Bluelight

Thread: The Revolving Door of Trump's Appointees

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. Collapse Details
    The Revolving Door of Trump's Appointees 
    #1
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Since so many departures are typical Trump, I thought we could discuss them here.

    I'll start with stories about the following:
    a) the guy who is most likely to be appointed as the new Attorney General,
    b) the unceremonious announcement about the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    c) the replacement female for another female as UN Ambassador and
    d) rumors swirling around the imminent departure of Chief of Staff John Kelly.

    Let's dig in!

    Trump nominee William Barr pushed for the death penalty to ?send a message to drug dealers?

    William P. Barr, the former attorney general under George H. W. Bush, could be returning to his old job, after Donald Trump nominated him today (Dec. 7) to fill the position held by Jeff Sessions.

    Barr, who served as attorney general from 1991 until 1993, was a staunch proponent of the death penalty, and pushed hard to get a Bush-backed bill that would have expanded the types of crime that could punished by execution.

    What Barr, who has been a Verizon employee and a private attorney since he left Bush?s administration, believes now about the death penalty isn?t clear yet. But he?s sure to be questioned about it during the Senate confirmation process, which is expected to start in January.


    Sending a message to drug dealers

    Barr?s rationale for stricter death penalty laws was that they would reduce crime, including drug trafficking, as he explained in a 1991 op-ed in The New York Times:

    We need a death penalty to deter and punish the most heinous Federal crimes such as terrorist killings. That penalty would send a message to drug dealers and gangs.

    The need for a death penalty was highlighted by the recent hostage crisis at the Federal prison at Talladega, Ala. Detainees, faced with deportation to Cuba, seized control of the prison and held 10 Federal officers hostage. The prisoners threatened to kill them unless the Justice Department granted their demands to remain in the U.S. Fortunately, no one was killed, and the prisoners were deported. If the crime bill had been law, the prisoners would have faced the death penalty for killing a hostage, increasing the chances our personnel would be recovered safely.

    He also argued that death row inmates? ability to challenge their sentences should be limited, to avoid cases dragging on for years. ?This lack of finality devastates the criminal justice system. It diminishes the deterrent effect of state criminal laws, saps state prosecutorial resources and continually reopens the wounds of victims and survivors,? he wrote in the op-ed.

    The exact Bush bill that Barr was backing never passed. But in a sign of attitudes at the time, Democratic president Bill Clinton signed into law a massive federal crime bill just three years later that included sixty new death penalty offenses, including ?terrorism, murder of a federal law enforcement officer, civil rights-related murders, drive-by shootings resulting in death, the use of weapons of mass destruction resulting in death, and carjackings resulting in death,? Politico reported.

    Shifting views on the death penalty

    In the years since, however, the use of the death penalty in the US has plummeted. The exoneration of dozens of inmates on death row, thanks in part to the increased use of DNA in appeals and investigations, has led to a reexamination of the practice. Overwhelming evidence of racial prejudice in death penalty trials and sentencing has led three states to abolish the death penalty outright. Barr and Bush?s own speechwriter, Mary Kate Cary, denounced it in a 2011 op-ed in USNews titled ?The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty.?

    Every day, it seems the newspapers have another story about a wrongfully convicted person being released, often after serving decades in jail. Just last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell released a man from prison who had served 27 years for rapes he did not commit. DNA testing cleared him.

    As I said, it?s hard to turn your back on innocent people whose lives have been destroyed.

    It?s becoming harder to justify the death penalty in the face of evidence that our system is flawed.

    If Barr is confirmed, the issue of execution as a deterrent to drug-related crimes is sure to resurface. Barr?s daughter Mary Daly was appointed by Trump as the top Department of Justice official on opioid crimes this year. As president, Trump has advocated for the death penalty for drug traffickers who caused the crisis, but it is unclear whether he means the pharmaceutical executives who pushed prescription opioids, or the people distributing illegal opioids.
    It looks like William Barr will be confirmed as the new Attorney General after the 2020 Democratic candidates-to-be for the presidency grill him.

    I'm guessing, but I think he'll have a problem with drug users, because common sense.

    Also, he favors empowering the executive branch to an extent that is almost absolute. I'm guessing Trump likes that in him. Just a guess.
    Last edited by cduggles; 08-12-2018 at 22:39. Reason: Changing the message :)
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    More on Barr and executive power in the following excerpt:

    Trump Weighs Bringing Back William Barr as Attorney General

    ...Mr. Barr developed a reputation as a proponent of a sweeping theory of the president’s constitutional authority to act without congressional permission or in defiance of statutes.

