How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?

[kenberg]

The Stormy Daniels dallyance by itself is not that big a deal. If he used campaign funds to pay her off, that's a little more criminal, but not an impeachable offense, either.

 

But this all goes to a pattern of behavior that's indicative of Trump's character. It makes it more credible that he and his family are guilty of much more serious offenses, including the holy grail of collusion with Russia. Dominoes all around him are tumbling, everyone seems to be guilty of something. Could anyone believe that this was all happening without his knowledge? And if that were really true, it would mean that he's a lousy manager, and POTUS is the most important managerial position in the world. So either he's really guilty, or he's even less qualified for his position than we thought.

 

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think it is important to keep it orderly. Impeachment may well lie a head, we should not get ahead of ourselves.

[hrothgar]

Yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

So let us consider the first of these charges:

 

Assume for the the moment that clear evidence is produced showing that Trump ordered a felony violation of campaign finance rules.

1. Michael Cohen has testified under oath that Trump ordered a felony violate of the campaign finance laws
   
2. Michael Cohen has produced tapes corraborating his claims
   
3. Michael Cohen had produced signed receipts documenting that Trump paid money
   
4. Trump has confessed that he personally paid money to Daniels without reporting it.
   

 

As I stated before, this is a felony violated of US campaign finance laws; completely different than when the Obama campaign was fined $350K for missing a filing deadline by two days.

We're talking felonies here that carry 10 year jails terms.

[hrothgar]

Yes. If proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

So let us consider the first of these charges:

 

Assume for the the moment that clear evidence is produced showing that Trump ordered a felony violation of campaign finance rules.

1. Michael Cohen has testified under oath that Trump ordered a felony violate of the campaign finance laws
   
2. Michael Cohen has produced tapes corraborating his claims
   
3. Michael Cohen had produced signed receipts documenting that Trump paid money
   
4. Trump has confessed that he personally paid money to Daniels without reporting it.
   

 

As I stated before, this is a felony violated of US campaign finance laws; completely different than when the Obama campaign was fined $350K for missing a filing deadline by two days.

We're talking felonies here that carry 10 year jails terms.

[Winstonm]

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think it is important to keep it orderly. Impeachment may well lie a head, we should not get ahead of ourselves.

 

The act of impeachment rests on a determination of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors". Many scholars reject the idea that statutory crimes are necessary. For example: (from constitution.org)

 

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

 

 

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

 

It is also argued that to understand "high crimes and misdemeanors" the key word to understand is how the framers understood the word "high" in this context, meaning an act based on a person's position, which is in keeping with the understanding of common law, carried over to our military justice system.

 

By this understanding, failure to adhere to the oath of office could be considered a high crime, while some statutory crimes would not be so.

 

As for campaign finance violations, I am of the opinion that this occurred prior to Dennison taking the oath so he can be tried for it when he leaves office but it is not an impeachable offense; however, he has committed volumes of impeachable offenses by way of breaking his oath "to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed".

 

If Mueller can find evidence of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., that is only icing on a cake that is already quite slimy.

[Chas_P]

So let us consider the first of these charges:

 

 

1. Michael Cohen has testified under oath that Trump ordered a felony violate of the campaign finance laws
   
2. Michael Cohen has produced tapes corraborating his claims
   
3. Michael Cohen had produced signed receipts documenting that Trump paid money
   
4. Trump has confessed that he personally paid money to Daniels without reporting it.
   

 

As I stated before, this is a felony violated of US campaign finance laws; completely different than when the Obama campaign was fined $350K for missing a filing deadline by two days.

We're talking felonies here that carry 10 year jails terms.

 

Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC: "The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.

 

The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.

 

This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted."

[cherdano]

Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC: "The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.

 

The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.

 

This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted."

 

Donald Trump can make a contribution to his own campaign, and the campaign can make a payment to Stormy Daniels for her services. But both have to be documented in the campaign's financial disclosures.

 

I will agree however that the prosecution wouldn't be starting with pocket aces here, and that it's not the worst crime humanity has ever seen. Bit election rules, including financial disclosures, are there for a reason, and someone intentionally breaking them (everyone involved was probably aware that listing a payment to Stormy Daniels Inc. would have defeated the purpose of the exercise) should pay a price.

