Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[mr friendly guy]

Are we seriously going to celebrate pharmaceutical companies profiting by price gouging sick people, just for the sake of nebulous political points? Fuck that. It's not like that particular Trump lie is one that anybody actually remembers or cares about, anyway.

Oh? Do you think when comedians Seth Meyers or John Oliver has a segment mentioning Trump and Russia, they are "celebrating" Putin interfering in US politics, or making fun of Trump? Because frankly it strikes me you're drawing a long bow to reach the conclusion I or anyone who actually used that language to discuss Trump's failure are celebrating price gouging.

[The Romulan Republic]

Chipping away at Trump's credibility in every possible way isn't about "nebulous political points"- its an existential battle for survival.

I know you like to engage in histrionics, TRR, but give me a break. This isn't even chipping away at Trump's credibility in any meaningful sense; hell, this is far less impactful than most of the Twitter related nonsense that Trump has engaged in and people have already forgotten about. This is something the pharmaceutical companies were always going to have done, regardless of whether Trump had made those comments or not. They aren't even reacting to him at all, they are pursuing their long established toxic and predatory policies, but now wrapping it in vague political rhetoric in order to sucker morons like you into thinking they are on your side. It's a PR stunt.

This isn't "histrionics", dumbass, and you'd do better not to use cheap ad hominems and insults as your go-too.

I stand by what I said: undermining Trump's credibility is a matter of survival- for the concepts of democracy, rule of law, equality, and (due to nuclear escalation and climate change) quite possibly the existence of human life on Earth. I know perfectly well that that's not why the pharmaceutical companies are doing this, but if others want to use this turn of events to undermine Trump further, more power to them.

[The Romulan Republic]

John Kelly is resigning, reportedly due to his relationship with Trump being "no longer seen as tenable". Apparently, he's no longer on speaking terms with Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/politics/do ... index.html

Frankly, I don't give a fuck. The notion that Kelly exercised meaningful restraint on Trump has long looked increasingly hollow, and his whole-hearted support of some of Trump's most inhumane border policies makes him just another piece of Nazi trash. He is deserving of zero respect, and zero sympathy.

Also, Trump has announced his pick for permanent AG:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics ... index.html

Surprisingly enough, it appears to be someone actually qualified (professionally at least if not morally), rather than just a political hack. Knowing Trump, I'm waiting for the hidden poison pill to reveal itself.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

How can you undermine Trump's credibility when he has none to begin with?

[Gandalf]

How can you undermine Trump's credibility when he has none to begin with?

Just because you and I don't find him credible doesn't mean that the Republican base don't.

[Tribble]

How can you undermine Trump's credibility when he has none to begin with?

Just because you and I don't find him credible doesn't mean that the Republican base don't.

Exactly,

No matter what Trump does, amongst Republicans he consistently polls ~85-90% approval with his base.

At this stage if he skinned a live baby on television it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. Hell, if the baby was Latino and Trump blamed the Democrats for making him do it I wouldn't be surprised if his approval ratings with his base went up.

[mr friendly guy]

How can you undermine Trump's credibility when he has none to begin with?

I think its more useful to target his ability as a deal maker. Look at his deals and see how great they really are.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh? Do you think when comedians Seth Meyers or John Oliver has a segment mentioning Trump and Russia, they are "celebrating" Putin interfering in US politics, or making fun of Trump? Because frankly it strikes me you're drawing a long bow to reach the conclusion I or anyone who actually used that language to discuss Trump's failure are celebrating price gouging.

Dude, go back and look at your post. All you did was post a link to a news article, and say, proudly, "Big Pharma cucked Trump", with absolutely no other context or qualifiers on which to interpret your intentions. If you meant that sarcastically, there's literally no way to know from the language you used in the post. If I misunderstood you, fine, tell me I'm wrong, but don't pull this whole act of "OMG HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE THOUGHT THAT" . It's literally the most straightforward interpretation of the words you wrote. It was one sentence, that reads like you are happy this is happening. And what is happening is price gouging. This isn't some huge leap I'm making, here.

[Ziggy Stardust]

This isn't "histrionics", dumbass, and you'd do better not to use cheap ad hominems and insults as your go-too.

Just because someone insults you, it's not an ad hominem. You've been around these boards long enough to know that. And yes, implying that every single comment ever made about Trump in any context on any media is contributing towards some existential battle IS histrionics in its most literal sense, because you are exaggerating the details of what is going on wildly. I mean, seriously, I feel like I've had this exact exchange with you a dozen times in the past couple of months: we are both on the same side. Calm the fuck down.

I stand by what I said: undermining Trump's credibility is a matter of survival- for the concepts of democracy, rule of law, equality, and (due to nuclear escalation and climate change) quite possibly the existence of human life on Earth. I know perfectly well that that's not why the pharmaceutical companies are doing this, but if others want to use this turn of events to undermine Trump further, more power to them.

That's great, but nobody has used this turn of events to undermine Trump further, so nothing I have said is inaccurate. If this story becomes an important talking point in the coming election cycle that contributes towards the defeat of the far right, I'll happily concede. But literally all we have right now is one article cloaking the toxic policies of pharmaceutical companies under the veil of political activism. As I said in my last post (which you completely ignored), this is a PR stunt.

[mr friendly guy]

Dude, go back and look at your post. All you did was post a link to a news article, and say, proudly, "Big Pharma cucked Trump", with absolutely no other context or qualifiers on which to interpret your intentions. If you meant that sarcastically, there's literally no way to know from the language you used in the post. If I misunderstood you, fine, tell me I'm wrong, but don't pull this whole act of "OMG HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE THOUGHT THAT" . It's literally the most straightforward interpretation of the words you wrote. It was one sentence, that reads like you are happy this is happening. And what is happening is price gouging. This isn't some huge leap I'm making, here.

You haven't seen people use the Alt Right term "cuck" against them have you? I am going to assume you are aware that the Alt Right are obsessed with masculinity and uses terms like cuck, beta male, etc to denote someone who is weak. I am also going to assume, that most people realise cuck comes from the word cuckolded, which describes a husband being cheated upon. I am sure you can now draw the links between the parts I reposted which talks about Big Pharma cheating on Trump, and the concept that he can't be that strong if he can't enforce the deals he supposedly makes.

[The Romulan Republic]

This isn't "histrionics", dumbass, and you'd do better not to use cheap ad hominems and insults as your go-too.

Just because someone insults you, it's not an ad hominem. You've been around these boards long enough to know that. And yes, implying that every single comment ever made about Trump in any context on any media is contributing towards some existential battle IS histrionics in its most literal sense, because you are exaggerating the details of what is going on wildly. I mean, seriously, I feel like I've had this exact exchange with you a dozen times in the past couple of months: we are both on the same side. Calm the fuck down.

I stand by what I said: undermining Trump's credibility is a matter of survival- for the concepts of democracy, rule of law, equality, and (due to nuclear escalation and climate change) quite possibly the existence of human life on Earth. I know perfectly well that that's not why the pharmaceutical companies are doing this, but if others want to use this turn of events to undermine Trump further, more power to them.

That's great, but nobody has used this turn of events to undermine Trump further, so nothing I have said is inaccurate. If this story becomes an important talking point in the coming election cycle that contributes towards the defeat of the far right, I'll happily concede. But literally all we have right now is one article cloaking the toxic policies of pharmaceutical companies under the veil of political activism. As I said in my last post (which you completely ignored), this is a PR stunt.

I think what this is really about is that you have a bigger hate boner for Big Pharma than you do for Trump, so you want to downplay the fact that this undermines Trump so you can focus all attention on how much the pharmaceutical companies suck. Which... they do suck, they suck syphilitic donkey balls, but you can surely let me have my momentary satisfaction at Trump getting fucked over.

And as I said before, which you ignored, I'm well aware that the pharmaceutical companies aren't doing this out of anti-Trump idealism. But it does, inadvertently if nothing else, provide another talking point to hit back at the Orange One with. And I'll take as many of them as I can get.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump believes there is a possibility that he will be impeached:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics ... index.html

President Donald Trump has expressed concern that he could be impeached when Democrats take over the House, a source close to the President told CNN Monday. The source said Trump sees impeachment as a "real possibility."

But Trump isn't certain it will happen, the source added.
A separate source close to the White House told CNN that aides inside the West Wing believe "the only issue that may stick" in the impeachment process is the campaign finance violations tied to former Trump attorney Michael Cohen's payouts to Trump's alleged mistresses.
Impeachment talk has ratcheted up in recent days following a blockbuster filing from prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. In that filing, prosecutors directly alleged for the first time that Cohen was being directed by Trump when he broke the law during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Democrats are suggesting Trump committed an impeachable offense and could be sent to prison when his term in the White House is over. The incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, said Sunday the allegations, if proven, would constitute "impeachable offenses." Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said Monday Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.
Cohen first made the allegation in court in September that he was directed by Trump to make the payments to the two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Prosecutors endorsed the allegation in a sentencing document for Cohen on Friday, in which they said Cohen should receive a "substantial sentence" for the crimes he committed, which included campaign finance violations for the payments to the two women, tax fraud and lying to Congress.
White House officials, at the moment, still don't believe special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion will result in impeachment. Officials are also comforted by their belief that the campaign finance issue is not seen as enough to galvanize bipartisan support for impeachment.
Another separate source said Trump remains confident at this point that, while he could be impeached in the House, he doesn't believe he would be convicted in the Senate as the GOP remains in control there.
The campaign finance issue tied to the alleged mistresses is not viewed as having the firepower to trigger a bipartisan vote for conviction and removal in the Senate, the source said.
These beliefs about the politics at play in impeachment proceedings are based on what White House officials believe Mueller has on Trump right now. It's still unclear exactly where else the special counsel's probe could go.

Democrats are also suggesting that he could be indicted once he leaves office (well, way to give him further incentive to attempt fraud in 2020, and a coup if he loses).

[LaCroix]

With the current news about the NRA/Russia/Trump money laundering triangle of political synergy, the chances are getting worse for him. This might even take the NRA down - they funnelled russin money into a presidential election - I don't know how well this will go down with their constituency...

[LadyTevar]

So... Trump's tweeting that there's dozens of people lined up to take over Kelly's job.

Reality bites -- his first choice for the job, Nick Ayers just told him no. That leaves Chris Christy as one of the choices. Others include White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
Wanna bet all of them will say no as well?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

There's always this guy.

[The Romulan Republic]

With the current news about the NRA/Russia/Trump money laundering triangle of political synergy, the chances are getting worse for him. This might even take the NRA down - they funnelled russin money into a presidential election - I don't know how well this will go down with their constituency...

The danger in going after the NRA is that they have pandered to and encouraged a "constituency" which views any moves against them as part of a Big Government/Deep State/New World Order crackdown on the Right to Bear Arms which will precede dictatorship/race war/FEMA concentration camps, and routinely entertains the idea of "Second Amendment Solutions" to "big government oppression".

If a full-scale crack-down on the NRA occurs, it won't matter how many felonies they are duly convicted of in a court of law- that is how they will play it, how their base will take it, and there is a very real possibility of retaliatory acts of domestic terrorism being committed in response.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump to Schumer: "If we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether its through you, or the military, or anything you want to call, we will shut down the government... I am proud to shut down the government..."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... ip-vpx.cnn

So... he says he will shut down the government (at Christmas no less) if he doesn't get his way, that he will be proud to do it and take full responsibility for it, and then suggests that he will use the military to bypass Congress's authority on the Wall.

This is stopping JUST short of announcing his intent to declare a military dictatorship if he doesn't get his way. But as to the shutdown issue...

Let him do it. Trump has just told the Democratic leadership on television that he wants a shutdown, is proud to do it, and will take full responsibility for it if he doesn't get everything he wants. He has made it clear that compromise isn't happening, and he has handed the Democrats the ideal talking point to put any blame for a shutdown on him. What more do Pelosi and Schumer need? There are only two choices here: capitulate utterly, appease fascism, and send the message that Trump will get his way every time by making threats, at which point we might as well just announce a dictatorship because we have no meaningful opposition. Or tell him no and let him shut down the government, knowing that there is no way he can pin the fallout on the Dems now.

If Pelosi and Schumer appease him to avoid a shutdown now, then they are unfit to hold office, pure and simple.

[The Romulan Republic]

A fairly bleak assessment of 2020 from the New York Times, and a good argument for impeaching and not just hoping to beat Trump in 2020:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/opin ... ction.html

Donald Trump — or, as he’s known to federal prosecutors, Individual-1 — might well be a criminal. That’s no longer just my opinion, or that of Democratic activists. It is the finding of Trump’s own Justice Department.

On Friday, federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York filed a sentencing memorandum for Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, who is definitely a criminal. The prosecutors argued that, in arranging payoffs to two women who said they’d had affairs with Trump, Cohen broke campaign finance laws, and in the process “deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.”

The filing emphasized the way Cohen’s actions subverted democracy. “While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows,” prosecutors wrote. And he didn’t act alone, but “in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.” In other words, lawyers from the Justice Department have concluded that Trump may have committed a felony that went to the heart of the process that put him in office.


Trump’s potential criminality in this case, which raises questions about his legitimacy as president, creates a dilemma for Democrats. Assuming prosecutors are right about Trump’s conduct, it certainly seems impeachable; a situation in which a candidate cheats his way into the presidency is one the founders foresaw when they were designing the impeachment process. As George Mason argued at the Constitutional Convention, “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

But in our current moment, removing the president through impeachment is essentially impossible, given that at least 20 Senate Republicans would have to join Democrats. Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who will soon lead the House Judiciary Committee, told me he wouldn’t consider impeachment proceedings without at least some Republican support. There is certainly no appetite among congressional Democrats to pursue impeachment over a campaign finance case, particularly while the special counsel investigation into Russian collusion chugs on.

This leaves us in a dangerous situation. Under Justice Department guidelines, sitting presidents can’t be indicted. Ex-presidents, however, can. Experts on both the left and the right believe that if Trump is voted out of office in 2020, before the five-year statute of limitations on campaign finance violations runs out, he could find himself in serious legal jeopardy.

The conservative Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and frequent Trump defender, wrote on Fox News’s website on Sunday, “The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws.” Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat and former prosecutor, told me, “This president has potential prison exposure.”

The 2020 presidential election was always going to be extraordinarily ugly, but one can only imagine what Trump will do if the alternative to the White House is the big house. “It’s dangerous,” said Swalwell, who worries that Trump could become even more erratic, making decisions to save himself that involve “our troops or internal domestic security.”



Ordinarily, you know that a democracy is failing when electoral losers are threatened with prison. But Trump’s lawlessness is so blatant that impunity — say, a pardon, or a politically motivated decision not to prosecute — would also be deeply corrosive, unless it was offered in return for his resignation.

There’s simply no way around it — as long as Individual-1 is on the ticket, the 2020 election is set to be a banana republic-style death match. Trump will almost certainly try to criminalize his opponent — crowds at his rallies have taken to chanting “Lock her up” at the mention of virtually any Democratic woman’s name. And Democrats won’t be able to uphold the general principle that in American elections, losing doesn’t mean personal ruination, because for Trump it will and it should.
There are ways to lower the stakes somewhat. Nadler told me he plans to introduce legislation that would freeze the statute of limitations for crimes committed by presidents, so they could be charged when their terms end. Such a law would at least mean that Trump couldn’t evade justice forever just by winning re-election.

That would mitigate the peril to our democracy, but it wouldn’t come close to eliminating it. Our best hope may lie in the emergence of irrefutable evidence of further presidential crimes, enough to finally test the tolerance of at least some fraction of Republicans.

“The story’s not over yet,” Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and former constitutional law professor, told me. “We’re just at the beginning of it. After two years of hearing people say we were all trigger-happy on impeachment, now I’m hearing we’re all constitutional fraidy-cats. Give us a chance to do the fact investigation and figure out what happened.”

Fair enough. But if the president has committed felonies, we also have to figure out how Republicans might be induced to care.

"The 2020 presidential election was always going to be extraordinarily ugly, but one can only imagine what Trump will do if the alternative to the White House is the big house. "It's dangerous," said Swalwell, who worries that Trump could become even more erratic, making decisions to save himself that involve "our troops or internal domestic security."

"There's simply no way around it... as long as Individual-1 is on the ticket, the 2020 election is set to be a banana republic-style death match."

In short, if the current situation does not change, Trump will likely attempt to hold power by any means up to and including force- because the alternative is probably indictment.

[FaxModem1]

Trump, bravely denying the study of potential cures for diseases like HIV, and preventing the affected scientists from talking about it:

Washington post

Trump administration halts study that would use fetal tissue ‘to discover a cure for HIV’

Federal officials had not publicly disclosed the Trump administration’s recent shutdown of HIV research involving fetal tissue, which was being conducted by the National Institutes of Health. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
By Amy Goldstein and
Lenny Bernstein December 9
The Trump administration has shut down at least one government-run study that uses fetal tissue implanted into mice even before federal health officials reach a decision on whether to continue such research, which is opposed by antiabortion groups.

A senior scientist at a National Institutes of Health laboratory in Montana told colleagues that the Health and Human Services Department “has directed me to discontinue procuring fetal tissue” from a firm that is the only available source, according to an email he sent to a collaborator in late September.

“This effectively stops all of our research to discover a cure for HIV,” the researcher wrote.

The research disruptions might extend to a handful of other labs using fetal tissue, all of which are part of NIH, rather than outside research institutions operating on NIH grants, according to an individual familiar with the situation.


The shutdown of the HIV research at the federal lab in Montana, first reported in Science, was never disclosed publicly by government officials, who have forbidden affected researchers from discussing what happened. But colleagues say they are incensed by the action, which has fanned a controversy that pits the biomedical research community against antiabortion activists and other social conservatives pressing the administration to stop the flow of federal grants and contracts for work involving fetal tissue. Such tissue comes from elective abortions.

“This is scientific censorship of the worst kind,” said Warner Greene, who was director of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology for a quarter century since its founding in 1991 and now runs an HIV research lab there. He was poised to collaborate with the Montana researcher, Kim Hasenkrug, on a new experiment that has been thwarted.

Policymakers and advocates describe challenges to combating HIV/AIDS
Policymakers and advocates describe their greatest concerns about government funding and policy making in the fight against HIV/AIDS. (Washington Post Live)

“You spend your life trying to do good experiments and organize your science carefully,” Greene said, “and suddenly, at the whim of some politicians in Washington, D.C., they remove a critical piece of your scientific armamentarium.”


Hasenkrug was not available for comment. Greene and Irving Weissman, a pioneer in stem cell research at Stanford University, said government officials imposed a gag order on him.

An NIH spokeswoman said that when HHS began its review of fetal tissue in September, the NIH put in place a “pause” in the procurement of that kind of tissue. Researchers were instructed to notify top officials if they needed more. The spokeswoman said the NIH is investigating why that didn’t happen with Hasenkrug’s research.

News of the halted study broadens the actions the administration is known to have taken to obstruct such research. In late September, the HHS announced the termination of a Food and Drug Administration contract with a California firm, Advanced Bioscience Resources, and said it was conducting an “audit” of whether to keep funding fetal tissue research. An FDA notice in the summer of the pending contract called ABR “the only company in the U. S. capable of supplying tissues suitable for [humanized mouse] research.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Then, in the past two weeks, a principal investigator at an academic laboratory in San Francisco was first told that a seven-year NIH contract was not being extended for its next year as usual. The university then received revised information that the lab was getting 90 days of funding, with the rest uncertain. The laboratory at the University of California at San Francisco is a linchpin in the development of new drugs to prevent and treat HIV, using mice implanted with human fetal tissue to run the first animal tests of chemical compounds developed by pharmaceutical companies and other academic scientists that seem promising in lab dishes.

Last week, HHS and NIH officials denied they had initially told the UCSF lab the contract was ending. The officials said that no decision would be made until HHS completes the audit of the government’s fetal tissue funding. The reconsideration is focused on examining whether adequate alternatives exist — as fetal tissue opponents contend and researchers dispute.

Officials are prepared to give 90-day extensions to other outside laboratories using fetal tissue whose grants or contracts come up for renewal before the audit is completed, according to an individual familiar with the research stoppage.

ADVERTISING


Hasenkrug focuses on HIV and other persistent viruses at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, part of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. According to colleagues, he received a note from John J. McGowan, an NIAID deputy director, informing him the supply of fetal tissue for his research was being stopped. The note indicated that officials above McGowan had made the decision, without specifics. The money for Hasenkrug’s work comes from the NIH’s internal — or “intramural” — funds and is unrelated to the FDA contract that officials previously acknowledged they cut off, the colleagues said.

Greene said he and Hasenkrug have collaborated for several years and have previously used humanized mice to help demonstrate how T cells — immune cells that are diminished in HIV-infected people — die.

Greene said their labs were about to begin an experiment that would have been the first animal tests of an emerging theory about why HIV takes hold in the human body so quickly. Humanized mice are created by implanting fetal thymus tissue that can develop a humanlike immune system and be infected with HIV.

“The mice were ready,” Green said, “Just as we’d shipped antibody [to Montana], we were ready to go, and boom . . . the rug was pulled out from underneath us.”

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Are we winning yet?

[Gandalf]

Considering the Republican stance on fetal tissue and such, they probably consider it a win.

[LaCroix]

Stupid move, for there is a simple solution: Move to Canada, France or Germany, continue your studies there. Or share your result with other researchers. Republicans are very powerless in the grand sheme of things.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump: "I think that the people would revolt..." if impeached.

https://people.com/politics/president-t ... impeached/

Of course, its easy to see this as a coded signal to his base to revolt if he's impeached, but he keeps it ambiguous enough that he doesn't meet the definition for Treason of levying war against the United States. Yet.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

If it prosper, Rom..,

[Highlord Laan]

Mattis just resigned Spoiler

Washington (CNN)Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned Thursday on the heels of President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw troops from Syria, citing irreconcilable policy differences in a move that took Washington by surprise.

"Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position," Mattis wrote in his letter to the President.

Earlier Thursday, a senior administration official told CNN's Jake Tapper that Mattis was "vehemently opposed" to the Syria decision and a possible Afghanistan troop withdrawal.

Indeed, Mattis' resignation letter amounts to a rebuke of several of Trump's foreign policy views, with the outgoing defense secretary touting the importance of US alliances and of being "unambiguous" in approaching adversaries such as Russia and China. It is devoid of any praise for the President.

The resignation emerged at a chaotic moment in Trump's presidency: The US government is teetering on the edge of a government shutdown, the Trump administration is about to face the hot light of Democratic investigations and the President is grappling with the fallout of a series of firings and resignations. Trump, seeking to downplay the news, stepped out in front of Mattis' resignation, spinning it as a retirement.
Mattis did not explicitly cite his opposition to the President's planned withdrawal of US troops from Syria -- which caught US allies off guard -- but the retired four-star general was privately adamant in urging Trump against the pullback.

It was just the latest issue on which Mattis has sought to position himself as a bulwark against some of the President's rashest decisions, but his relationship with the President has grown increasingly fractured in recent months and his efforts to deter Trump on key issues less influential.
In his letter, Mattis pointedly stated that the strength of the US depends in part on the strength of its alliances around the globe, many of which have become notably frayed under Trump.

"One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies," he added.

Mattis met with Trump one-on-one in the Oval Office, a senior White House official told CNN's Kaitlan Collins. Mattis told Trump he was going to be leaving and offered his resignation letter.

"They had differences on some issues," the official said.
Trump announced Mattis' departure in a tweet, saying, "General Jim Mattis will be retiring, with distinction, at the end of February, after having served my Administration as Secretary of Defense for the past two years."
The President touted the "tremendous progress" that has been made during Mattis' tenure at the helm of the Defense Department and thanked him for his service.

Trump said a successor "will be named shortly."
In a sign of the swift nature of the resignation, senior White House officials found out about it from the President's tweet, according to two officials. A senior administration official could not say if armed forces were told before the tweet.

Mattis' resignation comes just a day after the President ordered the "full" and "rapid" withdrawal of US troops from Syria over the objections of Mattis, other senior officials and scores of lawmakers, who declared it a strategic blunder.

The announcement of his departure comes just over an hour after reports emerged that Trump may also be considering a drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan. Sources told CNN's Jake Tapper that the President has not yet made a final decision, but officials are concerned and convinced that he might do so, and soon.

Mattis is the latest senior administration to leave Trump's Cabinet, after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was pushed out the day after the midterm elections in November, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was unceremoniously fired in March and national security adviser H.R. McMaster was replaced earlier this year.

But reaction to Mattis' departure was strikingly different.
"This is scary," tweeted Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Secretary Mattis has been an island of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration."

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a strong Trump supporter who opposes the President's decision to pull out of Syria, expressed "great sadness" over Mattis' resignation.

"He is one of the great military leaders in American history. He should be proud of the service he has rendered to President Trump and our nation," Graham tweeted.

Mattis' future was brought into question most recently after Trump, in an October interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," labeled him as "sort of a Democrat," adding that the retired general "may leave" and that "at some point, everybody leaves."

He also added that the 68-year-old Washington native was "a good guy" and the two had "a very good relationship."

Mattis, a bachelor, has been described as a "warrior monk," married to the Marines. He served in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan. He once led the all-important US Central Command, which is in charge of the US military in the Middle East. He was also supreme allied commander of NATO.
After the 2016 election, Trump broke with protocol by tapping Mattis to be his secretary of defense, a position typically reserved for civilians.
In his first six months in office, Trump oversaw a steady transfer of power from the White House to the Pentagon, handing off several war-fighting authorities that previously rested in his hands -- and those of past presidents of both parties -- to the Pentagon and the commanders overseeing the US' military campaigns.

But while Mattis was widely considered one of Trump's most trusted advisers during his first year in office, his influence within the administration appeared to be waning in recent months as speculation swirled about a growing rift between the two men.

Bob Woodward's book "Fear: Trump in the White House," published in September, fueled that notion, detailing how senior aides, including Mattis, grew exasperated with the President and increasingly worried what they described as his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.
Specifically, Woodward details several instances in which Mattis made disparaging comments about Trump and military actions he sought to take against Syria and North Korea.

One of the most striking accounts, according to Woodward, occurred after a charged meeting about South Korea, during which Trump wondered why the US backs Seoul. Woodward wrote that Mattis said Trump understands issues at the level of an elementary school student.
Mattis denied those assertions and the accounts detailed by Woodward's sources, including claims that he ignored or slow-rolled Trump's ideas.
CNN's Nicole Gaouette, Kaitlan Collins and Ryan Browne contributed to this report.

Article in spoiler.

The sane man in the room has left the building. Fuck. Whomever replaces him will absolutely be some brainless sycophant that won't tell the worthless dumb motherfucker in chief "No, using the Army on the American people is unconstitutional."

At least he getting out before it all comes crashing down.

[FaxModem1]

USA Today

House approves $5 billion in border wall funding to avoid government shutdown, forcing another Senate vote
Michael Collins, David Jackson and Bill Theobald, USA TODAY Published 8:00 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2018

President Donald Trump has told congressional Republicans he "will not sign" a spending bill passed by the Senate to avoid a partial government shutdown Friday, and he's citing an impasse over money for a border wall with Mexico. (Dec. 20) AP

EPA USA CONGRESS SHUTDOWN POL GOVERNMENT USA DI
(Photo: Shawn Thew, EPA-EFE)

CONNECT
TWEET
LINKEDIN
COMMENT
EMAIL
MORE
WASHINGTON – A deeply divided House voted on Thursday to add $5 billion in border wall funding to a short-term spending bill, yielding to President Donald Trump’s demand for the money but casting further doubts upon the fate of efforts to avert a government shutdown.

The bill, which the Houseapproved by a vote of 217-185, now heads back to the Senate, which must either approve the measure or risk shutting down a quarter of the government at midnight Friday. A Senate vote is expected Friday afternoon.

The House vote capped a drama-filled day that started with lawmakers anticipating quick passage of an already approved Senate funding bill, but then erupted into chaos when Trump announced he would not support the measure because it did not contain funding for the border wall – one of his signature campaign promises.

“I’ve made my position very clear: Any measure that funds the government must include border security,” Trump said at the White House.

At an Oval Office meeting a few hours earlier, Trump had informed House GOP leaders that he would not sign the Senate version, sending them scrambling to deliver new legislation that included $5 billion in border wall funding.

“We want to keep the government open, but we also want to see an agreement that protects the border,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “We have very serious concerns about securing our border.”

Lawmakers have until midnight Friday to pass a spending bill or funding will expire for a quarter of the federal government, triggering a shutdown heading into the holidays and forcing some 800,000 federal employees to go on furlough or work without pay.

More: A look at what public services will – and won’t – be interrupted if there is a government shutdown going into holidays

Congress is trying to end the budget stalemate and avert a government shutdown by piecing together a short-term measure that would keep the funds flowing through early next year.

The Senate voted Wednesday night to approve a short-term spending bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that would fund the government through Feb. 8 but would delay any decision on border wall funding until next year.

But hardline conservatives in the House revolted because the Senate bill did not include Trump’s border funding, even though he had insisted during the presidential campaign that he’d make Mexico pay for the wall. Trump’s announcement that he would not sign the Senate measure sealed its fate.

The House responded by introducing its own spending package that also would fund the government through Feb. 8, but would include $5.7 billion for a border wall and nearly $8 billion in disaster relief to compensate communities hit hard by this year’s hurricanes and wildfires.

The border funding in the House proposal won’t be enough to build the wall but will improve border security, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

“This is about keeping America safe – it’s not a complicated vote,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La.

Democrats accused Republicans of catering to a “Trump Twitter tantrum” and warned that the House bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

“This is a sham and a shame,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

Hardline conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus insisted now is the GOP’s last chance to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall since Democrats will resume control of the House in January and their leader, Nancy Pelosi, will return as speaker.

“We’ve been telling the American public that we were going to fight, they have no reason to believe us now,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., a Freedom Caucus member.

Said Freedom Caucus member Scott Perry, R-Penn.: “We made a promise to the American people to secure the border. This is our last chance. Nancy Pelosi will not do this.”

The uncertainty over the funding bill – and the chaos that ensued – was heightened by Trump’s constantly shifting position on the legislation.

Last week, Trump boasted during an Oval Office meeting with Democratic leaders that he would be “proud” to shut down the government over border funding and that he’d be willing to take the blame for any fallout.

But on Tuesday, the White House signaled that Trump was looking for other ways to fund a border wall and that he might be willing to sign a short-term spending bill that did not include the money.

Thursday morning, Trump took to Twitter and posted a message about his demands for a border wall funding but did not specifically comment on the Senate’s short-term bill.

“When I begrudgingly signed the Omnibus Bill, I was promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen! We foolishly fight for Border Security for other countries - but not for our beloved U.S.A. Not good!” he wrote.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
When I begrudgingly signed the Omnibus Bill, I was promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen! We foolishly fight for Border Security for other countries - but not for our beloved U.S.A. Not good!

92.3K
9:28 AM - Dec 20, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
62.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
By the time House GOP leaders headed to the White House for their emergency meeting with Trump, it was clear he had changed his mind.

“At this moment, the president does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “The president is continuing to weigh his options.”

Following the meeting with Republicans, Sanders issued another statement saying that "not surprisingly, they all feel strongly about border security – stopping the flow of drugs, stopping human trafficking, and stopping terrorism."

"We protect nations all over the world, but Democrats are unwilling to protect our nation," she said. "We urgently need funding for border security and that includes a wall."

Back on Capitol Hill, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats have no intention of approving money for a border wall.

"In terms of wall funding, that’s a non-starter," Pelosi said.

Congress is scrambling to pass a short-term spending bill because lawmakers still haven’t passed seven of the 12 appropriations bills that are needed to fund the government for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

The seven remaining bills would fund nine departments – Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development – as well as several smaller agencies. Those are the departments and agencies that would be impacted by a government shutdown.

Contributing: Eliza Collins

Well, the House caved, and it will go to the Senate. Guess keeping the nation from shutting down is worth Trump's boondoggle.