Who wants to be Donald Trump's lawyer? He needs a good one
 

[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/donald-trumps-lawyer-cohen-giuliani[/URL]
There seems to be a lot of overlap between this thread, and "Thing that make you go hmm." I considered dropping this Op Ed piece over there.
[QUOTE]Trump’s last lawyer, [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/michael-cohen"]Michael Cohen[/URL], is now preparing for a long cold spell inside the slammer next year. Meanwhile, the man currently purporting to represent the 45th president of the United States is hawking himself around Bahrain looking for other clients.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, now styles himself as one of the leading lights of Trump’s defense team. This is a stretch for a man who has spent the last decade as a lobbyist and security consultant. Giuliani’s legal career peaked in the late 1980s, around the time Michael Douglas [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggk"]proclaimed[/URL] that greed was good. In other words: he’s the perfect pretend lawyer for our pretend president.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;501243]I'm not holding my breath waiting for any meaningful action on military aid to the Saudis for their proxy war in Yemen, but [url=https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senate-saudi-arabia-vote]Senate tells [i]Il Duce[/i], "Don't treat us like idiots!"[/url][/QUOTE]
The Capitol Hill Kabuki Dance goes on: [url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/politics/republicans-resolution-us-yemen/index.html]Senate opens debate on restricting US military involvement in Saudi-led war in Yemen[/url]
[quote]Earlier, House Republicans quietly moved to give GOP leadership more power to block the Senate resolution, giving cover to the White House in its fight against the plan.

The GOP-led House Rules Committee, in an unusual step in its final days in power, discreetly tucked a provision into an unrelated measure that would no longer consider the Yemen plan a "privileged" resolution during this Congress. If the measure is no longer considered privileged, it would no longer move on an expedited path and GOP leaders would have more power to deny the measure from getting a vote.

The language was added to a rule governing floor debate over the farm bill and was approved Wednesday by an extremely narrow margin, 206-203.[/quote]

The right hand giveth, and the far-right hand taketh away...

Who'd've thunk it?
 

[URL]https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trumps-inauguration-paid-trumps-company-with-ivanka-in-the-middle[/URL]
Self dealing, double dealing, overcharging, tax dodging... [cue Claude Rains]Shocked!!!
[QUOTE]When it came out this year that President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee raised and spent unprecedented amounts, people wondered where all that money went. It turns out one beneficiary was Trump himself.

The inauguration paid the Trump Organization for rooms, meals and event space at the company’s Washington hotel, according to interviews as well as internal emails and receipts reviewed by WNYC and ProPublica.

During the planning, Ivanka Trump, the president-elect’s eldest daughter and a senior executive with the Trump Organization, was involved in negotiating the price the hotel charged the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee for venue rentals. A top inaugural planner emailed Ivanka and others at the company to “express my concern” that the hotel was overcharging for its event spaces, worrying of what would happen “when this is audited.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;503277][URL]https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trumps-inauguration-paid-trumps-company-with-ivanka-in-the-middle[/URL]
Self dealing, double dealing, overcharging, tax dodging... [cue Claude Rains]Shocked!!![/QUOTE]It is perhaps shocking that the you-know-what hadn't hit the fan earlier. It was reported early on that the inaugural committee had only spent a fraction of the money it raised on the inaugural. I've been waiting for an announcement like this ever since.

Meanwhile, it seems the Trump Foundation has agreed to close up shop. I'm sure its many worthy beneficiaries will miss its charitable funding mightily.

[i]Il Duce[/i] was so keen on getting James Mattis in as Secretary of Defense, he nominated him despite his being a military officer, requiring Congress to pass an exemption to allow him to assume the office.

James Mattis has just done what Cabinet Secretaries [i]should[/i] do if they can't support the President's policies. Or maybe if they just get tired of trying to advise someone who simply won't listen to advice.

[quote]Dear Mr. President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

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. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

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. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.

I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.[/quote]

Apparently [i]Il Duce[/i] was so incensed at Mattis's resignation letter, he's booting him out at the end of the year, rather than waiting until the resignation became effective at the end of February, and appointing the Deputy Secretary to fill in.

Meanwhile, Brett McGurk, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, has also resigned.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;503808]Apparently [I]Il Duce[/I] was so incensed at Mattis's resignation letter, he's booting him out at the end of the year, rather than waiting until the resignation became effective at the end of February, and appointing the Deputy Secretary to fill in.

Meanwhile, Brett McGurk, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, has also resigned.[/QUOTE]
Rats Overboard!

[QUOTE=kladner;503816]Rats Overboard![/QUOTE]No-no-no-no-no! Rat the President is Captain of the ship! It's the rest of us who are going to wind up overboard...

[QUOTE=kladner;503816]Rats Overboard![/QUOTE]
Are you hinting that the ship is sinking?

[QUOTE=xilman;503878]Are you hinting that the ship is sinking?[/QUOTE]
[i]Il Duce[/i]'s performance this week reminds me of [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdxV2btupHo]the final scene of [i]Aguirre, the Wrath of God[/i][/url].

[QUOTE=xilman;503878]Are you hinting that the ship is sinking?[/QUOTE]
It seems that many feel that way. Lots of them jumping out, or getting shoved. What's left seems to be Bolton, Pompeo, and Trump. I shudder to think what kind of destructive mischief that evil lot could launch in an effort to distract from Trump's disintegration.