I'm imagining a country whose national anthem is "Welcome to the Black Parade."
With Neil Wheedon Watkins Pye as the Prime Minister right.
Problem is, the panels would have to face south, which is generally the direction of Mexico from the US for a majority of the wall...
I'd appreciate a link - a quick search doesn't pull anything up.
My initial reaction is that this isn't abnormal, and in fact it's often self selecting:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oming-exodus-of-career-civil-servants/511562/
But if there's something going on that's worse than what normally happens I'd like to understand better, of course, this being trump I expect the "normal" to become extreme.
My initial reaction is that this isn't abnormal, and in fact it's often self selecting:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oming-exodus-of-career-civil-servants/511562/
But if there's something going on that's worse than what normally happens I'd like to understand better, of course, this being trump I expect the "normal" to become extreme.
The link you supplied are departures different than the ones referred to, those are expected departures. The turn over for trump is for staff he selected. For example 2 chief of staff, 2 secretary of defense, 3 communication directors etc.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.new...te-house-staff-turnover-is-off-the-charts/amp
Not the best link, but mobile phone
Saw one last week that had an in depth thorough analysis that fairly compare results each President.
Thanks, that led me to the person's name who is researching this (Kathryn Dunn Tenpas), which leads to her recently published findings, which are probably what led to the articles you've seen about this issue:
She didn't research earlier than Reagan, so "5 most recent presidents" in the headline rings a little hollow since that's all the data she has, but she explains her methodology and analysis in that link and I don't doubt Trump is truly an outlier in history.
I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but it's good fodder for discussion.
Anyone who wades through it, please bring up interesting data or quotes.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/...ver-higher-than-the-5-most-recent-presidents/
She didn't research earlier than Reagan, so "5 most recent presidents" in the headline rings a little hollow since that's all the data she has, but she explains her methodology and analysis in that link and I don't doubt Trump is truly an outlier in history.
I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but it's good fodder for discussion.
Anyone who wades through it, please bring up interesting data or quotes.
Wel, the study is only looking at senior staff - the top positions as identified by the National Journal, or, for Trump, the researcher.
Looking further, turnover is mostly caused by four offices: the Office of the Chief of Staff, the Office of Communications, the Press Office, and the National Security Council.
Most of those changes have been in the media plenty, so there's not actually a huge "hidden" pile of turnover. With N=64, a turnover of 34% is 22 people leaving. Part is due to the Chief of Staff and
Deputy Chief of Staff leaving, which aused a bit of a domino effect.
The researcher posits - but doesn't in any way reinforce or argues - that it's mainly due to a choice of loyalty over qualifications, and the chaos. Seems to make sense, but it doesn't actually follow from the numbers as writen, it's more or less a post hoc explanation.
Looking further, turnover is mostly caused by four offices: the Office of the Chief of Staff, the Office of Communications, the Press Office, and the National Security Council.
Most of those changes have been in the media plenty, so there's not actually a huge "hidden" pile of turnover. With N=64, a turnover of 34% is 22 people leaving. Part is due to the Chief of Staff and
Deputy Chief of Staff leaving, which aused a bit of a domino effect.
The researcher posits - but doesn't in any way reinforce or argues - that it's mainly due to a choice of loyalty over qualifications, and the chaos. Seems to make sense, but it doesn't actually follow from the numbers as writen, it's more or less a post hoc explanation.
To be fair, that's 30 years' worth of presidencies, since so many of them were two-termers.
--Patrick
Sure, but would Obama want a birther working for him? We've got examples of people refusing their duty when it conflicts with their personal beliefs.
Again, trump taking things to the extreme, but aside from the larger quantity is it really that much different than what happens with other administrations?
So voting for Hillary = believing in a retarded conspiracy theory that even if true, would not have changed Obama's citizenship at birth, since having 1 US citizen parent already gives you citizenship at birth, even if you where born on the Moon.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying, but my guess is that you're trying to extrapolate what I said into something more extreme than, "Prior presidents don't want oppositional staff working for them."
