Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

I think at this point the one thing we can be sure of is that nothing Trump says can ever be taken at face value.

[Vympel]

The existence of an FBI investigation of this subject is not "anything that would give rise to the accusation having credence." Stone and the facts surrounding his case are not "anything that would give rise to the accusation having credence." Nor those surrounding Page. Nor Nunes. Nor Flynn...

So what? "Clinton Whitewater Vince Foster murdergate Benghazi" mongers could rattle off a bunch of names in rapid succession too. Only the specific allegations, properly deconstructed, and analysed, matter. And the fact is none of the accusations made by fanatical conspiracist partisans have any firm basis in something that would come anywhere close to providing a reasonable basis to believe the Trump campaign colluded with Russian to undermine Hillary Clinton during the election.

It's propaganda for Democrats - just mumble under your breath about Flynn who got paid by Russia* and who was on the phone with the ambassador, and they'll believe what they want to believe, irrespective of what the facts actually say.

*Got a speaking fee from Russia Today arranged by a reputable Washington firm that hires out speakers which got negotiated down by Russia Today management, but who cares about minor details that ... totally undermine the nonsense narrative.

The random and hysterical assertions are in addition to serious concerns based on entirely unrelated issues. Bringing them up when they haven't been mentioned in the thread is a red herring, and you ought to know it.

Jeff Sessions was specifically mentioned twice by TRR and is in general repeatedly pointed to by Trump/Putin conspiracy mongers as part of their grand design.

[FaxModem1]

Think Progress

Pence admits Syria and Afghanistan were used as props to warn North Korea
“The world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president.”


U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, left, is briefed by U.S. Gen. Vincent Brooks, right, commander of the United Nations Command, U.S. Forces Korea and Combined Forces Command from Observation Post Ouellette in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), near the border village of Panmunjom, South Korea, Monday, April 17, 2017. CREDIT: AP Photo/Lee Jin-man
On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence confirmed that the recent U.S. bombings of Syria and Afghanistan were nothing but a warning message for North Korea, contradicting earlier statements from the White House.
Speaking in Seoul next to South Korea’s acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn, Pence warned North Korea to end its nuclear program and referred to the bombings in Syria and Afghanistan as proof of U.S. resolve.
“Just in the past two weeks, the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan,” Pence told reporters, after visiting the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. “North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”
Pence’s comments directly contradict Trump’s earlier statements about the strikes in Syria and Afghanistan.
After the U.S. military dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan last Thursday, a 21,000 pound weapon nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” Trump said it wasn’t meant to be a message to North Korea. “It doesn’t make any difference if it does or not — North Korea is a problem, the problem will be taken care of,” he told reporters.
And earlier this month, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk missiles on the Shayrat airbase in Syria purportedly in response to a chemical attack that killed at least 90 people two days earlier. The airstrike was seen as an escalation in U.S. involvement in Syria, as it was targeting the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who is suspected to have committed the attack.
The White House won’t confirm if Trump authorized the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Afghanistan

“Did the president not know about the MOAB strike?”
thinkprogress.org
Although U.S. policy toward Syria is still completely incoherent, in announcing the strike, Trump linked it to preventing future chemical attacks. “It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” Trump said. After the strike, the White House maintained that it was for humanitarian reasons, and Trump was reportedly swayed by his daughter being “heartbroken and outraged” by the chemical attack.
But less than two weeks later, Pence’s comments make clear that these bombings served a different purpose: as warnings for North Korea. This becomes even more obvious when considering the context. Trump announced the strike in Syria while hosting a summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and the strike achieved little lasting impact— in fact, the Shayrat airbase was up and running the next day.
Using other countries as a warning message for North Korea is inhumane. Meaningless gestures in Syria are unfair to the people who have been embroiled in a conflict for more than six years. And as former Afghan President Hamid Karzai pointed out last week, Afghanistan is not a “testing ground” for the U.S. military.
Equally important, the messages doesn’t seem to be working to dissuade North Korea. A North Korean Foreign Ministry official pointed to the airstrike in Syria as proof that its nuclear weapons are necessary to protect itself from the U.S. “evermore reckless moves for a war.” And just hours before Pence arrived in Seoul on Saturday, North Korea launched another ballistic missile that the Washington Post reported could theoretically reach the United States (although it exploded in a few seconds). On Friday, North Korea accused Trump of “making trouble” with “aggressive” tweets.
In an interview with Fox & Friends on Monday, Eric Trump — who, as the head of the Trump Organization, is not supposed to be involved in the White House — hinted that his father’s administration will take action in the future on North Korea, and similarly pointed to Syria and Afghanistan.
“You pray for peace, but he will show real leadership,” Eric Trump said, directly after being asked about the message the administration is trying to send to North Korea. “And that’s something that hasn’t occurred in the past, and it will start occurring, and you saw that quite frankly in Syria, and you saw that in Afghanistan.”