    In July 1989, shortly after his appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barr sent an apparently unsolicited 10-page memo to top agency and department lawyers across the executive branch urging vigilance in pushing back against ways in which Congress might try to intrude on what he saw as the rightful powers of the president. It covered topics such as “attempts to gain access to sensitive executive branch information” and efforts to limit a president’s power to fire a subordinate official without a good cause.

    “It is important that all of us be familiar with each of these forms of encroachment on the executive’s constitutional authority,” Mr. Barr wrote. “Only by consistently and forcefully resisting such congressional incursions can executive branch prerogatives be preserved.”

    Still, he also said that in his experience, he confronted no conflicts between his duty to uphold the law and his policy allegiance to the president.

    Perhaps not coincidentally, Mr. Barr developed a reputation as a proponent of a sweeping theory of the president’s constitutional authority to act without congressional permission or in defiance of statutes.

    In July 1989, shortly after his appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barr sent an apparently unsolicited 10-page memo to top agency and department lawyers across the executive branch urging vigilance in pushing back against ways in which Congress might try to intrude on what he saw as the rightful powers of the president. It covered topics such as “attempts to gain access to sensitive executive branch information” and efforts to limit a president’s power to fire a subordinate official without a good cause.

    “It is important that all of us be familiar with each of these forms of encroachment on the executive’s constitutional authority,” Mr. Barr wrote. “Only by consistently and forcefully resisting such congressional incursions can executive branch prerogatives be preserved.”

    Years later, in 2005, after the leaking of a secret George W. Bush administration memo blessing the torture of terrorism detainees despite anti-torture laws and treaties, Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, pointed back to Mr. Barr’s 1989 memo as a precursor to the torture memo’s vision of unfettered executive power.

    “Never before had the Office of Legal Counsel, known as the O.L.C., publicly articulated a policy of resisting Congress,” Mr. Kinkopf wrote in a Legal Affairs essay. “The Barr memo did so with belligerence, staking out an expansive view of presidential power while asserting positions that contradicted recent Supreme Court precedent.”

    He added, “Bridging a 15-year gap, the Barr memo provides the theoretical and strategic foundations for the torture memo.”

    Many proponents of strong presidential powers nevertheless say that Congress can check the presidency through its power over government spending. But at a 1990 symposium, Mr. Barr invoked a constrained understanding of lawmakers’ ability to cut off funds for government actions they oppose, declaring that “Congress cannot use the appropriations power to control a presidential power that is beyond its direct control.”

    And when issues of war power came up — like Mr. Bush’s 1989 invasion of Panama, the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War or the 1992 deployment of troops to Somalia — Mr. Barr repeatedly told Mr. Bush that he could deploy American troops without specific prior authorization from Congress...

    (Full article at link)
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Background: The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff holds the most senior military position in the United States and directly advises the president and the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman is not in the chain of command.

    Trump expected to tap Army chief as next Joint Chiefs chairman

    President Donald Trump plans to nominate Army Gen. Mark Milley as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, two former senior Army officers close to Milley confirmed, the first of several high-level military posts that will have to be filled next year.

    Trump teased the decision Friday, saying he would make an announcement regarding the Joint Chiefs on Saturday at the annual Army-Navy football game.

    "I have another one for tomorrow that I?m going to be announcing at the Army-Navy game," Trump said. "I can give you a little hint: It will have to do with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and succession."

    The announcement is coming months earlier than expected, since current chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford still has nearly 10 months left in his term. Past chairmen have typically been nominated in the spring.

    "General Milley is one of the nation's smartest strategic thinkers and he has thought very deeply about the future of warfare, which makes him a brilliant choice for chairman,? said Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation, who knows Milley well.

    Milley?s selection was first reported by The New York Times, which said Trump met with Milley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein two weeks ago. A military official confirmed to POLITICO that the president interviewed the two generals over dinner. ?It went well for Milley and less well for Goldfein,? that officer said.

    Trump may have liked the general?s aggressive and sometimes abrasive demeanor, said one of the two retired senior officers. ?Trump and Mark Milley have a lot in common. They share some traits and I wonder if Trump didn?t see a bit of himself in Milley,? the retired officer said.

    Trump also may have been impressed by Milley?s Ivy League r?sum?.

    ?Milley went to Princeton and the president admires degrees from institutions like that,? said Dan Green, a Navy reservist who wrote a dissertation on how defense secretaries and presidents choose Joint Chiefs chairmen. Green noted Trump?s own Ivy League affiliation as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo?s Harvard law degree.