If so, the answer is that I'm not saying the extreme extrapolation. I'm saying no prior president has looked kindly on career staff that are opposed to the president or the president's platform.
Sorry for not parsing your point, I'm tired so it's likely my fault.
If so, the answer is that I'm not saying the extreme extrapolation. I'm saying no prior president has looked kindly on career staff that are opposed to the president or the president's platform.
Sorry for not parsing your point, I'm tired so it's likely my fault.
Chuck Hagel, James Comey, Robert Gates, Bob McDonald and Ray LaHood. All proud republicans all served under Obama. You’re going to tell me that Obama brought in republicans for cabinet level positions but wanted to purge the government of any career people who didn’t vote for him?
/sarcasm Because what I actually said was "Every prior president made sure that every single person who disagreed with even one aspect of their platform was fired."
Come on. I've already agreed that Trump's doing it to an extreme degree. I've said I'm making a very limited point - that this type of behavior is not only common, but expected at each administration change.
I'm glad you're reading my posts, but is there really a benefit to taking a limited point I'm trying to make to the end of the earth and claiming I'm saying something I'm not?
Were I to act the way you're acting, I'd respond as follows:
Of course that's not what you're saying, but I guess it's fun to play that game.
Come on. I've already agreed that Trump's doing it to an extreme degree. I've said I'm making a very limited point - that this type of behavior is not only common, but expected at each administration change.
I'm glad you're reading my posts, but is there really a benefit to taking a limited point I'm trying to make to the end of the earth and claiming I'm saying something I'm not?
Were I to act the way you're acting, I'd respond as follows:
So what you're telling me is that Obama didn't fire a single person at the change of his administration, and kept everyone that GWB had working there?
Of course that's not what you're saying, but I guess it's fun to play that game.
Because again, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this isn't about political differences, but about finding someone who will block the current investigation into whether trump committed crimes.
So yes, when you remove all the reasons why this is different than what Obama did, it becomes no different. Brilliant rhetoric.
So yes, when you remove all the reasons why this is different than what Obama did, it becomes no different. Brilliant rhetoric.
I don't think I'm being controversial saying, a normal thing taken to an extreme can be a problem. That goes for both good and bad normal things.
Sorry, but you can't just use birthers as an example and then claim you didn't mean it as an extreme example.
It's like saying there's no problem firing a geologist because he didn't smile at you enough, since no one would have a problem if you fired him for being a flat-earther.
....
And, on another note, there's a giant difference between asking them if they voted for you, and determining you can't work with them. Fun fact, you can actually work with someone who voted against you... it's actually how a multi-party government is supposed to work, with compromise and shit.
The problem I think a lot of people have is that Trump demands loyalty, not to the office, not to the law of the land, not to the party, but to him personally. And considering how fast, frequently, and viciously he throws people under the bus, he doesn't inspire that kind of loyalty.
That is not business as usual, not by a long stretch.
That is not business as usual, not by a long stretch.
Good point and it means that administions don’t usually make it a point to initiate a purge once they get into office. Aside from appointees who generally resign.
Dave
Staff member
Trump: I'll testify under oath!
Lawyer: Well....he spoke hurriedly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-lawyer-spoke-hurriedly-latest-a8177236.html
Lawyer: Well....he spoke hurriedly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-lawyer-spoke-hurriedly-latest-a8177236.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...22769454f82_story.html?utm_term=.90041baf49da
I honestly thought this was an Onion article when I read the headline, then I remembered that life is now an Onion article.
Trump requested a Van Gogh for his Whitehouse bedroom from the Guggenheim. They said no and counter-offered a golden toilet.
I honestly thought this was an Onion article when I read the headline, then I remembered that life is now an Onion article.
Trump requested a Van Gogh for his Whitehouse bedroom from the Guggenheim. They said no and counter-offered a golden toilet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html
WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.
The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.
First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.
After receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.
Mr. McGahn disagreed with the president’s case and told senior White House officials that firing Mr. Mueller would have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Trump’s presidency. Mr. McGahn also told White House officials that Mr. Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own. The president then backed off.
