Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump is expected to make an announcement in the coming days on whether any recordings exist of his private conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, potentially bringing to an end one of the central mysteries of the ongoing probe that has consumed his White House .

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that he expects an announcement "this week" on the possibility of tapes. The president fired Comey in May and then tweeted that the lawman, who was overseeing the investigation into possible contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian officials, "better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press."

Trump and his aides have since then steadfastly refused to clarify that extraordinary if ambiguous warning. The president last month told reporters that "I'll tell you about that maybe sometime in the near future" but offered no hints as to whether the tapes exists, except saying that some journalists would "be very disappointed" to find out the answer.

The House intelligence committee has asked White House counsel Don McGahn to provide an answer to the question about tapes by Friday. Under a post-Watergate law, the Presidential Records Act, recordings made by presidents belong to the people and can eventually be made public. Destroying them would be a crime.

Comey testified before the Senate that Trump asked for his loyalty and asked for him to drop the probe into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Some have raised the possibility that Trump's request constituted obstruction of justice, but the president has yet to produce the tapes that could theoretically clear his name.

The investigation was originally launched to look into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. Trump has at times cast doubt on that conclusion, and Spicer said Tuesday that he has yet to discuss with the president whether he believes that Moscow was behind the election interference.

"I have not sat down and talked to him about that specific thing," Spicer said.

America's top intelligence officials have concluded that Russia undoubtedly interfered in America's 2016 presidential campaign. Characterizing it as the "high-confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community," Comey testified that there is no doubt that the Russians meddled "with "purpose," ''sophistication" and technology. Trump, meanwhile, has dismissed investigations into the meddling and potential collusion with his campaign associates as a "witch hunt."

Robert Mueller, the special counsel now overseeing the investigation, met Tuesday with the leaders of the House Intelligence committee. Reps. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., issued a brief statement confirming the meeting but providing no details about their discussion.

Mueller is slated to meet Wednesday with top members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and the top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. He'll also meet with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

One reason for the Capitol Hill meetings is to ensure there is no conflict between Mueller's probe and the work of the congressional committees.

Read the rest here:
President Trump Expected to Reveal This Week If Secret Comey Tapes Exist - Fortune

Donald Trump is stooping to new lows. He evidently has no reservations about making himself, the sitting U.S. President, into the Saudis chief global lobbyist.

That Trump bought the Saudi line about the Qataris funding terrorism is very telling.

Both countries, respectively, support Wahhabist or Salafist insurgencies in various places, but that is not what the Saudis find objectionable.

The Saudis try to distract from their own actions

There is no question about the Saudis longstanding willingness to fund and arm specific terrorist groups as needed, mainly to advance allied autocracies and send young hotheads abroad, often to the West.

The Qataris pursue a different approach in the terrorism financing business.

They tend to make longer-term investments in other religious or ideological factions. And yes, these do pose an existential threat to Saudi interests.

For that reason, it is fully comprehensible why the Saudis would want to direct attention to Qatar.

What is not comprehensible is that President Trump has fallen for that very transparent act of distraction.

Trump worries about regime change too

At the same time, it is important to recognize that to be horrified by regime change is something that Donald Trump immediately gets and a fear he instinctively shars with the Saudis. No wonder he regards them as soulmates.

As is the case with the Saudi monarchy itself, Trumps entire political being is based on the conviction that anybody who dares stand in his way in any fashion is guilty of lse majest, if not worse.

That is why he had no qualms about taking sides in the bataille royale.

Europe as collateral damage: So what?

Trump also had no problems with the fact that the fallout of an actual Saudi-Qatar war is bound to go far beyond the Gulf region and the wider Middle East. It would definitely, quite literally, hit European capitals and cities.

As Mr. Trump has made plain in his pompous appearance at NATO headquarters, he is not one to worry much about the U.S.s NATO allies.

In his disturbed mind, he might even think that the Europeans who still owe him billions of dollars basically deserve a hit. So why worry? Any avenue taken to make them come to their senses is welcome.

The fallout from absolving the Saudis

Trumps sycophantic support notwithstanding, the real damage of his words is not just that Trump absolves the Saudis of any of their own responsibility for terror.

What is widely overlooked in that regard is that Trumps full-scale blessing has effectively killed the however hesitant move toward domestic reform in Saudi Arabia.

Given the deteriorating economic regime, the Saudi royals were getting ready to reform themselves, not least because, under President Obama, they no longer had reflexive U.S. backing.

Now that the Saudis arent just back in favor in Washington, but get to run Trumps table, who in Riyadh is to worry about reforms other than cosmetic ones?

Continued here:
Qatar et al.: Donald Trump as a Saudi lobbyist - Salon

Brian Klaas, Opinion contributor 3:18 a.m. ET June 21, 2017

President Trump in the Cabinet Room on June 13, 2017.(Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

The United States government is suffering from a new phenomenon: the Trump Brain Drain. For the first time in memory, the American government is havingdifficulty recruitingthe best and the brightest at thehighest levelsof power.

Qualified public servants areturning downplum government jobs because they don't want to be exposed to the risks of serving in President Trump'sWhite House. West Wing power-brokers are lawyering up (even Trumps lawyer hashireda lawyer). A special counsel is reportedly investigating the president himself for possibly obstructing justice.

The reputational risk of working for Trumps administration is enormous, and it's not just because of the endless spiralingscandals. There's alsothe now routineTrumpian ritual of sacrificing his staff on his altar of self-sabotage.We all know the drill: Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders or another sacrificial lamb offers up a flimsy lie to protect Trump. (He fired Comey because he was toohard on HillaryClinton!) Trump repays the favor by contradicting his staff almost immediately on Twitter or TV. (I fired him because of the Russia thing.)

Yet working for this president has become a bewildering exercise in trying to figure out whats worse: paying exorbitant legal fees, being tossed under the proverbial bus by your boss, orrisking becoming a national punchline (we almost feel sorry for you, Sean). The loyalty that Trump infamously demands from subordinates is clearly not a two-way street.

At least there are job perks. Build your CV with the unique experience of being subpoenaed by Congress. Practice your leader worship skills as youre forced to proclaimyour fawning admiration for Trump during a public Cabinet meeting. And if those dont entice you, who wouldnt jump at the chance to work for a beleaguered president withrecord low approval ratings, a hot temper, and a stalled legislative agenda?

The United States is less safe and government is less effective when top talent must think twice about serving the president.

It's a witch hunt for Trump, whos acting like a witch

Conservatives should love the Trump presidency, but he makes it hard

Less than five months into the Trump presidency, there is a record number of vacancies. Of 558 key presidential appointments requiring Senate confirmation, only43 have beenfilled(less than 8% of the total). And before you echo the frequently tweeted but incorrect Trump accusation that this is due to Democrat "OBSTRUCTIONISTS, remember that405of the 558 positionsdont even have a nominee yet. This snails pace of selecting peoplewhich involves getting them to agree to serveis unprecedented in modern history.

When the post of FBI director opened up (through, shall we say, questionable means), at least fivededicated public servants publicly withdrew from consideration.Several seasoned veterans pulled themselves out of therunningto replace Michael Flynn as national security adviser. EvenKellyanne Conways husbandwithdrewfrom consideration for a powerful Justice Department role (perhaps he had learned some alternative factslife inside the Trump administration from a well-placed counselor?).

The Trump Brain Drain is sapping talent beyond the White House, too. Six cyber security executives toldReutersthat Trumps caustic attacks on intelligence agencies had provoked a marked surge in skilled hackers and cyber talent leaving government agencies to pursue careers in the private sector.Even lawyers, who used to flock to Trump like moths to a litigious orange flame, are now staying away. Four different law firmsdeclinedto represent Trump not only because they feared that Trump wont listen to their legal advice but also because working with Trump wouldkill recruitmentfor their firms the trickle-down economics of the Trump Brain Drain in action.

Of course, there are many, many excellent and experienced public servants in the Trump administration (Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security AdviserH.R. McMasterand Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao spring to mind). But Trumps top day-to-day advisers are no dream team. We must call an unqualified spade an unqualified spade.

POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media

Donald Trump's business ties explain a lot of his dictator worship

There's hardly anyone on Trump's senior staff who hasushered abill through Congress. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, the former Republican Party chairman, has never held elective officeand came to his job withvirtually no experienceat the federal level. Two of Trumps top advisers now some of the most influential people in the world arewoefully unqualified relatives. And former Breitbart chief Steve Bannon has as much business being in the Oval Office as Russian ambassadorSergey Kislyak, yet here we are.

It gets worse. You could start a joke by saying A neurosurgeon and a wedding planner walked into a bar but there's a real-world punchline. Last week, Trumpappointedhis familyswedding planner to run federal housingin New York. Her boss, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, is an impressive neurosurgeon, but its hard to see how operating on brains is a relevant qualification for his post.

In other words, Trumps hiring decisions are compounding the recruitment brain drain because many people he selects are unprepared for their roles. Unless he changes his ways, his presidency will continue to languish from the one-two punch of his own incompetence and the governments inability to recruit top talent.

Brian Klaas is a fellow in comparative politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science and author ofThe Despot's Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the Decline of Democracy. Follow him on Twitter@brianklaas.

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sOUjLn

Read the rest here:
The Donald Trump hiring crisis means America's got no talent - USA TODAY

Kevin DrumJun. 20, 2017 6:33 PM

Lets see. So far President Obama has (a) wiretapped Trump, (b) deliberately planned the destruction of Obamacare for 2017, (c) caused the Mike Flynn debacle by failing to properly vet Flynn,1 (d) personally organized anti-Trump protests around the country, and (e) caused the death of Otto Warmbier because he was too weak-kneed to stand up to North Korea.

Its standard practice for new presidents to declare that things are even worse than I thought, usually offered up as an excuse for why the country hasnt blossomed under new leadership within the first month.2 Its also standard to attack your predecessors policies. But its decidedly not standard to accuse your predecessor personally of illegal, unethical, and cowardly acts.

I suppose Obama will continue to stay quiet about this, partly because its tradition, partly because thats who he is, and partly because speaking up might be counterproductive at the moment. But Im pretty sure Im not the only one who wishes hed toss tradition aside and just lay into Trump. Id pay to see it.

1For the record, Flynn was fired by Obama in 2014 because he had become deranged. Obama personally warned Trump about this.

2Also newly elected governors, mayors, district attorneys, sheriffs, dogcatchers, and PTA presidents.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Read more:
Donald Trump, Classy As Always - Mother Jones

During the 2016 election, many voters were dismayed by both major-party candidates. Hillary Clinton was the personification of the Washington establishment foreign-policy hawk, with her dismal track record of urging ill-conceived military interventions. And Donald Trump, who railed against squandering American blood and treasure abroad, possessed neither the knowledge nor the experience nor the discipline nor the character to steer Americas approach to geopolitics in a better direction.

As if those choices weren't dispiriting enough, I fretted that for all Donald Trumps denunciations of the Iraq War and promises to spend money at home rather than abroad, a careful assessment of his words showed that his own instincts were interventionistthat he was no less likely than his opponent to blunder into a major war.

In Syria today, President Trump is risking just such a conflict.

American forces and American allies are not only taking territory from ISIS, theyre holding that territory against regime forces, David French writes at National Review. Theres a word for what happens when a foreign power takes and holds territory without the consent of the sovereign state invasion. In many ways, current American policy is a lighter-footprint, less ambitious version of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Were using local allies, but our own boots are on the ground, and were directly defending our forces and our allies from threats from Syrias own government. In his estimation, the key warring parties increasingly face a stark choiceagree to a de facto partition of the country or inch toward a great-power conflict.

To wit, an American fighter shot down a Syrian warplane on Sunday, the first time the American military has downed a Syrian aircraft since the start of the civil war in 2011. Observers immediately called the incident a marked escalation in the conflict.

And their view was quickly vindicated: Russia on Monday condemned the American militarys downing of a Syrian warplane, suspending the use of a military hotline that Washington and Moscow have used to avoid collisions in Syrian airspace and threatening to target aircraft flown by the United States and its allies over Syria.

Those skeptical of U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war have long warned that it could escalate into a civilization-warping conflict between nuclear powers. But neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Libya has persuaded todays hawks to sufficiently weight the unintended consequences that plague all complex military interventions. And there are so many varieties of hawks that are urging action.

The complexity of the civil war in Syria is underscored by the fact that the ascendant pro-war faction inside the Trump administration is composed of Iran hawks. According to reporters Kate Brannen, Dan De Luce and Paul McLeary at Just Security, antagonism toward Iran is causing two officials in the Trump White House to push for broadening the conflict, against the advice of officials at the Pentagon:

Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council, and Derek Harvey, the NSCs top Middle East advisor, want the United States to start going on the offensive in southern Syria Their plans are making even traditional Iran hawks nervous, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, who has personally shot down their proposals more than once, the two sources said Despite the more aggressive stance pushed by some White House officials, Mattis, military commanders and top U.S. diplomats all oppose opening up a broader front against Iran and its proxies in southeastern Syria, viewing it as a risky move that could draw the United States into a dangerous confrontation with Iran, defense officials said. Such a clash could trigger retaliation against U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Syria, where Tehran has armed thousands of Shiite militia fighters and deployed hundreds of Revolutionary Guard officers.

Put another way, Iran hawks in the Trump White House want to broaden the conflict there in a manner that pits the U.S. against another country that also seeks the defeat of ISIS, the ostensible reason the U.S. is involved in Syria in the first place.

Meanwhile, hawks in Iran are escalating that countrys role in Syria: Iran announced Sunday the Iran Revolutionary Guards had launched ballistic missile strikes on Saturday against ISIS targets in Syria, dramatically escalating the countrys role in the Syrian conflict. The mid-range ground-to-ground missiles targeted militants in eastern Syria in retaliation for the deadly terrorist attacks in Tehran earlier this month.

The American public does not want a major intervention in Syria.

There has never been a congressional vote authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria against anyone, and there has been scant debate over any of the goals that the U.S. claims to be pursuing there, Daniel Larison notes. The U.S. launches attacks inside Syria with no legal authority from the U.N. or Congress, and it strains credulity that any of these operations have anything to do with individual or collective self-defense.

And the push for escalation is a particular betrayal for Trump voters who supported the candidate based on rhetoric about quickly defeating ISIS and otherwise eschewing war. Here is what Trump had to say back when President Obama was contemplating a greater U.S. role in Syria: What I am saying is stay out of Syria AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Today, escalation in Syria risks those very bad things, along with American lives and treasure, but Trumps current rhetoric suggests he is more focused on his ongoing feud with the news media, Hillary Clinton, and whether he is under investigation. His approach carries all the risks of Washington establishment hawkery with none of the steadiness, experience or discipline that helps to mitigate them.

Were inching toward an outright invasion and extended occupation of northern Syria, French writes at National Review. All without congressional approval. All without meaningful public debate. Will Trumps base stand for this betrayal? So long as he is commander in chief, the U.S. will suffer from the worst qualities of the establishment and its antagonists. It is hard to imagine a president less fit to avoid catastrophe.

See original here:
Donald Trump No Longer Wants to 'Stay Out' of Syria - The Atlantic