“You don’t want there to be death and destruction and turmoil around the world, but again, you have to have massive backbone when it comes to dealing with awful, awful dictators who don’t like us, don’t like our way of life, don’t like us as a civilization. He will protect America, make no mistake about it.”

Thoughts?

[The Romulan Republic]

Jeff Sessions was specifically mentioned twice by TRR and is in general repeatedly pointed to by Trump/Putin conspiracy mongers as part of their grand design.

It is simple fact that Sessions withheld information about meetings with a Russian ambassador during the campaign, while seeking confirmation as Attorney General. Despite the fact that he was a candidate to run the department that would nominally be overseeing an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. That is, at best, evidence of perjury to conceal a potential conflict of interest, and one cannot help but ask why he would withhold that information, if it was truly innocent.

Is that proof of collusion to win the election? Not in and of itself, no. But its certainly a relevant fact to add to the pile. Of course, as an apologist hack, you'll insist that all such facts are irrelevant, to the point that even suggesting their should be an investigation makes you partisan or a nut job, as long as no one fact is conclusive by itself.

You know, you should really apply for a job with RT. If you're going to spout Russian propaganda, you might as well get paid for it.

[Simon_Jester]

The existence of an FBI investigation of this subject is not "anything that would give rise to the accusation having credence." Stone and the facts surrounding his case are not "anything that would give rise to the accusation having credence." Nor those surrounding Page. Nor Nunes. Nor Flynn...

So what? "Clinton Whitewater Vince Foster murdergate Benghazi" mongers could rattle off a bunch of names in rapid succession too. Only the specific allegations, properly deconstructed, and analysed, matter. And the fact is none of the accusations made by fanatical conspiracist partisans have any firm basis in something that would come anywhere close to providing a reasonable basis to believe the Trump campaign colluded with Russian to undermine Hillary Clinton during the election.

If four or five of Trump's senior campaign workers and advisors were all quietly meeting with Russian officials during the campaign season that is damn sure "anywhere close to providing a reasonable basis to believe the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." If not to undermine Hillary Clinton, then to do something. Because powerful executives and advisors to presidential candidates are not in the habit of completely or randomly wasting their time.

Furthermore, this isn't a case of random accusations being dredged up in succession, with one being knocked down only for another to be thrown out so that there can be a continuous conveyor belt of trumped up allegations. All these accusations, including multiple investigations by neutral government officials, including senior politicians from Trump's own party, are happening in parallel.

We have various Trump associates doing everything up to and including promising to testify before Congress in exchange for a guarantee of immunity. We have multiple government agencies investigating the issue, including foreign ones. We have a dizzying array of powerful people in Trump's chaotic inner circle who are all being very very quiet about interactions with Russian businessmen and government officials, for very carefully nonspecified reasons.

This isn't what the Whitewater investigations looked like.

This is more like what the Watergate investigations looked like. This is pretty much exactly what happens when a president really IS guilty of corruption, but is trying to cover it up.

The random and hysterical assertions are in addition to serious concerns based on entirely unrelated issues. Bringing them up when they haven't been mentioned in the thread is a red herring, and you ought to know it.

Jeff Sessions was specifically mentioned twice by TRR and is in general repeatedly pointed to by Trump/Putin conspiracy mongers as part of their grand design.

Do you have a response, then, to TRR actually mentioning the reason he mentioned Sessions?

