for those who need a gun for it, is a wonderful and precious thing. It makes America better. Others will disagree with me and generally on reasonable principles. I think providing health insurance to the poor, even if it costs those who can afford a few extra bucks a few extra bucks, is wonderful. I wish we did a better job of it. It makes America better. Others will disagree with me and generally on reasonable principles.
 
America would be well served by 7 or so parties. Moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, Bernie Sanders liberals, Tea Party, Alt-Right, Leftists, and libertarians. The two party system is broken and ridiculous, on that I think we all agree.

I agree with F&H: I don't think either pillar is a sound basis for a party or political movement.

There is nothing wrong with populism in the sense that it entails concern for the "common man." Neither of our parties have been particularly concerned for the common man of late. Trump isn't either: as I explained to the late great OfficePants, if he were, he'd be focused on how to compensate for blue collar job loss due to improvements in capital (75-85% of job loss) as opposed to that caused by global trade (which is split between factors like offshoring and competition from foreign companies). Or at least talk honestly about this. Like most populist politicians however, Trump uses populist demagoguery as a tool by which to gain and consolidate power. He cares as much about the common man as Hillary Clinton or Jen Bush, and if more, only because they are mechanisms of aggrandizement.

You can be a populist without oversimplifying everything to a tremendous degree, but probably not a very effective one.

Patriotism is wonderful. It's love of one's country and a willingness to defend it and work to improve it. Politicians aside (since they care about getting elected more than improving the country thanks to an attraction-selection-attrition like process as well as poorly set up political structures), I don't think either of the major ideological clusters has a monopoly on that. The whole America First rhetoric gives me a headache because I don't think anyone of any note wants to put anything before America. A microcosm: both sides have $100 to give to charity, and one side wants to give $99 to Americans in need and $1 to Rwandans in need, and the other wants to give $97 to Americans and $3 to Rwandans. Both are putting America first.

Now if it comes to putting American companies before American people....that's another matter entirely.

Regardless, it is a poor pillar for a political party because it prescribes nothing and as an ideology provides little basis for policy. My wife feels safer with a gun in the house. I think that sense of safety, for those who need a gun for it, is a wonderful and precious thing. It makes America better. Others will disagree with me and generally on reasonable principles. I think providing health insurance to the poor, even if it costs those who can afford a few extra bucks a few extra bucks, is wonderful. I wish we did a better job of it. It makes America better. Others will disagree with me and generally on reasonable principles.

I'd agree with your segmentation of the political divide into roughly those 7 parties. There seems to be enough flavours there for everyone to get what they wanted. However, I think the leftists might choose to brand themselves as the Green Party and run on that platform.

In theory, by having a MMP style system put in place would address the concerns of a lot of the disenfranchised people who feel "left out" or "left behind" by the current system. One of the major stumbling blocks I see with this would be the current climate where bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle is seem as some betrayal to the party. In a MMP style system, there would be coalition governments and the need for co-operation within the left block and right block. From an outsider's perspective, the culture of obstructionist maneuvering being rewarded politically means that this has become well and truly entrenched and wouldn't easily be remedied. I could see both blocs cannibalising one another if the more moderate parties tried to reach any sort of consensus with the moderates on the other side.

The culture of belligerent opposition would hopefully be broken down over time as old loyalties to parties wouldn't be as strong and voters might feel freer to move their support around depending on policies. This would in turn lead politicians to hopefully be more representative of the wants of their constituents. They wouldn't have the luxury of winning votes just because they "aren't Republican" or "aren't Democrat".

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic but I can't see this type of change ever gaining the popular support it would need. It seems that people are really entrenched with the two party system. Like in sports, you need that rival team to hate. Even if your own team is having a shitty season you look forward to the derby to try and win that. Again, it seems like people need that figure of hate. Something to define themselves with by being "not that" other thing. Two party systems are perfect for that. No matter how terribly your side is governing, they can guarantee support due to "not being the other guys". An absolute race to the bottom.

They say we get the government we deserve. I sometimes think that's too harsh as there are quite a few rungs missing on the ladder between top and bottom. However, when I look around at the "average voter" I have to think that this government (wherever one might be) is probably what we deserve. Sad but true. Changing things for the better is just put into the too hard basket.
 