[Winstonm]

Donald Trump can make a contribution to his own campaign, and the campaign can make a payment to Stormy Daniels for her services. But both have to be documented in the campaign's financial disclosures.

 

 

Not only that, but they conspired with a third party (David Pecker of National Inquirer) to hide the facts and then conspired to hide the payments to National Inquirer by using the Dennison business to make the payments.

 

Here is the kicker, though: Michael Cohen pled guilty. One is not allowed to plead guilty if no crime has been committed. Ergo, Cohen is guilty of a crime. His testimony during sentencing is that Dennison directed him to make the payments and recording show Dennison knew the payments were coming through his corporate accounts: Oops:

 

these payments represent violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Count seven of the indictment references an unlawful corporate contribution regarding a $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal, someone who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with Trump. The payment to McDougal exceeds the strict $5,000 limit on corporate contributions for a general election. Count eight of the indictment charges that Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, another person who allegedly had an extramarital affair with Trump, was also an excessive campaign contribution. The payments to Clifford exceed the strict $2,700 limit on individual contributions for a general election.

 

I am not a lawyer, but it would appear that at best Dennison would be found guilty of conspiracy for his actions, which is still a felony. Question is, is it an impeachable offense?

[kenberg]

Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC: "The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime.

 

The only crime is if a third-party, namely, Cohen, on his own, contributed to a campaign, that would be a campaign contribution. So it is a catch-22 for the prosecution. iI they claim that the president authorized him to do it or directed him to do it, it is not a crime for anybody. If Cohen did it on his own, then it is a crime for Cohen but not the president.

 

This is going to be a very difficult case for the prosecution to make, precisely because the laws on election are so convoluted."

 

I am not a lawyer or any sort of legal expert but I have not heard you say that you re either. I would not place a heavy bet on what you say. I can think of a variety of ways in which this could be a legal problem for Trump, but since I lack legal training, since I don't have access to everything known, and I have not read everything I could read on it, and since I don't intend to, I think I will just leave it as being glad I don't have this problem.

 

I said I would not want an impeachment over Stormy, and I will stick with that. I agreed with Barry, and others, that she is far from the only storm on his horizon.

And I have said, perhaps boringly often, I fundamentally do not think it is at all good to have someone like Trump in the oval office, regardless of his policies. Actually the title of this thread.how could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man, gets to my view. I would paraphrase it as "Ok, he is a dirty, lying cheating scumbag, but we like him". I don't.

 

It really is almost that simple. I expect this not to end well. Maybe in impeachment, maybe in a serious constitutional crisis, I don't know. Just not well.

 

[Winstonm]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch WaPo reports:

 

An American political consultant who is cooperating with federal prosecutors admitted in court Friday that he steered $50,000 from a Ukrainian politician to President Trump’s inaugural committee — the first public confirmation that illegal foreign money was used to help fund the January 2017 event.

 

W. Samuel Patten, 47, pleaded guilty Friday to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist while working on behalf of a Ukrainian political party. He says he was helped by a Russian national who has been linked to Russian intelligence by U.S. prosecutors and who was also an associate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

 

As part of his plea deal, Patten agreed to assist prosecutors, including special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

 

And another one's gone and another one's gone

Another one bites the dust!

[Chas_P]

Donald Trump can make a contribution to his own campaign, and the campaign can make a payment to Stormy Daniels for her services. But both have to be documented in the campaign's financial disclosures.

 

I will agree however that the prosecution wouldn't be starting with pocket aces here, and that it's not the worst crime humanity has ever seen. Bit election rules, including financial disclosures, are there for a reason, and someone intentionally breaking them (everyone involved was probably aware that listing a payment to Stormy Daniels Inc. would have defeated the purpose of the exercise) should pay a price.

 

 

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.

 

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

 

So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome.

 

As Dershowitz says, the law is convoluted. There has been only one instance of the Justice Department prosecuting someone for a campaign finance violation....John Edwards in 2012 for paying his mistress $1M from campaign funds. Justice lost the case. Edwards was acquitted on one count and a mistrial was declared on five other counts.

[Chas_P]

I am not a lawyer or any sort of legal expert but I have not heard you say that you re either. I would not place a heavy bet on what you say.

 

I didn't say anything. I just posted, verbatim, what Alan Dershowitz said. So place your bet either with or against him. :rolleyes:

[kenberg]

I didn't say anything. I just posted, verbatim, what Alan Dershowitz said. So place your bet either with or against him. :rolleyes:

 

I'm cautious, so no bet either way. One interesting idea I saw, but I cannot vouch for the accuracy. As I heard it, the payment to the two women, plus some more money to Cohen for services and, expenses, and maybe a bonus, came to something over $400K. Common semse, although maybe not the law, would suggest that amounts matter. 400K is much more than the cost of a suit. But the real point was how the money went to Cohen. I heard it came not from Trump's pocket directly but from his business, listed as a legal expense since it went to his lawyer. If this legal expanse figured into the tax filings of the business, the IRS would be interested. Stormy's costumes might well be tax deductible but a business man's suit isn't, and paying off his playmates definitely isn't.

But them there is the problem. I have no real idea how this money was funneled. And I don't all that much want to think about it. But if the lawyers get into this, they will be thinking about many things, there will be plenty even of what I just said is bogus. I have gone through life having only rarely needed a lawyer for anything, and never needing one to stay out of jail. So my approach is sort of "Fine, let me know when you guys work this all out". As the song goes in Chicago "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times". Could work.

 

Perhaps Trump's biggest vulnerability is that he has been getting away with a lot for fifty years. He is playing in a tougher game now. Manafort, Trump, the lot of them. They get away with it as long as nobody really puts up the concentrated resources needed to do what has to be done. Some casino guy runs in a shady crowd, yeah, sure, but there are other fish to fry. The pres? That gets noticed.

 

[hrothgar]

Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.

 

As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, that could include “buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage.”

 

So the campaign finance law specifies that such personal expenses are not considered campaign-related expenses even though they might “influence” the election outcome.

 

All of this is true, however, the Trump campaign initially rejected rejected Daniels requests for payments.

They reversed this decision once the Access Hollywood tapes were leaked which establishes a clear linkage between the expenditure and the campaign.

 

As Dershowitz says, the law is convoluted. There has been only one instance of the Justice Department prosecuting someone for a campaign finance violation....John Edwards in 2012 for paying his mistress $1M from campaign funds. Justice lost the case. Edwards was acquitted on one count and a mistrial was declared on five other counts.

 

This ignores the successful conviction of John Rowlands

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/how-to-build-a-campaign-finance-case-against-donald-trump-and-michael-cohen.html

[cherdano]

As Dershowitz says, the law is convoluted. There has been only one instance of the Justice Department prosecuting someone for a campaign finance violation....John Edwards in 2012 for paying his mistress $1M from campaign funds. Justice lost the case. Edwards was acquitted on one count and a mistrial was declared on five other counts.

 

So, I assume you also know of the obvious differences between the two cases? [spoiler=Hint]Aside from the timing, we also have (1) the testimony of a close associate that Trump personally instructed him to make these payments (an Edwards defense witness testified Edwards was surprised to find out about the payment), (2) with the purpose of mitigating the Access Hollywood fallout before the election, and (3) a tape where Trump discusses the payment in the context of discussion about the campaign.

If so, it seems rather astonishing that you forgot to mention these obvious differences. Maybe you are, actually, not interested in presenting a balanced view of the facts?

Or maybe you didn't know about these differences - well then maybe you should reconsider the sources you use to inform yourself?

[hrothgar]

 

> There has been only one instance of the Justice Department prosecuting someone for

> a campaign finance violation....John Edwards in 2012 for paying his mistress $1M from campaign funds.

 

This ignores the successful conviction of John Rowlands

 

 

And, of course, as Winston noted: Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of illegal campaign contributions related to payments to women

Seems as if this should count as a Justice department prosecution...

 

The only question left is whether Trump himsef can be charged, and this is ONLY a question because of his special status as President and justice department traditions about not indicting a sitting President.

[hrothgar]

Crooked Media has an interesting take some new poll results

 

 

You wouldn’t know it from mainstream news coverage, but President Trump’s efforts to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller have largely failed. The public actually cares a great deal both about whether his campaign conspired with Russia to subvert a U.S.election, and about his corruption more generally.

 

 

 

A new poll from ABC News and the Washington Post underscores how wrong the conventional wisdom about the Russia investigation has been—and how misguided the media’s obsessions with Trump’s loyal base is.

 

 

 

The survey finds that 63 percent of adults support Mueller’s investigation, and that nearly all of these supporters strongly support it. Only 29 percent of adults oppose it, and nearly all of those are self-identified Republicans.

 

 

 

The full breakdown is even more damning. Independents support Mueller 67-24, and even after a year of insisting that the Russia investigation is a witch hunt, that the FBI and Justice Department are out to get him, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is conflicted, and that his team is corrupt, nearly a third of Republicans nevertheless support the probe.

 

 

 

These results closely track the poll’s findings across a range of Russia-related issues. The public believes Trump has obstructed justice, supports the prosecution of Paul Manafort, opposes Trump’s brewing plan to pardon him, believes Attorney General Jeff Sessions was right to let the investigation proceed, and thinks Trump committed a crime by buying his mistresses’ silence before the election.

 

 

 

A large plurality, 45 percent, believe Trump has made political corruption worse, while only 13 percent believe he has decreased corruption. (Don’t stop to think about that 13 percent too much. Imagine believing he’s taken on corruption!)

[Winstonm]

The question of "why" continue the Russia investigation is answered thusly: (WaPo and others report - emphasis added)

 

Papadopoulos’s lawyers argued that he has volunteered information in an effort to help — such as describing a March 31, 2016, meeting he attended with Trump and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions where Papadopoulos announced soon after introducing himself that he could get Trump a meeting with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

 

 

For the first time, Papadopoulos’s lawyers revealed that the young adviser felt encouraged by Trump to continue those efforts, writing in the court filing that “Mr. Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr. Sessions, who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it.”

 

That account conflicts with what Sessions, now attorney general, testified to Congress.

 

This account diametrically opposes the account of Sessions, who claimed to Congressional investigators that he immediately shut down the idea of meeting with Putin.

[Winstonm]

The question of "why" continue the Russia investigation is answered thusly: (WaPo and others report - emphasis added)

 

Papadopoulos’s lawyers argued that he has volunteered information in an effort to help — such as describing a March 31, 2016, meeting he attended with Trump and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions where Papadopoulos announced soon after introducing himself that he could get Trump a meeting with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

 

 

For the first time, Papadopoulos’s lawyers revealed that the young adviser felt encouraged by Trump to continue those efforts, writing in the court filing that “Mr. Trump nodded with approval and deferred to Mr. Sessions, who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it.”

 

That account conflicts with what Sessions, now attorney general, testified to Congress.

 

This account diametrically opposes the account of Sessions, who claimed to Congressional investigators that he immediately shut down the idea of meeting with Putin.

 

From The Guardian:

 

“Yes, I pushed back,” Sessions told the House judiciary committee when asked if he shut down Papadopoulos’s proposal. Sessions has since been interviewed by Mueller.

 

Three people who attended the March meeting said they gave their version of events to FBI agents or congressional investigators working on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Although the accounts they provided differed in certain respects, all three, who declined to be identified, said Sessions expressed no objections to Papadopoulos’s idea.

 

This meeting may explain the problem Dennison has with ridding himself of "this meddlesome priest" - Jeff Sessions. It appears Sessions has felonious exposure, lying to the FBI and lying to Congress, and Mueller will most likely pounce on Sessions should he be removed as AG. If that happened, Sessions would no doubt flip in an instant to limit his liability.

 

This more than anything explains why Dennison cannot fire Sessions.

[PassedOut]

Alex Jones, right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump's buddy, is being sued by the parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim after Jones repeatedly claimed that the Sandy Hook shootings were fake: Sandy Hook families v Alex Jones: Defamation case explained

 

Here's Jones' defense:

 

The media mogul's defence team claims that it is his constitutional right to invent stories and that no reasonable person would take Mr Jones' words as fact.

True, but he has a large audience of suckers who do, some violent.

B-)

[Winstonm]

Alex Jones, right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump's buddy, is being sued by the parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim after Jones repeatedly claimed that the Sandy Hook shootings were fake: Sandy Hook families v Alex Jones: Defamation case explained

 

Here's Jones' defense:

 

 

True, but he has a large audience of suckers who do, some violent.

B-)

 

The question is: how do reasonable people fight the disinformation from sources such as Jones when President Dennison leads a type of credibility to him by allowing himself to be interviewed by Jones and quoting Jones in tweets and speeches?

[Winstonm]

Here, in one simple paragraph, is the entirety of the opposition the Democratic party must find a way to overcome if they are to regain some kind of balance in our state and federal governments.

 

 

Republican voters are primed and ready to hear that message, because the rhetoric of race on the right — particularly as propagated by Fox News and conservative talk radio — says that white people are the only racially oppressed group in America, and one key manifestation of that oppression comes in the form of snooty liberals such as Warren showering benefits on “ungrateful” minorities. The fact that, in the false story Trump tells, it is Warren herself who was supposedly the beneficiary is an unimportant detail; all Trump has to do is shout “Affirmative action!” and all the right buttons will be pushed. As we should well understand by now, the chances Trump will run a vicious negative campaign based on feeding and encouraging white racial resentment when he runs for reelection — no matter who the Democratic nominee turns out to be — are approximately 99.99 percent.

 

And, as it turns out, state primaries are turning out to be referendums for support of this president and his white only views.

[Al_U_Card]

And, as it turns out, state primaries are turning out to be referendums for support of this president and his $green$ only views.

Does e-money have a color?

[Winstonm]

Question I have is when does Jeff Sessions switch sides?

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump escalated his attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday, suggesting the Department of Justice put Republicans in midterm jeopardy with recent indictments of two GOP congressmen.

 

In his latest broadside against the Justice Department's traditional independence, Trump tweeted that "Obama era investigations, of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department."

 

He added: "Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......"

 

From personal experience when I attended for one semester in 1970 an Evangelical college, there is not much more infuriating than being falsely accused. I would think Jeff Sessions would be close to his tipping point by now.

 

Here's another take - this from Huffington Post - on the same Labor Day tirade:

 

President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Labor Day to once again air his disdain for Attorney General Jeff Sessions the rule of law.

 

FTP

[barmar]

Does e-money have a color?

#008000

[PassedOut]

Looks like Woodward's new book fleshes out the details of how we all knew life in the White House is like these days: Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency

 

The 448-page book was obtained by The Washington Post. Woodward, an associate editor at The Post, sought an interview with Trump through several intermediaries to no avail. The president called Woodward in early August, after the manuscript had been completed, to say he wanted to participate. The president complained that it would be a “bad book,” according to an audio recording of the conversation. Woodward replied that his work would be “tough,” but factual and based on his reporting.

 

A central theme of the book is the stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters, both for the president personally and for the nation he was elected to lead.

 

Woodward describes “an administrative coup d’etat” and a “nervous breakdown” of the executive branch, with senior aides conspiring to pluck official papers from the president’s desk so he couldn’t see or sign them.

 

Again and again, Woodward recounts at length how Trump’s national security team was shaken by his lack of curiosity and knowledge about world affairs and his contempt for the mainstream perspectives of military and intelligence leaders.

 

At a National Security Council meeting on Jan. 19, Trump disregarded the significance of the massive U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula, including a special intelligence operation that allows the United States to detect a North Korean missile launch in seven seconds vs. 15 minutes from Alaska, according to Woodward. Trump questioned why the government was spending resources in the region at all.

 

“We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told him.

 

After Trump left the meeting, Woodward recounts, “Mattis was particularly exasperated and alarmed, telling close associates that the president acted like — and had the understanding of — ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader.’ ”

 

In Woodward’s telling, many top advisers were repeatedly unnerved by Trump’s actions and expressed dim views of him. “Secretaries of defense don’t always get to choose the president they work for,” Mattis told friends at one point, prompting laughter as he explained Trump’s tendency to go off on tangents about subjects such as immigration and the news media.

 

Inside the White House, Woodward portrays an unsteady executive detached from the conventions of governing and prone to snapping at high-ranking staff members, whom he unsettled and belittled on a daily basis.

 

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly frequently lost his temper and told colleagues that he thought the president was “unhinged,” Woodward writes. In one small group meeting, Kelly said of Trump: “He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

 

Reince Priebus, Kelly’s predecessor, fretted that he could do little to constrain Trump from sparking chaos. Woodward writes that Priebus dubbed the presidential bedroom, where Trump obsessively watched cable news and tweeted, “the devil’s workshop,” and said early mornings and Sunday evenings, when the president often set off tweetstorms, were “the witching hour.”

 

Trump apparently had little regard for Priebus. He once instructed then-staff secretary Rob Porter to ignore Priebus, even though Porter reported to the chief of staff, saying that Priebus was “‘like a little rat. He just scurries around.’”

 

Few in Trump’s orbit were protected from the president’s insults. He often mocked former national security adviser H.R. McMaster behind his back, puffing up his chest and exaggerating his breathing as he impersonated the retired Army general, and once said McMaster dresses in cheap suits, “like a beer salesman.”

 

Trump told Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a wealthy investor eight years his senior: “I don’t trust you. I don’t want you doing any more negotiations. … You’re past your prime.”

 

A near-constant subject of withering presidential attacks was Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump told Porter that Sessions was a “traitor” for recusing himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, Woodward writes. Mocking Sessions’s accent, Trump added, “This guy is mentally retarded. He’s this dumb Southerner. … He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”

 

At a dinner with Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, Trump lashed out at a vocal critic, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He falsely suggested that the former Navy pilot had been a coward for taking early release from a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam because of his father’s military rank and leaving others behind.

 

Mattis swiftly corrected his boss: “No, Mr. President, I think you’ve got it reversed.” The defense secretary explained that McCain, who died Aug. 25, had in fact turned down early release and was brutally tortured during his five years at the Hanoi Hilton.

 

“Oh, okay,” Trump replied, according to Woodward’s account.

 

With Trump’s rage and defiance impossible to contain, Cabinet members and other senior officials learned to act discreetly. Woodward describes an alliance among Trump’s traditionalists — including Mattis and Gary Cohn, the president’s former top economic adviser — to stymie what they considered dangerous acts.

 

“It felt like we were walking along the edge of the cliff perpetually,” Porter is quoted as saying. “Other times, we would fall over the edge, and an action would be taken.”

 

After Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad launched a chemical attack on civilians in April 2017, Trump called Mattis and said he wanted to assassinate the dictator. “Let’s ***** kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the ***** lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward.

 

Mattis told the president that he would get right on it. But after hanging up the phone, he told a senior aide: “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.” The national security team developed options for the more conventional airstrike that Trump ultimately ordered.

 

Cohn, a Wall Street veteran, tried to tamp down Trump’s strident nationalism regarding trade. According to Woodward, Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Cohn later told an associate that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump did not notice that it was missing.

 

Cohn made a similar play to prevent Trump from pulling the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, something the president has long threatened to do. In spring 2017, Trump was eager to withdraw from NAFTA and told Porter: “Why aren’t we getting this done? Do your job. It’s tap, tap, tap. You’re just tapping me along. I want to do this.”

 

Under orders from the president, Porter drafted a notification letter withdrawing from NAFTA. But he and other advisers worried that it could trigger an economic and foreign relations crisis. So Porter consulted Cohn, who told him, according to Woodward: “I can stop this. I’ll just take the paper off his desk.”

 

Despite repeated threats by Trump, the United States has remained in both pacts. The administration continues to negotiate new terms with South Korea as well as with its NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico.

 

Cohn came to regard the president as “a professional liar” and threatened to resign in August 2017 over Trump’s handling of a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. Cohn, who is Jewish, was especially shaken when one of his daughters found a swastika on her college dorm room.

 

Trump was sharply criticized for initially saying that “both sides” were to blame. At the urging of advisers, he then condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis, but almost immediately told aides, “That was the biggest ***** mistake I’ve made” and the “worst speech I’ve ever given,” according to Woodward’s account.

 

When Cohn met with Trump to deliver his resignation letter after Charlottesville, the president told him, “This is treason,” and persuaded his economic adviser to stay on. Kelly then confided to Cohn that he shared Cohn’s horror at Trump’s handling of the tragedy — and shared Cohn’s fury with Trump.

 

“I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times,” Kelly told Cohn, according to Woodward. Kelly himself has threatened to quit several times, but has not done so.

I always want both parties to nominate their best candidate because there's always a chance that either could be elected. This is what happens when a party makes a disastrous presidential nomination and then the long-shot comes home.

 

I don't really hate Trump--he's just an incompetent doofus in way over his head, but that should have been apparent to everyone well before the nomination. The primary elections have gotten rid of the nominations decided in "smoke-filled rooms," as was common when I was a kid, and that is generally a good thing. But there's also a risk involved, as this past election has made clear.