"It is simple fact that Sessions withheld information about meetings with a Russian ambassador during the campaign, while seeking confirmation as Attorney General. Despite the fact that he was a candidate to run the department that would nominally be overseeing an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. That is, at best, evidence of perjury to conceal a potential conflict of interest..."

See, that's the thing. You're very happy to be specific about the weakest allegations made regarding Trump and Russia. But when it comes to the substantial ones, you mumble and wave your hands about how it's "conspiracy mongering."

This kind of strawmanning is pivotal to the position you've staked out. Because you're not just trying to argue that there wasn't any collusion. You're trying to argue that the entire question shouldn't be asked, that the whole question doesn't merit investigation.

[Vympel]

If four or five of Trump's senior campaign workers and advisors were all quietly meeting with Russian officials during the campaign season that is damn sure "anywhere close to providing a reasonable basis to believe the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." If not to undermine Hillary Clinton, then to do something. Because powerful executives and advisors to presidential candidates are not in the habit of completely or randomly wasting their time.

Utter rubbish from beginning to end. Campaign officials speak with the representatives of foreign governments all the time. It is not inherently nefarious, nor is it circumstantial evidence of anything at all. Look at any of the actual reporting on this subject. Every piece says no evidence of any collusion exists, even when the underlying story is based on telephone intercepts.

Furthermore, this isn't a case of random accusations being dredged up in succession, with one being knocked down only for another to be thrown out so that there can be a continuous conveyor belt of trumped up allegations. All these accusations, including multiple investigations by neutral government officials, including senior politicians from Trump's own party, are happening in parallel.

What accusations, from who? Be specific.

We have various Trump associates doing everything up to and including promising to testify before Congress in exchange for a guarantee of immunity.

Again, for political neophytes who have no idea how testifying before Congress works, this is hugely significant. For anyone with a clue, it's entirely meaningless. Five Clinton staffers got immunity deals during the email investigation. It's something their lawyers do to shield them from prosecution if they make admissions about criminal conduct in the course of testimony. It's normal.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... unity.html

https://www.justsecurity.org/39426/expl ... -immunity/

The fact that Flynn and his lawyer have made his offer publicly suggests that he has nothing good to give the prosecutors (either because he cannot incriminate others or is unwilling to do so). If he had something good, Flynn and his lawyer would approach the prosecutors quietly, go through the proffer process in confidence, and reach a deal. Why? Because prosecutors have an interest in keeping their investigation secret, and Flynn’s lawyer knows that. The last thing Flynn’s lawyer would do if he thought he had the goods would be to go public, because that would potentially compromise the criminal inquiry and would certainly irritate the prosecutors, the very people Flynn’s lawyer would be trying to win over.

I suspect that Flynn’s lawyer is really targeting Congress. He is hoping that one of the Congressional committees will take the bait and grant him immunity in exchange for his testimony. If that happened, it would be extremely difficult to prosecute Flynn after he testified. Remember Oliver North? North testified to Congress under a grant of “use immunity,” and even though Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh took stringent measures to wall off his prosecution staff from any information about North’s immunized testimony, the D.C. Circuit overturned North’s conviction, finding that Walsh could not establish that the witnesses who testified against North had not been tainted by exposure to North’s widely publicized testimony. Flynn’s lawyer appears to be hoping for the same result here: Flynn gets immunity, his testimony in Congress gets aired and reported everywhere, and it becomes virtually impossible for prosecutors to bring a case against him.

Which would be why no one has bothered taking him upon his offer. Flynn's got a bunch of potential legal problems arising from his unregistered lobbying on behalf of Turkey, for example. What else you got?

We have multiple government agencies investigating the issue, including foreign ones. We have a dizzying array of powerful people in Trump's chaotic inner circle who are all being very very quiet about interactions with Russian businessmen and government officials, for very carefully nonspecified reasons.

Investigating "the issue". Right, they're all investigating the same thing, are they? Bullshit. As with the school of "rattle off names and accusations which are scary to political neophytes", this sort of rhetoric purposefully destroys nuance and detail in favour of general insinuations of misconduct. Are they expressly 'investigating' collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia in every case? Or just general 'Russian interference'. There's a difference.