You have to be careful with proportional representation and mass multi-party systems. Here in The Netherlands you end up with a fragmented parliament and no one can form a government. They are all arguing with each other trying to bring such disparate elements as fundamentalist Christians with a Marxist "Green"' party. We also have a party now in parliament that is basically a front for Erdogan.

The first past the post system is best, as you can get things done and you can avoid having to go cap in hand to some lunatic fringe party who have become king maker as you need their votes.

However, I do agree that the political mainstream and liberal consensus has become a dinosaur and is unfit for the reality of our times. Like the legacy media they are hanging on through smoke screens and tricks with chemicals.
 
The problem is that the system is virtually an oligarchy that looks after the interests of the elite.

Trumpism promised to address that.

In practice, Trump has been thwarted on many issues by an entrenched hostile bureaucracy. The appointment of so many Goldman Sachs people is also a very big worry. They only look after themselves.
 
The problem is that the system is virtually an oligarchy that looks after the interests of the elite.
how would multiple parties, in and of themselves, fix this unless the underlying political pimping of votes for dollars scheme dealt with?
 
I am not claiming multiple parties are a solution.

A restriction on the amount of campaign funding would probably do more to prevent the buying of an election result.
 
You have to be careful with proportional representation and mass multi-party systems. Here in The Netherlands you end up with a fragmented parliament and no one can form a government. They are all arguing with each other trying to bring such disparate elements as fundamentalist Christians with a Marxist "Green"' party. We also have a party now in parliament that is basically a front for Erdogan.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

What's happened in American politics is that humans evolved to be religious. Now that we're not so much anymore, we're taking those same inherent behaviors and applying them to our politics. It's insane. Everyone who is on my team is virtuous, everyone on the other side is wicked, and the difference is only what they believe. It's religious thinking applied to politics.
 
You say this like it's a bad thing.

What's happened in American politics is that humans evolved to be religious. Now that we're not so much anymore, we're taking those same inherent behaviors and applying them to our politics. It's insane. Everyone who is on my team is virtuous, everyone on the other side is wicked, and the difference is only what they believe. It's religious thinking applied to politics.

A parliament that cannot make decisions is mere prey. If it cannot function it will fall. Although Belgium is living proof that there are exceptions to the rule.

I think you will find the ungodly alliance between Islamism and the hard Left have pronounced their arrival to plug in the religious fervour gap.

It's our job and mission to thwart them!
 
In Germany any party needs to get 5% of the overall votes to get into any parliament.
A lesson learnt after the Weimarer Republik where they had a lot of small parties in the parliament and nothing could get done.
Sadly, the actual German government seems to have a common goal: Get in as many migrants as humanly possible in a short amount of time. Each side does it for different reasons, but the result is the same.
After the election in September Merkel will still be in power but with a socialist coalition partner (again), so the madness continues.
So having many (or at least more than two) major parties is clearly not the solution. Also, you can only vote for the people on the ballot and even if you don't vote for any of them the system makes sure that some of them get in.
The main problem in the Western world is that more or less every "leader" is under the control of people the vast majority has never seen or heard of.
Right now the only difference between a hardcore dictatorship and the Western democracies is that we vote our dictators into office.
Trump appears to at least try to help the people who voted for him, here in the UK and in the rest of Western Europe nobody gives a fuck what the people want.
 
Right now the only difference between a hardcore dictatorship and the Western democracies is that we vote our dictators into office.
Trump appears to at least try to help the people who voted for him, here in the UK and in the rest of Western Europe nobody gives a fuck what the people want.

1) Having spent time in two actual dictatorships, I can promise you this isn't the case.

2) I also am pretty Trump is "helping" the people who voted for him the same way all politicians help the people who vote for him: symbolic over substance out of a desire to get re-elected and to be liked.

His favorite economic talking point: bringing blue collar jobs back. Not only does has he not addressed the primary cause of job loss in manufacturing, he won't even discuss it. Why? Because it is more difficult to explain (see foxandhound foxandhound 's comment on populism) and because it isn't an effective appeal to pathos.

More of his voters rely on Medicaid and provisions of Obamacare than did Hillary's (if I recall, this is from a Huffington Post piece, so grain of salt, but given the states he won, this seems fairly intuitive), so he's not looking after them in that respect either. But bashing Obamacare (which to be fair is very flawed) is a wonderful way to woo conservative voters.