“We decline to comment out of respect for the Office of the Special Counsel and its process,” Ty Cobb, the president’s lawyer who manages the White House’s relationship with Mr. Mueller’s office, said in a statement.
Mr. McGahn, a longtime Republican campaign finance lawyer in Washington who served on the Federal Election Commission, was the top lawyer on Mr. Trump’s campaign. He has been involved in nearly every key decision Mr. Trump has made — like the firing of the former F.B.I. director — that is being scrutinized by Mr. Mueller.
Around the time Mr. Trump wanted to fire Mr. Mueller, the president’s legal team, led then by his longtime personal lawyer in New York, Marc E. Kasowitz, was taking an adversarial approach to the Russia investigation. The president’s lawyers were digging into potential conflict-of-interest issues for Mr. Mueller and his team, according to current and former White House officials, and news media reports revealed that several of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors had donated to Democrats.
Mr. Mueller could not legally have considered political affiliations when making hiring decisions. But for Mr. Trump’s supporters, it reinforced the idea that, although Mr. Mueller is a Republican, he had assembled a team of Democrats to take down the president.
Another option that Mr. Trump considered in discussions with his advisers was dismissing the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, and elevating the department’s No. 3 official, Rachel Brand, to oversee Mr. Mueller. Mr. Rosenstein has overseen the investigation since March, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.
Mr. Trump has significantly ratcheted back his criticisms of Mr. Mueller since he hired Mr. Cobb in July. A veteran of several high-profile Washington controversies, Mr. Cobb has known Mr. Mueller for decades, dating to their early careers in the Justice Department.
He advised Mr. Trump that he had nothing to gain from combat with Mr. Mueller, a highly respected former prosecutor and F.B.I. director who has subpoena power as special counsel. Since Mr. Cobb’s arrival, the White House has operated on the premise that the quickest way to clear the cloud of suspicion was to cooperate with Mr. Mueller, not to fight him.
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump has wavered for months about whether he wants to fire Mr. Mueller, whose job security is an omnipresent concern among the president’s legal team and close aides. The president’s lawyers, including Mr. Cobb, have tried to keep Mr. Trump calm by assuring him for months, amid new revelations about the inquiry, that it is close to ending.
Mr. Trump has long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation. In March, after Mr. McGahn failed to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the inquiry, Mr. Trump complained that he needed someone loyal to oversee the Justice Department.
The former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said Mr. Trump asked him for loyalty and encouraged him to drop an investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Comey said he sidestepped those requests. He was soon fired.
In an interview with The New York Times in the Oval Office in July, the president pointedly kept open the option of firing Mr. Mueller, saying that the special counsel would be passing a “red line” if his investigation expanded to look at Mr. Trump’s finances. Mr. Trump said he never would have made Mr. Sessions the attorney general if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the investigation.
Last month, as Republicans were increasing their attacks on the special counsel, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times that he believed Mr. Mueller was going to treat him fairly.
“No, it doesn’t bother me because I hope that he’s going to be fair,” Mr. Trump said in response to a question about whether it bothered him that Mr. Mueller had not yet ended his investigation. “I think that he’s going to be fair.”
Mr. Trump added: “There’s been no collusion. But I think he’s going to be fair.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.
The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.
First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.
After receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.
Mr. McGahn disagreed with the president’s case and told senior White House officials that firing Mr. Mueller would have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Trump’s presidency. Mr. McGahn also told White House officials that Mr. Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own. The president then backed off.
“We decline to comment out of respect for the Office of the Special Counsel and its process,” Ty Cobb, the president’s lawyer who manages the White House’s relationship with Mr. Mueller’s office, said in a statement.
Mr. McGahn, a longtime Republican campaign finance lawyer in Washington who served on the Federal Election Commission, was the top lawyer on Mr. Trump’s campaign. He has been involved in nearly every key decision Mr. Trump has made — like the firing of the former F.B.I. director — that is being scrutinized by Mr. Mueller.
Around the time Mr. Trump wanted to fire Mr. Mueller, the president’s legal team, led then by his longtime personal lawyer in New York, Marc E. Kasowitz, was taking an adversarial approach to the Russia investigation. The president’s lawyers were digging into potential conflict-of-interest issues for Mr. Mueller and his team, according to current and former White House officials, and news media reports revealed that several of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors had donated to Democrats.
Mr. Mueller could not legally have considered political affiliations when making hiring decisions. But for Mr. Trump’s supporters, it reinforced the idea that, although Mr. Mueller is a Republican, he had assembled a team of Democrats to take down the president.
Another option that Mr. Trump considered in discussions with his advisers was dismissing the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, and elevating the department’s No. 3 official, Rachel Brand, to oversee Mr. Mueller. Mr. Rosenstein has overseen the investigation since March, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.
Mr. Trump has significantly ratcheted back his criticisms of Mr. Mueller since he hired Mr. Cobb in July. A veteran of several high-profile Washington controversies, Mr. Cobb has known Mr. Mueller for decades, dating to their early careers in the Justice Department.
He advised Mr. Trump that he had nothing to gain from combat with Mr. Mueller, a highly respected former prosecutor and F.B.I. director who has subpoena power as special counsel. Since Mr. Cobb’s arrival, the White House has operated on the premise that the quickest way to clear the cloud of suspicion was to cooperate with Mr. Mueller, not to fight him.
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump has wavered for months about whether he wants to fire Mr. Mueller, whose job security is an omnipresent concern among the president’s legal team and close aides. The president’s lawyers, including Mr. Cobb, have tried to keep Mr. Trump calm by assuring him for months, amid new revelations about the inquiry, that it is close to ending.
Mr. Trump has long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation. In March, after Mr. McGahn failed to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the inquiry, Mr. Trump complained that he needed someone loyal to oversee the Justice Department.
The former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said Mr. Trump asked him for loyalty and encouraged him to drop an investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Comey said he sidestepped those requests. He was soon fired.
In an interview with The New York Times in the Oval Office in July, the president pointedly kept open the option of firing Mr. Mueller, saying that the special counsel would be passing a “red line” if his investigation expanded to look at Mr. Trump’s finances. Mr. Trump said he never would have made Mr. Sessions the attorney general if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the investigation.
Last month, as Republicans were increasing their attacks on the special counsel, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times that he believed Mr. Mueller was going to treat him fairly.
“No, it doesn’t bother me because I hope that he’s going to be fair,” Mr. Trump said in response to a question about whether it bothered him that Mr. Mueller had not yet ended his investigation. “I think that he’s going to be fair.”
Mr. Trump added: “There’s been no collusion. But I think he’s going to be fair.”
The Netherlands just revealed that they infiltrated the Russian computer hacking group responsible for interfering with the US elections and were able to observe the tampering efforts in real time. They shared this information with the US as it occurred. Obama was aware of it as it happened and trump was briefed on it after he won the election.
Observed means both computer hacking things and video surveillance feeds from inside the hackers headquarters.
For almost three years.
Observed means both computer hacking things and video surveillance feeds from inside the hackers headquarters.
For almost three years.
They acted upon it, just could not present it as a bi-partisan issue. Remember Obama did increase sanctions for their meddling.
HOBO-CONSPIRACY!
"The Dutch lost their access to the hackers shortly after trump met with the Russian Ambassador alone in the Oval Office."
/HOBO-CONSPIRACY!
Dave
Staff member
Right. Obama acted on it, which was summarily ignored by Trump and his ilk. Yeah, they signed them into law, but since then they've enacted nothing and moved nothing forward.
Obama could NOT act the way he wanted because the right would have painted it like a left-wing conspiracy and lord knows their base believes every dumbfuck conspiracy theory that they get fed like it was the gospel truth.
Obama could NOT act the way he wanted because the right would have painted it like a left-wing conspiracy and lord knows their base believes every dumbfuck conspiracy theory that they get fed like it was the gospel truth.