This isn't what the Whitewater investigations looked like.

This is more like what the Watergate investigations looked like. This is pretty much exactly what happens when a president really IS guilty of corruption, but is trying to cover it up.

LOL, right. I'm sure it'll end with Trump resigning in disgrace. Absolutely.

Do you have a response, then, to TRR actually mentioning the reason he mentioned Sessions?

"It is simple fact that Sessions withheld information about meetings with a Russian ambassador during the campaign, while seeking confirmation as Attorney General. Despite the fact that he was a candidate to run the department that would nominally be overseeing an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. That is, at best, evidence of perjury to conceal a potential conflict of interest..."

See, that's the thing. You're very happy to be specific about the weakest allegations made regarding Trump and Russia. But when it comes to the substantial ones, you mumble and wave your hands about how it's "conspiracy mongering."

I've already responded. Did you even bother to read the article I posted? It's really simple - the assertion that Kislyak is some sort of nefarious actor is preposterous to anyone who knows anything about him or his job. Period.

As for 'perjury to conceal a potential conflict of interest', as I've explained repeatedly in the past, multiple Democratic politicians (McCaskill and Pelosi), in the course of attacking Sessons for meeting with Kislyak - conveniently forgot that they had met Kislyak too, predicating their attacks on having never met the man. They got in trouble for lying. And then gave the same sort of "I didn't mean a meeting in that context" excuse that Sessions did.

This is how actually proving perjury is really, really difficult. The most plausible explanation for Sessions' statement is that he was giving a deliberately lawyerly and deceptive response to prevent his confirmation hearing becoming a Russia circus and derailing it. It's not rocket science, its partisan and hacky, but its infinitely more plausible than suggesting Sessions lied because Kislyak met Sessions in broad fucking daylight in his Senate office to plot on behalf of Trump.

This kind of strawmanning is pivotal to the position you've staked out. Because you're not just trying to argue that there wasn't any collusion. You're trying to argue that the entire question shouldn't be asked, that the whole question doesn't merit investigation.

Strawmanning my ass. Inherent to "but Sessions!!!!!" hysterics is the idea that Kislyak is some sort of international nefarious super spy as opposed to an extremely high profile diplomat. Without that basis the whining about Sessions loses all force.

[Patroklos]

Think Progress

*snip*

Thoughts?

That article is garbage and you should feel bad for posting it. This is exactly what Vympel is talking about with all this conspiracy theory nuttery.

Nowhere in it is the primary claim of the article, specifically that "Vice President Mike Pence confirmed that the recent U.S. bombings of Syria and Afghanistan were nothing but a warning message for North Korea, contradicting earlier statements from the White House" backed up even slightly either through quotes from Pence or anyone else or any other facts presented. The fact that they serve as a warning to NK about the power and resolve of the US in no way serves as evidence they had no other purpose or that the warning was a primary purpose or even considered at all in those strike plans.

The simple fact is ANY use of force by the US serves as a warning to NK. No matter when. No matter where.

[MKSheppard]

This is more like what the Watergate investigations looked like. This is pretty much exactly what happens when a president really IS guilty of corruption, but is trying to cover it up.

I wonder....Watergate wasn't really an actual investigative reporting expedition, because Woodward/Bernstein were being spoon fed everything juicy and where to go by Mark Felt, and Felt was operating in a pre-digital era.

I wonder how many Deep Throats have been found out and terminated [from employment] thanks to much better information security by the organs of the state?

EDIT: slight edit to clarify "terminated" meaning.

[Flagg]

I'm honestly on the fence for the most part, but everything that comes out seems to point to collusion with Russia in some way just by contact with seemingly everyone surrounding President Pussygrabber. That said, correlation doesn't equal causality. But it's starting to smell pretty fucking fishy.

[SpottedKitty]

That said, correlation doesn't equal causality.

As the saying goes, though, it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively. At this point, I'm almost afraid to ask myself "what next?".

[Flagg]

That said, correlation doesn't equal causality.

As the saying goes, though, it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively. At this point, I'm almost afraid to ask myself "what next?".

Well it's not like Russia has been harbering a cowardly shit with a Clinton vendetta for years or anything.

[FaxModem1]

Reuters

Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks next to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping (Not Pictured) at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., April 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks next to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping (Not Pictured) at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., April 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Top Trump administration officials will hold a rare briefing on Wednesday at the White House for the entire U.S. Senate on the situation in North Korea, senior Senate aides said on Monday.

All 100 senators have been asked to the White House for the briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the aides said.

While top administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy and national security matters, it is unusual for the entire 100-member Senate to go to such an event at the White House, and for those four top officials to be involved.

ADVERTISING

U.S. officials have expressed mounting concern over North Korea's nuclear and missile tests, and its threats to attack the United States and its Asian allies.

President Donald Trump criticized North Korea's "continued belligerence" and said its actions were destabilizing during a telephone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday, the White House said.

The briefing will take place at 3 p.m. EDT.

House aides said they were working with the White House to set a similar briefing for members of the House of Representatives.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

Every single member of the Senate? Is that really necessary?

[Broomstick]

I hope it's not necessary and it's just grandstanding. Otherwise, the current situation (in various locations but primary in my mind North Korea) is more serious than I thought.

[The Romulan Republic]

Either things are about to get very bad, or Trump is just posturing and trying to act like a big man. Or both.

[Flagg]

Reuters

Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks next to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping (Not Pictured) at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., April 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks next to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping (Not Pictured) at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., April 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Top Trump administration officials will hold a rare briefing on Wednesday at the White House for the entire U.S. Senate on the situation in North Korea, senior Senate aides said on Monday.

All 100 senators have been asked to the White House for the briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the aides said.

While top administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy and national security matters, it is unusual for the entire 100-member Senate to go to such an event at the White House, and for those four top officials to be involved.

ADVERTISING

U.S. officials have expressed mounting concern over North Korea's nuclear and missile tests, and its threats to attack the United States and its Asian allies.

President Donald Trump criticized North Korea's "continued belligerence" and said its actions were destabilizing during a telephone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday, the White House said.

The briefing will take place at 3 p.m. EDT.

House aides said they were working with the White House to set a similar briefing for members of the House of Representatives.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

Every single member of the Senate? Is that really necessary?

He should just give another joint speech to Congress as otherwise it's just wasting more taxpayer money (that's not currently being funneled into President Pussygrabber's shitty golf resort on America's clap-ridden dingus) which is apparently only bad if the non-kleptocrats Democrats do it. And even then, "waste" usually means something going to social welfare and public health.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think this is Trump trying to establish his preeminence over the other branches of government in true rising dictator fashion. Its a cheap bullying tactic, showing that he'll make the whole Senate come to him rather than go or send someone to address them as would normally be done.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the good news is it's the kind of move that will irritate members of his own party just about as much as it irritates the Democrats. Republican senators aren't going to enjoy watching Trump try to play dominance games, and this ties into the general pattern that the congressional Republicans are not reliable allies of his agenda. The more he annoys and harasses them, the more they're going to be thinking "gee, wouldn't it be nice if Mike Pence were president?"

[mr friendly guy]

Well Trump has now put tariffs on trade coming in my from that country starting with C, which is China just like he promised to stop the Chinese raping the US. Hold on a minute, what do you mean its not China, its another country starting with C. What? Its Canada.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/investi ... index.html

[SCRawl]

Well Trump has now put tariffs on trade coming in my from that country starting with C, which is China just like he promised to stop the Chinese raping the US. Hold on a minute, what do you mean its not China, its another country starting with C. What? Its Canada.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/investi ... index.html

Yeah, softwood lumber. The whole story is kind of amusing; the US Department of Commerce thinks that the way we do things here constitutes a government subsidy, but so far the independent bodies looking at the issue disagree. But the lumber lobby screams bloody murder about it every time there's a chance to change US policy on the matter, and that opportunity came up a couple of years ago.

I don't see why things will come out differently this time, but I'm interested in the results.

[Khaat]

I have to wonder if the "bring me the Senate" crap is about Trump's obsession with controlling information: the Senate floor is public (with "fake news" free to come, go, and write whatever the hell is discussed - unless it's a closed session), the White House Secret Briefing Room is not. Doubtless, he'll be Tweeting the whole thing anyway, with appropriate spin about how he was the best evar! and anyone who says otherwise is a loser and he'll meet them at recess to fight them behind the gym....

[Simon_Jester]

That's... a very plausible explanation.

Chalk it up to a combination of dominance games, obsession with secrecy, and Trump just not getting how mutual respect works because he's a damn psychopath. He can understand the idea of deference, especially when it's other people deferring to him, but he can't understand the idea of needing to show respect to people a bit lower down the totem pole who have powers of their own.

I hear people say, sometimes, things like "Trump ain't stupid. Corrupt and easily influenced, but not stupid." The problem is, it doesn't matter if he's in some technical sense 'not stupid,' given that he's got so many blind spots and chronic behavior problems that he's either unwilling or unable to avoid the bad consequences that result.

A guy who keeps setting his own hair on fire is de facto stupid, even if he's an amazingly cunning used car salesman or something in between bouts of running around batting at his head and wondering why it hurts so much.

[Flagg]

I don't think it's about information control since the Senate leaks like Henry VIII's exploded corpse. But Khaat is 100% correct IMO that it's almost certainly a dominance "I got the power, you come to me, I don't go to you!" thing. It just reeks of Corporate CEO with a copy of "The Art of War" sitting on the tank lid of his shitter, flipped through like certain parts were skimmed.

[Sea Skimmer]

Most of congress doesn't get regular classified briefings, or really anything at all as far as detailed intelligence on North Korea missiles and nuclear capabilities. If you look at the public policy documents congress self generates for itself many of the sources are still from over a decade ago, or else basically based on parade videos; many date to a time in fact when some of the North Koreans missiles now being tested and sorta working, were not even positively known to be real. Past history indicates that the US had some really good intelligence on certain program at an early point but revealed nothing further. So considering NOrth Korea really might just be one more nuke test and realistically two or three more missile launches away from a nuclear IRBM, if not a nuclear ICBM, and it's actually built an SLBM that actually works from underwater, some kind of closed session is probably justified, no matter its actual reason, of course we won't know the true content. Still do remember one good possible US response is just to spend a lot more money actually fielding proven missile defense hardware. This would require adding very few troops too, unlike say, adding a fighter wing or ship, but its a huge amount of money up front for the hardware. Nothing North Korean can build the US can't afford to shoot down with high assurance, its only a question of bothering to pay for it. Trump did say he wants more war department budget.

[Simon_Jester]

If someone managed to explain ballistic missile defense to Trump, I'm impressed with them.

Anyway, yeah, that would be a reasonable solution. Trump may want more ballistic missile defense.

He also wants to replace Obamacare with something better, massively cut taxes, and have the biggest, greatest deficit reduction plan.

Someone's going to be disappointed.

...

Circling back to the meeting thing, basically yeah, the Senate doesn't routinely get classified briefings, precisely because they leak like a machine-gunned water tower. At the same time, though, if Trump actually expects any 'secrets' he tells the Senate at this briefing to remain any more secret than if he'd said them on the Senate floor, he's delusional. If he wanted a closed session he could ask for it; this is a simple case of him thinking the Senate works for him because he thinks his office title is "king of America."

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, I think we can all agree that this is likely some form of petty posturing/power play by the Dickless One to assert his preeminence over the other branches of government.

Well Trump has now put tariffs on trade coming in my from that country starting with C, which is China just like he promised to stop the Chinese raping the US. Hold on a minute, what do you mean its not China, its another country starting with C. What? Its Canada.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/investi ... index.html

Yeah, softwood lumber. The whole story is kind of amusing; the US Department of Commerce thinks that the way we do things here constitutes a government subsidy, but so far the independent bodies looking at the issue disagree. But the lumber lobby screams bloody murder about it every time there's a chance to change US policy on the matter, and that opportunity came up a couple of years ago.

I don't see why things will come out differently this time, but I'm interested in the results.

The softwood lumber debate has been making waves up here in British Columbia politics. We are less than two weeks out from a provincial election, and it was a major talking point in the debate tonight.

Ugg, the Orange One has even infected local politics up here in Canada.