Immigrants aren't a major threat to his voters. With the Wall, his focus seems to be gangs and gang violence, but the vast majority of Mexican cartels work with American gangs rather than open their own branches because it is cheaper and more efficient to do so (outsourcing!) and American chapters of Mexican gangs, or at least Los Zetas, are predominantly staffed by Americans (easier time crossing back and forth across the border, familiarity with culture and territory, etc). And he needs to focus on gang violence because illegal immigrants as a whole have a lower crime rate than citizens (not because they are more moral but because they need to fly under the radar). But again, provides strong rhetorical appeal.

With all this I am not saying Trump's policies are any worse than those of your typical politicians, only that like typical politicians, his focus is on what can convince people to vote for him, not what will actually help people (though if a politician can help people in a way that doesn't cost them votes, they'll do that, but helping people isn't a primary motivation).

I'm a cynical fellow, and part of me feels that anyone who wants to be elected into an office is probably not worthy of my vote. The exception are politicians who have served in the military: they have a record of serving their country at personal expense and risk, and so when they say they want to be elected because they want to help America, I don't automatically assume they really just want the power and the ego trip of being an elected official.
 
On a lighter note, I feel that at some point in the next month The Mooch is going to give Michael Anton a wedgie

IMG_2924.webp
 

Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon

He started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there.


By Ryan Lizza

4:52 P.M.


Lizza-Scaramucci.jpg

The new White House communications director has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters.

Photograph by Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post / Getty

On Wednesday night, I received a phone call from Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director. He wasn’t happy. Earlier in the night, I’d tweeted, citing a “senior White House official,” that Scaramucci was having dinner at the White House with President Trump, the First Lady, Sean Hannity, and the former Fox News executive Bill Shine. It was an interesting group, and raised some questions. Was Trump getting strategic advice from Hannity? Was he considering hiring Shine? But Scaramucci had his own question—for me.

“Who leaked that to you?” he asked. I said I couldn’t give him that information. He responded by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. “What I’m going to do is, I will eliminate everyone in the comms team and we’ll start over,” he said. I laughed, not sure if he really believed that such a threat would convince a journalist to reveal a source. He continued to press me and complain about the staff he’s inherited in his new job. “I ask these guys not to leak anything and they can’t help themselves,” he said. “You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”

In Scaramucci’s view, the fact that word of the dinner had reached a reporter was evidence that his rivals in the West Wing, particularly Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, were plotting against him. While they have publiclymaintained that there is no bad blood between them, Scaramucci and Priebus have been feuding for months. After the election, Trump asked Scaramucci to join his Administration, and Scaramucci soldhis company, SkyBridge Capital, in anticipation of taking on a senior role. But Priebus didn’t want him in the White House, and successfully blockedhim for being appointed to a job until last week, when Trump offered him the communications job over Priebus’s vehement objections. In response to Scaramucci’s appointment, Sean Spicer, an ally of Priebus’s, resigned his position as press secretary. And in an additional slight to Priebus, the White House’s official announcement of Scaramucci’s hiring noted that he would report directly to the President, rather than to the chief of staff.

Scaramucci’s first public appearance as communications director was a slick and conciliatory performance at the lectern in the White House briefing room last Friday. He suggested it was time for the White House to turn a page. But since then, he has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters. Michael Short, a White House press aide considered close to Priebus, resigned on Tuesday after Scaramucci publicly spoke about firing him. Meanwhile, several damaging stories about Scaramucci have appeared in the press, and he blamed Priebus for most of them. Now, he wanted to know whom I had been talking to about his dinner with the President. Scaramucci, who initiated the call, did not ask for the conversation to be off the record or on background.

“Is it an assistant to the President?” he asked. I again told him I couldn’t say. “O.K., I’m going to fire every one of them, and then you haven’t protected anybody, so the entire place will be fired over the next two weeks.”

I asked him why it was so important for the dinner to be kept a secret. Surely, I said, it would become public at some point. “I’ve asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period,” he said. “They won’t do it.” He was getting more and more worked up, and he eventually convinced himself that Priebus was my source.

“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn’t been invited. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ” (Priebus did not respond to a request for comment.)

Scaramucci was particularly incensed by a Politico report about his financial-disclosure form, which he viewed as an illegal act of retaliation by Priebus. The reporter said Thursday morning that the document was publicly available and she had obtained it from the Export-Import Bank. Scaramucci didn’t know this at the time, and he insisted to me that Priebus had leaked the document, and that the act was “a felony.”

“I’ve called the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice,” he told me.

“Are you serious?” I asked.

“The swamp will not defeat him,” he said, breaking into the third person. “They’re trying to resist me, but it’s not going to work. I’ve done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they’re going to have to go fuck themselves.”

Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)

He reiterated that Priebus would resign soon, and he noted that he told Trump that he expected Priebus to launch a campaign against him. “He didn’t get the hint that I was reporting directly to the President,” he said. “And I said to the President here are the four or five things that he will do to me.” His list of allegations included leaking the Hannity dinner and the details from his financial-disclosure form.

I got the sense that Scaramucci’s campaign against leakers flows from his intense loyalty to Trump. Unlike other Trump advisers, I’ve never heard him say a bad word about the President. “What I want to do is I want to fucking kill all the leakers and I want to get the President’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he told me.

He cryptically suggested that he had more information about White House aides. “O.K., the Mooch showed up a week ago,” he said. “This is going to get cleaned up very shortly, O.K.? Because I nailed these guys. I’ve got digital fingerprints on everything they’ve done through the F.B.I. and the fucking Department of Justice.”

“What?” I interjected.

“Well, the felony, they’re gonna get prosecuted, probably, for the felony.” He added, “The lie detector starts—” but then he changed the subject and returned to what he thought was the illegal leak of his financial-disclosure forms. I asked if the President knew all of this.

“Well, he doesn’t know the extent of all that, he knows about some of that, but he’ll know about the rest of it first thing tomorrow morning when I see him.”

Scaramucci said he had to get going. “Yeah, let me go, though, because I’ve gotta start tweeting some shit to make this guy crazy.”

Minutes later, he tweeted, “In light of the leak of my financial info which is a felony. I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45.” With the addition of Priebus’s Twitter handle, he was making public what he had just told me: that he believed Priebus was leaking information about him. The tweet quickly went viral.

Scaramucci seemed to have second thoughts. Within two hours he deleted the original tweet and posted a new one denying that he was targeting the chief of staff. “Wrong!” he said, adding a screenshot of an Axios article that said, “Scaramucci appears to want Priebus investigated by FBI.” Scaramucci continued, “Tweet was public notice to leakers that all Sr Adm officials are helping to end illegal leaks. @Reince45.”

A few hours later, I appeared on CNN to discuss the overnight drama. As I was talking about Scaramucci, he called into the show himself and referenced our conversation. He changed his story about Priebus. Instead of saying that he was trying to expose Priebus as a leaker, he said that the reason he mentioned Priebus in his deleted tweet was because he wanted to work together with Priebus to discover the leakers.

“He’s the chief of staff, he’s responsible for understanding and uncovering and helping me do that inside the White House, which is why I put that tweet out last night,” Scaramucci said, after noting that he had talked to me Wednesday night. He then made an argument that journalists were assuming that he was accusing Priebus because they know Priebus leaks to the press.

“When I put out a tweet, and I put Reince’s name in the tweet,” he said, “they’re all making the assumption that it’s him because journalists know who the leakers are. So, if Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that.”

Scaramucci then made a plea to viewers. “Let me tell you something about myself,” he said. “I am a straight shooter.”
 
Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon
He started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there.


By Ryan Lizza

4:52 P.M.


Lizza-Scaramucci.jpg

The new White House communications director has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters.

Photograph by Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post / Getty

On Wednesday night, I received a phone call from Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director. He wasn’t happy. Earlier in the night, I’d tweeted, citing a “senior White House official,” that Scaramucci was having dinner at the White House with President Trump, the First Lady, Sean Hannity, and the former Fox News executive Bill Shine. It was an interesting group, and raised some questions. Was Trump getting strategic advice from Hannity? Was he considering hiring Shine? But Scaramucci had his own question—for me.

“Who leaked that to you?” he asked. I said I couldn’t give him that information. He responded by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. “What I’m going to do is, I will eliminate everyone in the comms team and we’ll start over,” he said. I laughed, not sure if he really believed that such a threat would convince a journalist to reveal a source. He continued to press me and complain about the staff he’s inherited in his new job. “I ask these guys not to leak anything and they can’t help themselves,” he said. “You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”

In Scaramucci’s view, the fact that word of the dinner had reached a reporter was evidence that his rivals in the West Wing, particularly Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, were plotting against him. While they have publiclymaintained that there is no bad blood between them, Scaramucci and Priebus have been feuding for months. After the election, Trump asked Scaramucci to join his Administration, and Scaramucci soldhis company, SkyBridge Capital, in anticipation of taking on a senior role. But Priebus didn’t want him in the White House, and successfully blockedhim for being appointed to a job until last week, when Trump offered him the communications job over Priebus’s vehement objections. In response to Scaramucci’s appointment, Sean Spicer, an ally of Priebus’s, resigned his position as press secretary. And in an additional slight to Priebus, the White House’s official announcement of Scaramucci’s hiring noted that he would report directly to the President, rather than to the chief of staff.

Scaramucci’s first public appearance as communications director was a slick and conciliatory performance at the lectern in the White House briefing room last Friday. He suggested it was time for the White House to turn a page. But since then, he has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters. Michael Short, a White House press aide considered close to Priebus, resigned on Tuesday after Scaramucci publicly spoke about firing him. Meanwhile, several damaging stories about Scaramucci have appeared in the press, and he blamed Priebus for most of them. Now, he wanted to know whom I had been talking to about his dinner with the President. Scaramucci, who initiated the call, did not ask for the conversation to be off the record or on background.

“Is it an assistant to the President?” he asked. I again told him I couldn’t say. “O.K., I’m going to fire every one of them, and then you haven’t protected anybody, so the entire place will be fired over the next two weeks.”

I asked him why it was so important for the dinner to be kept a secret. Surely, I said, it would become public at some point. “I’ve asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period,” he said. “They won’t do it.” He was getting more and more worked up, and he eventually convinced himself that Priebus was my source.

“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn’t been invited. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ” (Priebus did not respond to a request for comment.)

Scaramucci was particularly incensed by a Politico report about his financial-disclosure form, which he viewed as an illegal act of retaliation by Priebus. The reporter said Thursday morning that the document was publicly available and she had obtained it from the Export-Import Bank. Scaramucci didn’t know this at the time, and he insisted to me that Priebus had leaked the document, and that the act was “a felony.”

“I’ve called the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice,” he told me.

“Are you serious?” I asked.

“The swamp will not defeat him,” he said, breaking into the third person. “They’re trying to resist me, but it’s not going to work. I’ve done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they’re going to have to go fuck themselves.”

Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)

He reiterated that Priebus would resign soon, and he noted that he told Trump that he expected Priebus to launch a campaign against him. “He didn’t get the hint that I was reporting directly to the President,” he said. “And I said to the President here are the four or five things that he will do to me.” His list of allegations included leaking the Hannity dinner and the details from his financial-disclosure form.

I got the sense that Scaramucci’s campaign against leakers flows from his intense loyalty to Trump. Unlike other Trump advisers, I’ve never heard him say a bad word about the President. “What I want to do is I want to fucking kill all the leakers and I want to get the President’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he told me.

He cryptically suggested that he had more information about White House aides. “O.K., the Mooch showed up a week ago,” he said. “This is going to get cleaned up very shortly, O.K.? Because I nailed these guys. I’ve got digital fingerprints on everything they’ve done through the F.B.I. and the fucking Department of Justice.”

“What?” I interjected.

“Well, the felony, they’re gonna get prosecuted, probably, for the felony.” He added, “The lie detector starts—” but then he changed the subject and returned to what he thought was the illegal leak of his financial-disclosure forms. I asked if the President knew all of this.

“Well, he doesn’t know the extent of all that, he knows about some of that, but he’ll know about the rest of it first thing tomorrow morning when I see him.”

Scaramucci said he had to get going. “Yeah, let me go, though, because I’ve gotta start tweeting some shit to make this guy crazy.”

Minutes later, he tweeted, “In light of the leak of my financial info which is a felony. I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45.” With the addition of Priebus’s Twitter handle, he was making public what he had just told me: that he believed Priebus was leaking information about him. The tweet quickly went viral.

Scaramucci seemed to have second thoughts. Within two hours he deleted the original tweet and posted a new one denying that he was targeting the chief of staff. “Wrong!” he said, adding a screenshot of an Axios article that said, “Scaramucci appears to want Priebus investigated by FBI.” Scaramucci continued, “Tweet was public notice to leakers that all Sr Adm officials are helping to end illegal leaks. @Reince45.”

A few hours later, I appeared on CNN to discuss the overnight drama. As I was talking about Scaramucci, he called into the show himself and referenced our conversation. He changed his story about Priebus. Instead of saying that he was trying to expose Priebus as a leaker, he said that the reason he mentioned Priebus in his deleted tweet was because he wanted to work together with Priebus to discover the leakers.

“He’s the chief of staff, he’s responsible for understanding and uncovering and helping me do that inside the White House, which is why I put that tweet out last night,” Scaramucci said, after noting that he had talked to me Wednesday night. He then made an argument that journalists were assuming that he was accusing Priebus because they know Priebus leaks to the press.

“When I put out a tweet, and I put Reince’s name in the tweet,” he said, “they’re all making the assumption that it’s him because journalists know who the leakers are. So, if Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that.”

Scaramucci then made a plea to viewers. “Let me tell you something about myself,” he said. “I am a straight shooter.”

 
Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon
He started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there.


By Ryan Lizza

4:52 P.M.


Lizza-Scaramucci.jpg

The new White House communications director has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters.

Photograph by Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post / Getty

On Wednesday night, I received a phone call from Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director. He wasn’t happy. Earlier in the night, I’d tweeted, citing a “senior White House official,” that Scaramucci was having dinner at the White House with President Trump, the First Lady, Sean Hannity, and the former Fox News executive Bill Shine. It was an interesting group, and raised some questions. Was Trump getting strategic advice from Hannity? Was he considering hiring Shine? But Scaramucci had his own question—for me.

“Who leaked that to you?” he asked. I said I couldn’t give him that information. He responded by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. “What I’m going to do is, I will eliminate everyone in the comms team and we’ll start over,” he said. I laughed, not sure if he really believed that such a threat would convince a journalist to reveal a source. He continued to press me and complain about the staff he’s inherited in his new job. “I ask these guys not to leak anything and they can’t help themselves,” he said. “You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”

In Scaramucci’s view, the fact that word of the dinner had reached a reporter was evidence that his rivals in the West Wing, particularly Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, were plotting against him. While they have publiclymaintained that there is no bad blood between them, Scaramucci and Priebus have been feuding for months. After the election, Trump asked Scaramucci to join his Administration, and Scaramucci soldhis company, SkyBridge Capital, in anticipation of taking on a senior role. But Priebus didn’t want him in the White House, and successfully blockedhim for being appointed to a job until last week, when Trump offered him the communications job over Priebus’s vehement objections. In response to Scaramucci’s appointment, Sean Spicer, an ally of Priebus’s, resigned his position as press secretary. And in an additional slight to Priebus, the White House’s official announcement of Scaramucci’s hiring noted that he would report directly to the President, rather than to the chief of staff.

Scaramucci’s first public appearance as communications director was a slick and conciliatory performance at the lectern in the White House briefing room last Friday. He suggested it was time for the White House to turn a page. But since then, he has become obsessed with leaks and threatened to fire staffers if he discovers that they have given unauthorized information to reporters. Michael Short, a White House press aide considered close to Priebus, resigned on Tuesday after Scaramucci publicly spoke about firing him. Meanwhile, several damaging stories about Scaramucci have appeared in the press, and he blamed Priebus for most of them. Now, he wanted to know whom I had been talking to about his dinner with the President. Scaramucci, who initiated the call, did not ask for the conversation to be off the record or on background.

“Is it an assistant to the President?” he asked. I again told him I couldn’t say. “O.K., I’m going to fire every one of them, and then you haven’t protected anybody, so the entire place will be fired over the next two weeks.”

I asked him why it was so important for the dinner to be kept a secret. Surely, I said, it would become public at some point. “I’ve asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period,” he said. “They won’t do it.” He was getting more and more worked up, and he eventually convinced himself that Priebus was my source.

“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn’t been invited. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ” (Priebus did not respond to a request for comment.)

Scaramucci was particularly incensed by a Politico report about his financial-disclosure form, which he viewed as an illegal act of retaliation by Priebus. The reporter said Thursday morning that the document was publicly available and she had obtained it from the Export-Import Bank. Scaramucci didn’t know this at the time, and he insisted to me that Priebus had leaked the document, and that the act was “a felony.”

“I’ve called the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice,” he told me.

“Are you serious?” I asked.

“The swamp will not defeat him,” he said, breaking into the third person. “They’re trying to resist me, but it’s not going to work. I’ve done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they’re going to have to go fuck themselves.”

Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)

He reiterated that Priebus would resign soon, and he noted that he told Trump that he expected Priebus to launch a campaign against him. “He didn’t get the hint that I was reporting directly to the President,” he said. “And I said to the President here are the four or five things that he will do to me.” His list of allegations included leaking the Hannity dinner and the details from his financial-disclosure form.

I got the sense that Scaramucci’s campaign against leakers flows from his intense loyalty to Trump. Unlike other Trump advisers, I’ve never heard him say a bad word about the President. “What I want to do is I want to fucking kill all the leakers and I want to get the President’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he told me.

He cryptically suggested that he had more information about White House aides. “O.K., the Mooch showed up a week ago,” he said. “This is going to get cleaned up very shortly, O.K.? Because I nailed these guys. I’ve got digital fingerprints on everything they’ve done through the F.B.I. and the fucking Department of Justice.”

“What?” I interjected.

“Well, the felony, they’re gonna get prosecuted, probably, for the felony.” He added, “The lie detector starts—” but then he changed the subject and returned to what he thought was the illegal leak of his financial-disclosure forms. I asked if the President knew all of this.

“Well, he doesn’t know the extent of all that, he knows about some of that, but he’ll know about the rest of it first thing tomorrow morning when I see him.”

Scaramucci said he had to get going. “Yeah, let me go, though, because I’ve gotta start tweeting some shit to make this guy crazy.”

Minutes later, he tweeted, “In light of the leak of my financial info which is a felony. I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45.” With the addition of Priebus’s Twitter handle, he was making public what he had just told me: that he believed Priebus was leaking information about him. The tweet quickly went viral.

Scaramucci seemed to have second thoughts. Within two hours he deleted the original tweet and posted a new one denying that he was targeting the chief of staff. “Wrong!” he said, adding a screenshot of an Axios article that said, “Scaramucci appears to want Priebus investigated by FBI.” Scaramucci continued, “Tweet was public notice to leakers that all Sr Adm officials are helping to end illegal leaks. @Reince45.”

A few hours later, I appeared on CNN to discuss the overnight drama. As I was talking about Scaramucci, he called into the show himself and referenced our conversation. He changed his story about Priebus. Instead of saying that he was trying to expose Priebus as a leaker, he said that the reason he mentioned Priebus in his deleted tweet was because he wanted to work together with Priebus to discover the leakers.

“He’s the chief of staff, he’s responsible for understanding and uncovering and helping me do that inside the White House, which is why I put that tweet out last night,” Scaramucci said, after noting that he had talked to me Wednesday night. He then made an argument that journalists were assuming that he was accusing Priebus because they know Priebus leaks to the press.

“When I put out a tweet, and I put Reince’s name in the tweet,” he said, “they’re all making the assumption that it’s him because journalists know who the leakers are. So, if Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that.”

Scaramucci then made a plea to viewers. “Let me tell you something about myself,” he said. “I am a straight shooter.”
You should send him the Tibor lines. He also needs to start wearing DB's and a large hat to make it more convincing when he says things like "Capisc'" or "baddabum, baddabing!"
 
More of his voters rely on Medicaid and provisions of Obamacare than did Hillary's (if I recall, this is from a Huffington Post piece, so grain of salt, but given the states he won, this seems fairly intuitive), so he's not looking after them in that respect either. But bashing Obamacare (which to be fair is very flawed) is a wonderful way to woo conservative voters.

I was under the impression that these (I assume white) folks voted for Obama the last times (or for whomever promised the most to them).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom