Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Gandalf]

Because his agenda also paradoxically relies on the government machinery working efficiently to carry it out (and that means more than just the "essentials" like the military and police). And because if the Democrats don't completely drop the ball, it is very easy to pin this shutdown entirely on him, which will politically damage him.

You do know that the DoD (both military and civilian) is not impacted by this shut down right? Neither is the the VA or HHS. All three of those departments already had their budgets passed. Elements of the rest of the feds can be made to stay open by making employees 'essential'. This means that Pres. Trump can, unfortunately, probably drag out longer than you think.

I remember when the government shut down under Obama, and the angry right wing people lost their shit over the closure of national parks. I wonder if they'll take the same attitude for this event should this shutdown also take the national parks offline.

[Broomstick]

It's easy to be an accelerationist when you aren't the one who's going to suffer the consequences.

Isn't he the one going to suffer, though? He is, after all, in the US or at least in the Americas. Even if not a government employee, some fallout from a systemic crisis is going to hit him.

We've had government shut downs before. Due to the de-centralized nature of the US structure the average person won't see an effect unless this goes on for months. Most people actually have little contact with the Federal government, and those parts they are most likely to contact (such as airport security) will continue be funded or forced to work without pay.

Meanwhile - as I said - it's the government workers that will suffer first and worst. But fuck them, right? File clerks in a back office are just as culpable as the decision makers, right? Except the decision makers aren't going to suffer. Just the peons.

[Broomstick]

I remember when the government shut down under Obama, and the angry right wing people lost their shit over the closure of national parks. I wonder if they'll take the same attitude for this event should this shutdown also take the national parks offline.

Some of the parks affected last time are being kept open with state dollars this time. So, for example, the Grand Canyon is still open - at least the parts in Arizona.

[Crazedwraith]

It's hilarious the outrage getting directed at TRR rather than people who are actually responsible for the shut down.

[Broomstick]

I suspect that the employees of said government, who are the ones who would find themselves out of pocket as a result, would disagree with you.

Shutdown is now a thing.

That's about 800,000 people with no paycheck this Christmas. Are you happy now, TRR?

Happy? No. I think that Trump is a despicable sack of human shit for pushing things to this point.

But consider the alternative.

Consider the consequences. 800,000 either with no paycheck or, worse yet forced to work with no pay.

It may, arguably, be the lesser evil but it is no good thing.

[Broomstick]

It's hilarious the outrage getting directed at TRR rather than people who are actually responsible for the shut down.

That's what the e-mail address of my Congress Critters is for.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because his agenda also paradoxically relies on the government machinery working efficiently to carry it out (and that means more than just the "essentials" like the military and police). And because if the Democrats don't completely drop the ball, it is very easy to pin this shutdown entirely on him, which will politically damage him.

You do know that the DoD (both military and civilian) is not impacted by this shut down right? Neither is the the VA or HHS. All three of those departments already had their budgets passed. Elements of the rest of the feds can be made to stay open by making employees 'essential'. This means that Pres. Trump can, unfortunately, probably drag out longer than you think.

I've already addressed these points.

I don't doubt that Trump can drag it out for a while, but that doesn't mean that Democrats should just give in to him. Not only because his wall is a grotesque waste and a symbol of both his narcissism and of white nationalism, but because there was a compromise deal, and Trump broke his word and rejected it. The only way that the Dems could have prevented this is complete capitulation-no deal, no compromise, just give Trump everything he wants with no assurances whatsoever that he will ever keep his word. And if we do that this time, then what about next time? Trump isn't going to stop taking the country hostage if its an effective tactic to get his way. At some point, we either have to have this fight and refuse to back down, or we have to keep capitulating to him until Congress has effectively surrendered its Constitutional authority to act as a check on the President's whims.

Is your position that we should effectively surrender the fundamental system of checks and balances on which our Republic is founded in order to avoid shutdowns? Because if so, make that argument, rather than simply insinuating that I am ignorant of the realities of the situation.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's easy to be an accelerationist when you aren't the one who's going to suffer the consequences.

Isn't he the one going to suffer, though? He is, after all, in the US or at least in the Americas. Even if not a government employee, some fallout from a systemic crisis is going to hit him.

We've had government shut downs before. Due to the de-centralized nature of the US structure the average person won't see an effect unless this goes on for months. Most people actually have little contact with the Federal government, and those parts they are most likely to contact (such as airport security) will continue be funded or forced to work without pay.

Meanwhile - as I said - it's the government workers that will suffer first and worst. But fuck them, right? File clerks in a back office are just as culpable as the decision makers, right? Except the decision makers aren't going to suffer. Just the peons.

I did not and will not say that they are responsible, or that they deserve to suffer. One could make the case that those who willingly serve a fascist regime are all culpable for its crimes, and that the fact that someone else made the decision does not absolve them any more than "just following orders" absolves the Nazis, but we're not at the point yet where I am prepared to make that judgment against every employee of the US Federal government, including those who are not directly involved in carrying out Trump's most despicable policies.

I don't believe that K. A. Pital has said that either, at least in this thread, but if that is his position, then please do not attribute it to me.

But tell me: what do you think Congress should have done? Because it seems to me that the only way this could have been prevented is for Congress to completely capitulate to Trump (or side against him in large enough numbers to override a veto, but that was never going to happen). Which undoubtably means that Trump will continue to hold those employees' paycheques hostage when he doesn't get his way. It seems to me that what you are saying, ultimately, is that getting those 800,000 paycheques out on time is more important than living in a country where Congress can act as a meaningful check on the President, and that we should just give Trump everything he wants to make sure they keep coming on time. If you want to make that argument, then go ahead and do so, and I'll be happy to debate the question. But don't try to avoid a difficult issue by drowning the thread in self-righteous outrage and misrepresentations.

[Broomstick]

You said "bring it" - were you welcoming the shut down or just looking like you were cheerleading this mess?

I already said this is arguably the least evil - but I also said it is nothing good. No, we should not capitulate to Trump, but neither should we ignore the clusterfuck of people either being out of work or, worse yet, forced to work without pay.

What I was objecting to was what I perceived to be glee at the prospect of a government shut-down.

[Broomstick]

One could make the case that those who willingly serve a fascist regime are all culpable for its crimes, and that the fact that someone else made the decision does not absolve them any more than "just following orders" absolves the Nazis, but we're not at the point yet where I am prepared to make that judgment against every employee of the US Federal government, including those who are not directly involved in carrying out Trump's most despicable policies.

One could also recognize that the vast majority of the government workers shit on by this shut down were government workers well before Trump was elected. They didn't join up because they liked the guy currently sitting in the oval office.

Stop making it sound like the drones that keep the wheels of government actually turning are somehow all goose-stepping Nazis. They aren't.

[The Romulan Republic]

One could make the case that those who willingly serve a fascist regime are all culpable for its crimes, and that the fact that someone else made the decision does not absolve them any more than "just following orders" absolves the Nazis, but we're not at the point yet where I am prepared to make that judgment against every employee of the US Federal government, including those who are not directly involved in carrying out Trump's most despicable policies.

One could also recognize that the vast majority of the government workers shit on by this shut down were government workers well before Trump was elected. They didn't join up because they liked the guy currently sitting in the oval office.

Stop making it sound like the drones that keep the wheels of government actually turning are somehow all goose-stepping Nazis. They aren't.

So you follow a post, which you yourself quoted, in which I explicitly said that I do not hold all federal employees responsible or regard them as Nazis, by accusing me of treating them all as Nazis. You literally accused me of saying the exact opposite of what you just quoted me saying.

I frankly see no point in continuing this discussion if you refuse to engage honestly with what I am actually saying, or if you substitute misrepresentation for actually arguing the issues. This has reached the point of willful dishonesty, in my opinion, and therefore there is no basis for further constructive discussion or debate- all I can do is call out the misrepresentation, which I have done, and then walk away before this degenerates into another round of pointless name-calling and thread-derailment.

I will add that if we continue to cave to Trump's demands every time there is a cost for resisting them, we very soon will reach the point where the United States is a fully fascist nation, and at that point it will become necessary to hold all employees of its government (save those who use their positions to resist it from within) responsible as collaborators. Including those who's service predates Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

You said "bring it" - were you welcoming the shut down or just looking like you were cheerleading this mess?

I already said this is arguably the least evil - but I also said it is nothing good. No, we should not capitulate to Trump, but neither should we ignore the clusterfuck of people either being out of work or, worse yet, forced to work without pay.

What I was objecting to was what I perceived to be glee at the prospect of a government shut-down.

Then you misunderstand my point. My language was combative, yes- because I am sick of Trump, and I am sick of Democrats caving to that fascist piece of shit, and I think its time we have this fight out to the finish, as we should have had it over DACA and over children in cages. I think that this is a fight that we need to have. Was I gloating over the fact that government employees (and their families) will go without their pay cheques at Christmas? Of course not. In a better world, none of this would be necessary because Trump would have had his ass kicked in 2016, or would never been a viable candidate for office. We are so very, very far from the world that I want to live in.

[Ralin]

You said "bring it" - were you welcoming the shut down or just looking like you were cheerleading this mess?

I already said this is arguably the least evil - but I also said it is nothing good. No, we should not capitulate to Trump, but neither should we ignore the clusterfuck of people either being out of work or, worse yet, forced to work without pay.

What I was objecting to was what I perceived to be glee at the prospect of a government shut-down.

'He was too enthusiastic about saying Democrats should force Trump to make good on his threats and that the probable consequences are worth it compared to giving in' is a fairly nitpicking point to focus on, and a literal tone argument besides. TRR isn't known for being a bastion of good judgment and insight but everything you're saying could be assumed given the context.

[Broomstick]

Part of the problem here is that TRR has a long history of saying something that doesn't communicate what he later says he was trying to communicate. In which case, why did he say it the way he did the first time around instead of the way he says it four explanations later? There's either a communication issue here or a lot of backpedaling. One or two times is just what happens to all of us but this is a long-standing pattern that happens over and over.

I'm getting too old for another overturn of the economy, much less an overhaul of the entire system. I have fewer years ahead of me than behind me, I don't have the energy and stamina I did even 10 years ago, and my old age is looking more and more uncertain - pardon me if I view the whole mess as more of bleak doom than a RAR! FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION!

Once again, it's much easier to be enthusiastic when you yourself are much less likely to suffer the worst consequences.

[The Romulan Republic]

Part of the problem here is that TRR has a long history of saying something that doesn't communicate what he later says he was trying to communicate. In which case, why did he say it the way he did the first time around instead of the way he says it four explanations later? There's either a communication issue here or a lot of backpedaling. One or two times is just what happens to all of us but this is a long-standing pattern that happens over and over.

I tend to use rather colourful rhetoric at times, and I will admit that that can sometimes obscure my intent, or show only one side of a complex issue. However, I also think there's a vicious cycle here, where people expect me to say something stupid, and so tend to immediately jump to the most negative possible interpretation of my posts, and then think that I am being stupid or dishonest when I try to clarify.

I'm getting too old for another overturn of the economy, much less an overhaul of the entire system. I have fewer years ahead of me than behind me, I don't have the energy and stamina I did even 10 years ago, and my old age is looking more and more uncertain - pardon me if I view the whole mess as more of bleak doom than a RAR! FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION!

Once again, it's much easier to be enthusiastic when you yourself are much less likely to suffer the worst consequences.

I'm sorry for that, I truly am. But the harsh truth is that the overhaul is here, whether we want it or not. We're in the middle of an overhaul now, from flawed Republic to fascist autocracy or oligarchy. We either accept that, or we fight to push in the other direction.

For what its worth, I am not at all confident that I will remain safe. I'm in a better position than most, true- but when we're facing a crisis of this magnitude, no one is really safe. Far Right authoritarian sentiment is on the rise in Canada too, and a global economic collapse (not to mention climate change) is something that's fucking everybody over.

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Trump issues executive order freezing federal workers' pay in 2019
CNN Digital Expansion 2018 Veronica StracqualursiKevin Liptak-Profile-Image
By Veronica Stracqualursi and Kevin Liptak, CNN

Updated 1:49 PM ET, Sun December 30, 2018
Federal workers brace for long shutdown
Play Video

Federal workers brace for long shutdown 02:14
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump issued an executive order Friday freezing federal workers' pay for 2019, following through on a proposal he announced earlier in the year.

The move, which nixes a 2.1% across-the-board pay raise that was set to take effect in January, comes as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are expecting to begin the new year furloughed or working without pay because of a partial government shutdown.
Trump told lawmakers he planned to scrap the 2019 pay bump for federal workers in August, saying the federal budget couldn't support it. In addition to the 2.1% pay increase, the executive order also cancels a yearly adjustment of paychecks based on the region of the country where workers are posted, called the "locality pay increase," that was due to take effect in January.
The move does not affect a 2.6% pay increase for US troops next year that was passed as part of the massive defense spending bill Trump signed in August.
Lawmakers could include a pay raise for 2019 in a spending bill to reopen the government, but negotiations have been at an impasse over money for Trump's border wall.
About 380,000 federal employees are on furlough and 420,000 are working without pay as the new year approaches.
In a letter to House and Senate leaders in August, Trump described the pay increase as "inappropriate."
"We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases," the President wrote.
Trump also stressed that a pay freeze would not affect the federal government's ability to attract qualified workers. He cited his statutory authority to adjust pay out of "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare."

Remember, there's nothing to show how much love you have for your civil servants by not only keeping a shutdown going so that they can't get paid, and saying that they'll have no raise coming in the new year.

[The Romulan Republic]

Douchbaggery, thy name is Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thus far the Democratic leaderships' spines seem to be holding: one of the new House's first acts upon convening on Thursday will be to introduce a package of bills to reopen the government without a penny of funding for the wall, and maintaining Homeland Security's funding at its present level (including 1.3 billion for border security).

https://globalnews.ca/news/4804679/demo ... rump-wall/

Glad to see the Dems finally playing some hard ball. What I think we're seeing here is partly a consequence of the Pelosi leadership fight. While she had pretty strong majority support among Dems. to lead the House, she has to be elected to that position by THE WHOLE HOUSE. Meaning even a relatively small number of Dem. defections from the progressive/socialist side of the party can remove her as Speaker. She knows that a quick capitulation to Trump to end the shutdown might win some brownie points with moderates, but it could cost her her leadership.

Of course, Trump has also made it bluntly clear that he will not negotiate in good faith, and can't be trusted to keep any deal he makes. He brought this situation entirely on himself. Its just a shame that innocent people got caught in the crossfire.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, another factor is that the Democrats won the House with a clear mandate from the public to serve as a check on Donald Trump. And in particular those Democrats who are planning to run for the Presidential nomination in 2020, and need the support of the base to get said nomination, will be very aware of that, and likely leaning on Pelosi and Schumer to show some backbone.

Edit: Interesting fact from CNN just now- while they gained fewer seats due to gerrymandering, the margin of the nationwide popular vote that Democrats won (over 8 points) was the largest win of any party in US history in a Midterm election . Which is a pretty decisive referendum on Trump.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Of course, another factor is that the Democrats won the House with a clear mandate from the public to serve as a check on Donald Trump. And in particular those Democrats who are planning to run for the Presidential nomination in 2020, and need the support of the base to get said nomination, will be very aware of that, and likely leaning on Pelosi and Schumer to show some backbone.

Edit: Interesting fact from CNN just now- while they gained fewer seats due to gerrymandering, the margin of the nationwide popular vote that Democrats won (over 8 points) was the largest win of any party in US history in a Midterm election . Which is a pretty decisive referendum on Trump.

It seems the question of when the elected members actually take office is more complex than the 20th amendment stating the 3rd of Jan (i.e. today) which applies to those at the Federal level- for others it varies by state. The sooner the Dems can oppose Trump more effectively, the better.

[FaxModem1]

Couple bits here about the shutdown:

Koco news

The IRS can't pay out tax refunds due to the government shutdown
5217 Shares
CNN Updated: 9:55 AM CST Jan 4, 2019
By Donna Borak
Americans may find themselves missing an agency they usually love to hate if the government shutdown persists: the Internal Revenue Service.

A protracted fight between President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders to fund the government could delay payouts of tax refunds to millions of Americans who are owed money.

The country's tax collector is among the federal agencies affected by the government shutdown, as it enters its third week.

The IRS is currently working under non-filing season shutdown plans and will be updating those plans ahead of the upcoming tax season as soon as Friday, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The possibility of a lengthy stalemate could complicate this year's tax season, the first under the new law passed by Congress in 2017.

During a shutdown, the IRS typically doesn't perform audits, pay refunds or offer assistance to taxpayers if they have questions, especially outside of the filing season. And while some of the lights may still be on in the building, the agency is currently operating with only 12.5 percent of its workforce, or fewer than 10,000 federal employees.

“We’re in uncharted territory as each day gets longer,” Jackson Hewitt Tax Services Chief Tax Officer Mark Steber told the WSJ.

Tax filing season usually begins in mid-January, and if the shutdown is resolved by then, it may have little lasting impact on taxpayers. The IRS has yet to announce when individuals and businesses can begin submitting their income tax returns.

But any gap in individuals not receiving money they're owed will only intensify pressure on Trump and lawmakers to strike a deal quickly.

Many consider it a major financial windfall that they use to help cover costly expenses or boost their yearly savings. Those who need the refunds the most are also usually among the first to file during the January to April tax season.

The political impasse comes at a time when there was already going to be additional complexity as individuals and corporations wrestle for the first time with new tax law changes.

"This filing season was always going to be challenging," Pomerleau said. "The IRS was still figuring that out. Individuals were still figuring that out even with the full funding."

The agency received two years of funding to implement the new tax law, so some of those activities including devising worksheets and tax forms along with instructions and publications have continued.

But businesses can't call the agency for advice on changes, said Alice Jacobsohn, at the American Payroll Association. That includes questions about how the new tax law may have changed things for this year's W-2 forms, which the IRS must send out by the end of January.

For now, individuals who call the IRS with questions are greeted with an automated message: "Welcome to the IRS. Live telephone assistance is not available at this time. Normal operations will resume as soon as possible."

I'm not sure what that will mean if this goes on into late January, if not February. We'll see though, because Trump is okay with this going on for months:

CNN

Trump says he could keep shutdown going for months or years
Kevin Liptak-Profile-Image
By Kevin Liptak, CNN

Updated 4:26 PM ET, Fri January 4, 2019
Trump: Shutdown could last a year or longer
Pause
MuteMute
Current Time 0:13
/
Duration Time 1:03


FullscreenNow Playing Trump: Shutdown could...
Rashida Tlaib smiles during a campaign rally in Dearborn, Michican on October 26, 2018.
Listen to Rep. Tlaib's controversial comments

New NY attorney general vows to target Trump
Members of Congress congratulate newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during the first session of the 116th Congress at the U.S. Capitol January 03, 2019 in Washington, DC. Under the cloud of a partial federal government shutdown, Pelosi reclaimed her former title as speaker and her fellow Democrats took control of the House of Representatives for the second time in eight years. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 04: U.S. President Donald Trump is joined by Vice President Mike Pence while speaking to the media after a meeting with Congressional leaders about ending the partial government shutdown, in the Rose Garden at the White House on January 4, 2019 in Washington, DC. The U.S government is going into the 13th day of a partial shutdown with Republicans and Democrats at odds on agreeing with President Donald Trump's demands for more money to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Trump teases emergency powers if no wall deal
President Donald Trump listens during a cabinet meeting at the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2019, in Washington. (AP/Evan Vucci)
House Democrats divided on impeaching Trump

CNN reporter to Trump: Why isn't Mexico paying?

Federal contract worker: I don't get back pay

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 30: Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks with a colleague at the lottery draw for congressional offices November 30, 2018 in Washington, DC. As part of the new member orientation process, newly elected members of the U.S. House of Representatives take part in drawing random numbers that provide the order for selecting available congressional office space. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Ocasio-Cortez claps back at trolls

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during Congressional Black Caucus member swearing-in ceremony of the 116th Congress at The Warner Theatre in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2019. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Pelosi: I am not in the censorship business
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 30: Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks with a colleague at the lottery draw for congressional offices November 30, 2018 in Washington, DC. As part of the new member orientation process, newly elected members of the U.S. House of Representatives take part in drawing random numbers that provide the order for selecting available congressional office space. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Ocasio-Cortez claps back at trolls

Video smear attempt on Ocasio-Cortez backfires
Washington (CNN)A meeting Friday between President Donald Trump and newly powerful Democrats ended in varied descriptions of what transpired, with Republicans expressing fresh optimism a deal could be struck and their political opponents offering drearier views of a compromise.

Neither side emerged detailing an immediate breakthrough that could end the continued stalemate that has allowed a partial government shutdown to wear on for two weeks. And despite his rosier outlook, Trump conceded the impasse could reach an historic length, a timeline first relayed by the Senate's top Democrat.
Trump "said he'd keep the government closed for a very long period of time -- months or even years," according to Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who spoke to reporters in the White House driveway.
"Absolutely I said that," Trump affirmed from the Rose Garden shortly afterward. "I don't think it will, but I'm prepared."
Trump issues Congress list of demands ahead of shutdown meeting
Trump issues Congress list of demands ahead of shutdown meeting
Later, two people familiar with the meeting said Trump even mentioned extending the standoff "to the election" and refused to back off his demand for $5.6 billion in funding for a border wall. He opened the talks by launching into a 15-minute salvo that also included griping at the House speaker for recent comments from Democratic lawmakers raising the specter of impeachment.
Despite those disagreements, Trump announced that further discussions would occur over the weekend led by staff members. And he sought to highlight areas, like increasing port capacity, where he was in agreement with Democrats.
"We had a very, very productive meeting and I think we've come a long way," Trump said, adding later: "We're all on the same path in terms of wanting to get government open."
Trump said he designated a group of aides, including Vice President Mike Pence, Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, to participate in the weekend discussions, which he described as meant to "determine what we're going to do about the border."
It's that question which still divides the White House and congressional Democrats, who have vowed to block any attempts to secure new funding for a border wall. Both sides remained firm in their positions on Friday following the two-hour meeting in the White House Situation Room.
"We won't be opening until it's solved," Trump said of the debate over building the wall. "It's a problem of national security. It's a problem of terrorists."
"We're not doing it in pieces," he went on. "We won't be doing it in drips and drabs."
Democrats were equally dug in, saying the matter of a border barrier should only be brought up once the government has reopened.
"We cannot resolve this until we open up government, and we made that very clear to the President," Pelosi said after the White House meeting.
She described the session as "a lengthy and sometimes contentious conversation" but indicated there was some progress made.
"How do you define progress in a meeting?" she asked. "When you have a better understanding of each other's position? When you eliminate some possibilities? If that's the judgment, we made some progress."
Senators are due back in the Capitol next week after the chamber adjourned Friday morning, meaning the shutdown will likely extend into a third week. Roughly 800,000 federal workers are going without pay and several federal systems are closed, including the Smithsonian museums and some national parks.
Trump offered little solace to federal workers affected by the shutdown in his remarks on Friday, a group he's said little about since nine federal agencies saw their funding lapse last month. Some workers have said they are unsure of how they will pay for rent or living expenses without a regular paycheck.
"The safety net will be a strong border because we're going to be safe," Trump said when questioned about those federal workers' plight. "I really believe that they agree with what we're doing."
Asked if he thought landlords would be lenient on federal employees whose paychecks are affected by the shutdown, Trump said he did.
"I would encourage them to be nice and easy," he said.
Play Video

Trump on wall: I don't need Congress' approval 00:45
The midday meeting between Trump and congressional leaders in the White House Situation Room was a repeat affair after a similar session on Wednesday devolved into bickering and finger-pointing. On Friday, Trump found himself facing Pelosi a day after she was elevated to speaker, along Schumer, both of whom said they will not bend in opposing Trump's demand for border wall funding.
Earlier in the day, the President sent a list of demands to Capitol Hill, releasing publicly a letter sent to members of Congress outlining the reasons he continues to seek a border wall. He said he was taking the step because Democratic lawmakers refused to listen the presentation during Wednesday's meeting at the White House.
"Absolutely critical to border security and national security is a wall or a physical barrier that prevents entry in the first place," Trump wrote.
The letter was intended to perpetuate the White House's view of the border issue as a national security emergency -- one of the reasons that meetings with lawmakers this week were convened in the highly secure Situation Room, which has been used in the past to oversee classified raids or military campaigns.
White House aides also hoped the classified setting -- where members of the media are not typically allowed -- would avoid an on-camera setting like Trump held with Pelosi and Schumer in early December, when the Democrats essentially goaded the President into saying he would own any government shutdown.
Trump has largely abandoned that vow, blaming the state of affairs on a myriad of factors: Schumer, Pelosi's speakership prospects and the 2020 election.
Asked Friday whether he was still proud to claim ownership of the shutdown, Trump offered an inexact response.
"I'm very proud of doing what I'm doing. I don't call it a shutdown. I call it doing what you have to do," he said.
In the Rose Garden, Trump was joined by GOP congressional leaders, his vice president, and the Homeland Security secretary, but not McConnell, who returned to Capitol Hill after the meeting.
A McConnell aide later told CNN the Senate Majority Leader left the White House after the meeting unaware of the press availability that was to follow. Both he and the Senate's No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Thune, would have attended if asked, the aide said.
Trump was asked directly in his news conference about McConnell's absence, and responded he wasn't in the Rose Garden "because he's running the Senate."
A tossed letter, an angry interruption and a closed government: few signs a shutdown deal is near
A tossed letter, an angry interruption and a closed government: few signs a shutdown deal is near
Democrats believe they have effectively jammed McConnell with the plan the new Democratic House passed Thursday night -- a bill to reopen the government with no additional wall funding -- and that rank-and-file GOP senators will start to feel pressure and begin sending word that it's time to buck the President and put the Democratic proposals on the floor.
Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine -- both up for re-election in 2020 -- have indicated publicly the shutdown should end before a deal is reached on a wall, signs Democrats take as evidence their strategy is working.
Still, senior Republican aides have noted the decision by Collins and Gardner is hardly reflective of where the broader conference stands. Most Republicans have backed the President's demands for at least $5 billion in funding for the border wall, which was his central campaign promise.
And McConnell has insisted he will not bring for a vote any measure that Trump will not sign. The White House issued a veto threat late Thursday for the package of bills passed by the House.
"The package presented by the House's new Democrat leaders yesterday can only be seen as a time-wasting act of political posturing," McConnell said on Friday. "It does not carry the support of the President. In fact, the administration explicitly indicated yesterday the President would actually veto it. And it cannot earn the support of 60 of my colleagues here in the Senate."
McConnell insists he has 'no particular role' in ending standoff
McConnell insists he has 'no particular role' in ending standoff
Most of the President's allies have encouraged him to remain firm in his demands for border wall funding, even as the prospects of a bill emerging from Capitol Hill with the funds included grew slim with the swearing-in of a new Democratic House.
Even inside the West Wing, the President's senior aides have not counseled him to accept Democratic proposals that would end the shutdown, believing that having the border security fight in the headlines is more preferable than the special counsel's Russia investigation or Michael Cohen's prison sentence.
On Fox News, the President's favorite cable channel, top host Sean Hannity offered a suggestion on Thursday of pairing border wall funding with protections for young undocumented immigrants brought to the US by their parents, recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA) program. It's the same plan Sen. Lindsey Graham floated to the President over lunch last weekend, though the President was noncommittal.
On Friday, Trump said the topic arose in his meeting, but said he'd rather confront the issue separate from the border wall matter.
"We'll discuss it at another time. But there are a lot of great things that can happen with DACA if the Democrats wanted to do that," Trump said.
Republican and Democratic aides both said such a solution is not currently on the table in negotiations. Democrats have made clear they don't trust the White House or Trump to follow through in any broader deal.
CNN's Phil Mattingly and Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.

So, what happens if this does stretch into February?

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump will quite willingly destroy the United States before accepting that he cannot always get his way.

[Ralin]

Is there truly no end to how shitty you can get away with being in American politics so long as you have the right 20~ percent of the electorate permanently on your side?

[FaxModem1]

Is there truly no end to how shitty you can get away with being in American politics so long as you have the right 20~ percent of the electorate permanently on your side?

We never really had to find out before. As they say, this is unexplored territory. Foolish us for having leaders that tried to work within the spirit of the law before this.

[The Romulan Republic]

We've never had anyone quite like Trump, but going back to the Civil War/Reconstruction era, it could be argued that both James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson were destructive to American institutions and interests to the point of Treason, and neither was ever removed from office or prosecuted (Johnson was impeached, and acquitted by a single vote).

Granted, the fact that we have to go back to the Civil War to find comparably shitty Presidents is not really a good place to be as a country.