    Milley is a native of Massachusetts and played hockey at Princeton before entering the Army as an infantry officer. During nearly four decades on active duty, he joined Special Forces before returning to the infantry. He commanded a brigade during intense combat in Iraq in 2004-05, and has deployed repeatedly to Afghanistan. Milley helped establish that country's post-2001 army, and he later oversaw operations throughout the whole country.

    The Army has pivoted from fighting insurgencies to preparing for a potential high-tech conflict with Russia or China during Milley?s tenure. In a major Army reorganization carried out over the past year, he established a new four-star command to oversee the Army's modernization of its weapons and doctrine.

    But Milley has insisted that the Army retain its expertise in counterinsurgency operations rather than tossing it out, as it did after Vietnam. Among his personal projects during his term as chief of staff was the creation of a new set of combat adviser brigades to retain those skills while the rest of the force transitions to training for large-scale conventional war.

    "As the father of a soldier, I thought he was a great chief and is a good pick for chairman," added a retired CIA officer who worked closely with Milley in Afghanistan. "He's a thoughtful guy but he's combat-oriented, and he's extraordinarily loyal, both upward and downward."

    Milley has taken a different line from the administration on the ban on transgender troops that Trump proposed last year, saying in April that he had ?received precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, morale and all those sorts of things? due to the presence of transgender soldiers.

    He will be the first chairman to serve a single four-year term rather than a two-year term with the possibility of second, a change made in the latest National Defense Authorization Act. Milley's nomination would have to be confirmed by the Senate.

    The chairman?s seat is one of several top military jobs Trump will have to approve in the coming year. Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson will all finish their terms in 2019, and Milley will have to be replaced as Army chief of staff.
    As bolded, a large number of high-ranking military officials are going to have to be appointed by Trump. These changes could affect the military, which operates on seniority rule, a great deal. We'll see.

    Edit: And Trump making this announcement so early undermines Chairman Gen. Dunford in a big way.
    Last edited by cduggles; 08-12-2018 at 14:02.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Trump's pick for the country's top military post could splinter his relationship with Mattis


    • President Donald Trump announced his nomination of General Mark Milley for the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Saturday.



    • The decision was in contrast to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' preference for the role and could compromise Trump's relationship with the military head.



    • Trump and Mattis have appeared to be at odds in recent months, most recently with the president describing Mattis as out of place and saying last month he "may leave" the administration.


    President Donald Trump announced his nomination of General Mark Milley for the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country's top military post, on Saturday.

    The decision regarding the nation's top military position was in contrast to the candidate Defense Secretary Jim Mattisreportedly preferred for the role and could compromise Trump's relationship with the defense head.

    The Washington Post reported that Trump was deciding between Milley and the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. David Goldfein, whom Mattis preferred.

    Though it was reportedly unclear why Mattis preferred Goldfein, Trump's decision could be taken as a sign of the two's weakened relationship, going against the member of his cabinet who oversees the military. "It's a pretty big decision to go against Mattis," a former top defense official told the Post.

    Despite his reported preference, current and former officials told the Post Mattis and Milley have a good relationship, going back to the war in Afghanistan, for which Mattis sought Milley out to brainstorm.

    Milley was widely reported to be nominee ahead of the Saturday announcement. Trump teased the decision Friday amid personnel changes in the State Department and Attorney General.

    Trump has described Mattis as out of place in the administration, saying in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview that Mattis is "sort of a Democrat" and that "he may leave" after months of speculation on the former Marine Corps General's standing.

    The president's comments came after he and Mattis have reportedly been at odds in recent months, as Trump last month overrode Mattis to order American troops to the southern border in preparation for the arrival of caravans of Central American migrants.

    Mattis made a number of public statements on the troops at the border, but stayed away from using the same harsh terms as Trump, who called the caravans an "invasion."

    Upon the White House's initial request for troops, Mattis personally rejected on the basis they were "inappropriate and legally treacherous," according to the New York Times,

    Previous clashes between the two include Mattis' faltering position on Trump's Space Force and Trump seeming to blindside Mattis on a decision to announce on Twitter he was reversing an Obama-era decision to allow transgender troops to serve openly in the US military.
    There isn't much to the title, I think, but it's interesting how many times and ways that Mattis has gone a different way than Trump. He will likely leave the Trump administration unscathed, although I thought his careful prevarication about Khashoggi was just sad.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556



    There is room in the Trump administration for the bright, talented Heather Nauert, a former Fox & Friends host and current State Department spokesperson. Nauert easily could succeed Sarah Huckabee Sanders as the face of the White House press operation. She could be a senior adviser to the president who helps shape his messaging, from improving his Twitter game to polishing his TV image, or even acting as a top surrogate across the media landscape. She could move over to the Trump 2020 campaign ? in coming months, when special counsel
    Robert Mueller?s Russia investigation may conclude, they will need all the help they can get.

    Yes, Nauert has much to offer ? just not as one of America?s top diplomats.

    There is no rationale for the president to put forth Nauert?s name as his nominee as United Nations ambassador. In fact, the idea seems downright silly, no matter how much Trump loyalists try to cheer his pick across the finish line.

    The sad saga of the last Trump pick to lead America?s diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, Nikki Haley, shows why Nauert also is a bad choice. She shares the same problem as Haley when she started in the role: a lack of any diplomatic experience or top-level expertise on global affairs.

    Recently, we were given a clear example of the potential global repercussions that such lack of experience can have. Though buried in a flood of recent headlines, it was reported that Haley confessed to a private crowd at the Council for National Policy that, in 2017, she told China?s U.N. representative that the Trump administration might consider an invasion of North Korea. While we will never know how North Korea took the news, or even if the Chinese related Haley?s comments, this only could have raised tensions, and had the potential to set up a crisis not unlike those that occurred during the Cold War.

    Yet, even though Haley had no national security or foreign policy experience, she at least could draw upon her leadership skills as governor of South Carolina. What experience will Nauert draw from? As the face of the State Department to the news media, she clearly must have command of the basics of many of America?s national security challenges ? but shaping the message is very different than knowing the particulars behind the message. Perhaps the president will consider downgrading the ambassadorship from a Cabinet-level position, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton reportedly have recommended.

    Heading into 2019, America?s representative to that international body will face challenges that would stretch the skills of even the most seasoned of diplomats. To advance the administration?s goals, Nauert must have an in-depth understanding of all of Washington?s global challenges. She will be at the tip of the spear when it comes to what happens next with North Korea; she likely will spar with Russia at the U.N. Security Council on matters of international importance such as Ukraine or the Syrian civil war; and she will be front and center in the budding clash between America and China.

    True, the skill sets, motivations and policy positions of former U.N. ambassadors have varied immensely. Two journalists have held the post: Samantha Power, a war correspondent who at least gained academic experience in public policy and global leadership before President Obama sent her to the United Nations in 2013, and John Scali, an ABC News correspondent appointed by President Nixon in 1973, who helped ease the Cuban missile crisis. Others had the necessary skills that qualified them in differing ways to serve in the post, including Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Negroponte, Susan Rice, Madeline Albright and Bill Richardson. And U.N. ambassadors such as George H.W. Bush, Adlai Stevenson and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. clearly excelled at the job of representing Washington?s interests.

    Nauert will have the chance to show the world she is up to the challenge and prove her critics wrong; her confirmation hearings will be the first clear test of whether she possesses what it takes to succeed Haley at the United Nations. Democrats will press her on her mastery of the issues, and test her early and often in what could be ?must-see national security TV.? Look for Nauert to stick to her talking points, like any good spokeswoman would do. If she musters enough support to get confirmed, however, she?ll need more than just mastery of talking points for the international game of power politics.
    Heather Nauert is the wrong choice for UN ambassador

    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    31,876
    The house of cards is falling down... Cohen's cooperation might be the nail in the coffin. I fucking hope. LOCK HIM UP! Before he does any more damage.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Gossip is confirmed!

    Trump says John Kelly will be leaving at the end of the year

    President Trump on Saturday said that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly will leave his position at the end of the year -- after swirling rumors that Kelly's 17 month-long tenure in the Trump administration was nearing its end.

    Trump spoke to reporters outside the White House, called Kelly a "great guy" and said his replacement will be announced in the next few days.


    "John Kelly will be leaving at the end of the year, we will be announcing who will be taking John's place, it might be on an interim basis, I'll be announcing that over the next day or two," he said.


    "I appreciate his service very much," he added.


    Kelly, who previously served as Department of Homeland Security secretary, was widely reported to have been considering leaving his post. Trump had previously said Kelly would stay until 2020. The announcement comes amid a wider shakeup of staff by President Trump. On Friday, he announced that he had picked William Barr for attorney general and Heather Nauert for U.N. ambassador.


    Earlier Saturday, Trump named Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to succeed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford.


    Nick Ayers, currently Vice President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff, is understood to be President Trump's choice to take over. A source close to Ayers told Fox News that Ayers and Trump have been in discussions for months about him stepping into the role, but Trump wants a two year commitment -- something that Ayers, who has three children at home under the age of six, is unable to commit to.


    Kelly, 68 moved over to the White House in July 2017 to replace former Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as chief of staff.






    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    The Dark Side
    aihfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    El Pueblo Loco
    Posts
    2,694
    Nick Ayers says "nope:"

    As President Trump heads into the fight of his political life, the man he had hoped would help guide him through it has now turned him down, and he finds himself in the unaccustomed position of having no obvious second option. Nick Ayers, the main focus of President Trump's search to replace John F. Kelly as chief of staff in recent weeks, said on Sunday that he was leaving the administration at the end of the year. Mr. Ayers, 36, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, is returning to Georgia with his wife and three young children, according to people familiar with his plans. The decision leaves Mr. Trump to contend with fresh uncertainty as he enters the 2020 campaign amid growing danger from the Russia investigation and from Democrats who have vowed tougher oversight, and could even pursue impeachment, after they take over the House next month.

    As the president hastily restarted the search process, speculation focused on a group that was led by Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican who is the hard-edge chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, but also included the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin; Mr. Trump's budget director, Mick Mulvaney; and the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer. Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who as a onetime United States attorney could help Mr. Trump in an impeachment fight, was also being mentioned. And some Trump allies were pushing for David N. Bossie, the deputy campaign manager in 2016. Mr. Trump's ultimate choice will be faced with a president whom the two previous chiefs of staff found nearly impossible to manage. But Mr. Meadows, for instance, could still aid Mr. Trump in the coming political battle with congressional leaders, despite his own frayed relationships on Capitol Hill. Weeks ago, Mr. Trump started asking people what they would think of Mr. Meadows, a fierce supporter of the president, as a chief of staff, before moving on to Mr. Ayers.

    The president on Sunday disputed news reports that he had settled on Mr. Ayers as his pick. "I am in the process of interviewing some really great people for the position of White House Chief of Staff," he said on Twitter. "Fake News has been saying with certainty it was Nick Ayers, a spectacular person who will always be with our #MAGA agenda. I will be making a decision soon!" But two people close to Mr. Trump said that a news release announcing Mr. Ayers's appointment had been drafted, and that the president had wanted to announce it as soon as possible. Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to the president, said Mr. Ayers's "unique qualification was that he had been doing the same job for the vice president." But "those of us with young kids very well understand the personal decision he made," she said.


    Other advisers to Mr. Trump were stunned by the turn of events. One former senior administration official called it a humiliation for Mr. Trump and his adult children, an emotion that the president tries to avoid at all costs. For more than six months, Mr. Ayers had been viewed as the favored candidate of the president's daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who have been seen as maneuvering for greater control and influence around the president. They had clashed repeatedly with Mr. Kelly as he tried to establish more regulated channels to the president. Matt Drudge, an ally of Mr. Kushner, weeks ago posted a photo of Mr. Ayers on The Drudge Report as the next chief of staff.

    But some West Wing officials said Mr. Ayers had been measured and cautious in recent days as he negotiated with Mr. Trump and his family. Before turning down the job, Mr. Ayers told the president that he would be willing to do it only on an interim basis, through the spring.
    Mr. Trump wants a long-term chief of staff, given the difficult period approaching, and he and Mr. Ayers were unable to agree on certain other terms, including whom he could dispose of from the current staff, three people familiar with the events said.

    Other factors may also have weighed on Mr. Ayers. His ascension to the top West Wing job would have meant newfound scrutiny of his personal finances; last year he reported a net worth of $12.2 million to $54.8 million, a sizable sum for a political operative in his 30s who has amassed his own fortune. He accumulated his wealth partly through a web of political and consulting companies in which he has held ownership stakes.
    And Mr. Ayers, who has been seen as a potential candidate for statewide office in Georgia, could have potentially faced a fate shared by many who have left the administration: a diminished public standing after an ugly parting with a mercurial president who often insults his former aides on Twitter.

    Those who remain in the White House past the end of the year will have to face a fraught and uncertain dynamic. Several potential outcomes of the battles Mr. Trump confronts on impeachment, in the special counsel inquiry and over allegations that he directed illegal hush payments in 2016 may not have been advantageous for Mr. Ayers if he makes a run for office.

    On Sunday, Mr. Ayers took to Twitter to say that it had been an "honor to serve our Nation at The White House. I will be departing at the end of the year but will work with the #MAGA team to advance the cause," he wrote. The monthslong process to replace Mr. Kelly, whom Mr. Trump announced on Saturday is leaving at the end of the year, is a rare instance in which the president has not been courting candidates simultaneously. Historically, he has signaled to competing prospects that each one is his choice, and then picks one even as he tells both that they are still in the running. But this time, Mr. Ayers was the only person Mr. Trump had focused on since he made up his mind to part ways with Mr. Kelly. With a head of blond hair, Mr. Ayers somewhat resembles Mr. Trump in his younger days, a fact that the president often looks for as a positive signal. The president had an unusual affinity for Mr. Ayers, telling aides who expressed concern about Mr. Ayers that he liked him.

    And after barreling from a chief of staff recommended by Republican congressional leaders (Reince Priebus) to a military general who shared some of Mr. Trump?s personality traits (Mr. Kelly), the president seemed intent this time on simply picking someone he personally liked. Mr. Kelly is expected to stay on only another three weeks, at least one of which the president is scheduled to spend at his private club in Florida. Hiring to fill several open jobs in the West Wing has been on hold for weeks, as people waited to see whether Mr. Kelly would depart and Mr. Ayers would replace him and bring in his own team.

    Mr. Ayers replaced Mr. Pence's initial chief of staff, Josh Pitcock, in 2017. A former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, he is the type of raw political operative whom Mr. Trump had felt he needed as he heads into what will almost certainly be a brutal re-election campaign.


    While Mr. Kelly and Mr. Trump were barely talking in recent weeks, the retired four-star Marine general was a figure the president had difficulty firing. Mr. Kelly fought loudly with the president over some of Mr. Trump's most incendiary ideas. One such shouting match came earlier this year, when Mr. Trump wanted to pull security clearances from up to a dozen former national security officials or cabinet secretaries who had criticized him. Mr. Kelly argued vociferously against it, according to people familiar with what took place.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/u...-of-staff.html


    Last edited by aihfl; 10-12-2018 at 15:32.
    Struggling with addiction? Join us at Sober Living. We can help.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Professor Emeritus TheLoveBandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Getting to the point ...
    Posts
    24,500
    Brings to mind the old joke of 'how did you get ___(insert Trump appointee position)___" to which the reply is "Oh, I got mine from a box of cracker jacks."
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Bluelight Crew alasdairm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    south lake tahoe, ca
    Posts
    59,657
    you just can't make this shit up...



    alasdair
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    31,876
    What an amazingly hypocritical person...
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Bluelight Crew alasdairm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    south lake tahoe, ca
    Posts
    59,657
    he constantly criticizes other for things he does himself - the very definition of hypocrisy

    4 Times Trump Criticized Obama For Things He Also Ended Up Doing As President (make that 5)

    and many of his supporters don't care...

    alasdair
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    31,876
    It's nice to not have a stream of indignant Trump apologizing in here after every comment. I wonder at what point Trump apologists will finally be unable to generate enough cognitive dissonance to keep believing? My guess is that they will start falling away in a trickle, perhaps already are. And as more and more so the others will follow suit more and more quickly. And at some point people will start trying to convince everyone else that they never "really" supported him. And some will be holdouts and will never let it go and probably whine and bitch for years. Hopefully all the bigots crawl back under their rocks once they can't look to the leader of the free world to legitimize their ideas.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Chris Christie declines White House chief of staff role

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) declined the White House chief of staff role on Friday, making him the latest high-profile candidate who's no longer in the running for the influential post.

    Christie and President Trump reportedly met Thursday evening to discuss the role of replacing John Kelly, who will be departing as chief of staff by the end of the year.


    “It’s an honor to have the President consider me as he looks to choose a new White House chief-of-staff,” Christie wrote in a statement shared by Maggie Haberman of the New York Times on Friday. “However, I’ve told the President that now is not the right time for me or my family to undertake this serious assignment. As a result, I have asked not to be considered for this post.”


    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


    The effort to name Kelly's replacement suffered a setback earlier this week when Trump's initial top pick for the job -- Nick Ayers, chief of staff to Vice President Pence -- turned down the offer.


    A few days later, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the outgoing chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, was out of the running after having a discussion with Trump, who told him that he's needed in Congress to help defend the administration, according to a White House official.


    Trump said Thursday that he was down to five finalists for the position, adding that the candidates were “mostly well known” and “terrific people.”


    Whoever is chosen will be Trump’s third chief of staff in less than two years. Reince Priebus left the post in summer 2017. Trump announced on Saturday that Kelly, who was picked for the post in July 2017, would be leaving the White House by the end of the year.


    Former Trump campaign adviser David Bossie, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, are said to among those under consideration, according to multiple news reports.


    Bossie and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who recently co-authored a book, were slated to meet with Trump at the White House on Friday.


    Christie was one of Trump’s opponents during the GOP presidential primary in 2016. He later endorsed Trump after after dropping out.


    He then served as an adviser during the campaign and headed up the transition team.


    Reports state that Kusher is under consideration, which I find too squidgy to post yet.

    No one wants this job, or he would've hired someone.

    Too bad he humiliated John Kelly publicly by announcing his leaving before Kelly could tell his own staff...January is coming up fast.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    The Dark Side
    aihfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    El Pueblo Loco
    Posts
    2,694
    Quote Originally Posted by cduggles View Post
    Reports state that Kusher is under consideration, which I find too squidgy to post yet.

    No one wants this job, or he would've hired someone.
    I heard about Kushner on Morning Joe today. Of course no one wants the job. With the exception of Nikki Haley, everyone completely loses credibility while simultaneously mocked and lambasted by Trump on Twitter after their resignation or firing. And with the very real possibility of Trump colossally going down in flames, I can't imagine anyone with a shred of common sense wants to open themselves up to the legal liabilities in which they could find themselves ensnared. Kushner is going down whether he's Chief of Staff or not, so he doesn't have much, if anything, to lose. Too bad he can't get a security clearance.
    Struggling with addiction? Join us at Sober Living. We can help.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    31,876
    You'd have to be an idiot to take the job at this point.

    I almost wish we still had some Trumpers in this forum right now, just to see how many are finally admitting he's going down in flames and that they were wrong. Or alternatively, to see what excuses they could possibly be making for him still. Then again... I'm glad we don't.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Trump names budget director Mick Mulvaney as acting White House chief of staff

    "Acting" Chief of Staff... it's going to be a long term.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    The Dark Side
    aihfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    El Pueblo Loco
    Posts
    2,694
    I wonder what they held over him. He publicly said he didn't want the gig.
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    According to the article, Mulvaney had stated he didn't that but he really did, in private.

    Apparently he isn't wanted permanently. I have no sympathy for him.
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Bluelighter atara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease
    Posts
    2,110
    Chris Christie turning down a prestigious role? The guy is basically a moth that likes cameras instead of lights.
    Everyone who works with Trump who claims to support him shows telltale signs they actually despise him.
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeister View Post
    You'd have to be an idiot to take the job at this point.

    I almost wish we still had some Trumpers in this forum right now, just to see how many are finally admitting he's going down in flames and that they were wrong. Or alternatively, to see what excuses they could possibly be making for him still. Then again... I'm glad we don't.
    They wouldn't have admitted that. I do agree that I think most Trump supporters in the long run will turn on him. But it's way too soon. They will of course be the last to see it out of anyone. I don't think it will really sink in until he's out of office. And honestly, if he's impeached and removed many of them might never accept it. Because then it'll be a lot easier for them to delude themselves into seeing it as the fault of obstructionist democrats. But if he is simply voted out, or even more so if he runs out 2 terms with his major promises still unfulfilled, then I think many of them will turn on trump.

    Point is. Trump die hards live in their own delusional little world like trump himself. I doubt many of them will turn on trump until it's clear that trump is actually out of office.

    Anyhow. I think some of our trump die hards are still on a long temp ban. So one or two might show up again. For how long is another question.
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    6,556
    Interior chief Zinke to leave at year's end

    (Excerpt from article below)

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke will depart amid growing controversy over allegations that he violated ethics rules, President Trump announced Saturday.

    Trump tweeted early Saturday that Zinke "will be leaving the Administration at the end of the year after having served for a period of almost two years. Ryan has accomplished much during his tenure and I want to thank him for his service to our Nation."

    He did not specify whether Zinke resigned or was fired, and said he will announce a new secretary next week.

    David Bernhardt, the deputy Interior secretary, is expected take over as acting secretary.

    Bernhardt has been the point person on numerous major Interior initiatives, such as changes to the Endangered Species Act and efforts to start drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He is widely expected to continue similar policies as Zinke, though perhaps with a different tone.

    Zinke?s departure as head of the agency that oversees federal land, wildlife, American Indian relations comes as Democrats prepare to take over as the majority in the House, where they?ll have subpoena power for investigations.

    Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the presumptive incoming chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has oversight of the Interior Department, had promised to use his gavel to compel Zinke to testify about the accusations against him and to subpoena records related to the allegations.

    Zinke, a former Montana congressman, is under more than a dozen investigations for his conduct in office, including scrutiny for a land deal involving a foundation he led and a company backed by David Lesar, chairman of oilfield services company Halliburton.
    (continued at link)
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Bluelight Crew alasdairm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    south lake tahoe, ca
    Posts
    59,657
    "i hire the best people"



    alasdair
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    Bluelighter zephyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Your dads face
    Posts
    19,286
    Heart
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR
    Point is. Trump die hards live in their own delusional little world like trump himself. I doubt many of them will turn on trump until it's clear that trump is actually out of office.

    Anyhow. I think some of our trump die hards are still on a long temp ban. So one or two might show up again. For how long is another question.
    As much as I dont like Trump that much as a person and see that there is definitely a problem with the revolving door of his staff as cduggles has shown, I would hope that in the spirit of good faith and encouragement of a decent back and forth discussion that any opinion of Trump and his presidency would be welcome and treated with some decency.


    One of these people you describe with such distaste happens to be a friend of mine who is far more than his opinion of Trump. Actually a pretty cool person


    As for the revolving door, I would think this is happening because the people going to work for him do so as they are not actors or infantile like billionaires who have no concept of being a public servant like Trump is.

    These people are signing up to do their job in good faith and to be part of government and realising they cant do their job as their party chose such an idiot for their Presidential nominee.


    I would guess being fired would be better than just quitting, at least they did what they could to their limit?


    Its not Trumps fault he managed to get elected and has no idea what the hell he is doing. He should never have been nominated or even eligible for the ekection in the first place.



    I dont know what is worse to be honest, a government that has no changes in staff and is staffed by people who are government straw men or a continual change and disruption which at least exposes the fact there is rampant disharmony which could come to a head and removed at the next election.

    Its the people they represent, not themselves. Politicians seem to forget that .
    Last edited by cduggles; Today at 01:05. Reason: Please take complaints about moderation to Sr. staff or STH. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by zephyr View Post
    As much as I dont like Trump that much as a person and see that there is definitely a problem with the revolving door of his staff as cduggles has shown, I would hope that in the spirit of good faith and encouragement of a decent back and forth discussion that any opinion of Trump and his presidency would be welcome and treated with some decency.


    One of these people you describe with such distaste happens to be a friend of mine who is far more than his opinion of Trump. Actually a pretty cool person and while I too feel that he should not come here anymore since there is no point whatsoever, if he does then the common courtesy of attacking the subject rather than the bluelughter should just be taken for granted as happening.

    This is the kind of thing that has been the subject of several attempts of resolving in STH and elsewhere and has cost me an infraction ir two so to see this is pretty disheartening. . It doesnt matter anymore, if this is an okay way to be then I totally disagree yet dont care enough to argue.





    As for the revolving door, I would think this is happening because the people going to work for him do so as they are not actors or infantile like billionaires who have no concept of being a public servant like Trump is.

    These people are signing up to do their job in good faith and to be part of government and realising they cant do their job as their party chose such an idiot for their Presidential nominee.


    I would guess being fired would be better than just quitting, at least they did what they could to their limit?


    Its not Trumps fault he managed to get elected and has no idea what the hell he is doing. He should never have been nominated or even eligible for the ekection in the first place.



    I dont know what is worse to be honest, a government that has no changes in staff and is staffed by people who are government straw men or a continual change and disruption which at least exposes the fact there is rampant disharmony which could come to a head and removed at the next election.

    Its the people they represent, not themselves. Politicians seem to forget that .
    I've had several friends who have political opinions wildly at odds with my own. Different opinions itself isn't a problem. You're right that there are lots of cool people with all sorts of controversial views. And you're right that people are more than their political opinions.

    Way I see it, it comes down to if you're able to work on a level footing or not. If someone insists on expressing virtually delusional opinions about trump, speaking for myself I don't have a problem with that. But they gotta realize other people have their views too. Either both have gotta accept each other's beliefs or both have to stick to an agreement to not let those political differences be a problem in their otherwise solid friendship.

    Point is, I'm not saying all trump supporters are bad people. Or that I wouldn't be friends with a trump supporter. To me the important part is having some sort of equal, respectful relationship that allows those differences to not cause problems.

    As for bluelight and CE&P. I can't attest to decisions I haven't been a party too nor do I want to take sides on issues I'm unfamiliar with. But I do think many trump die hard, including some who've been bluelighters, otherwise good people or not. Seem amazingly detached with what increasingly seems an undeniably poor reality that is the trump presidency.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •