Trump Presidency

[brownman]

.. yes, and major news announced by Huckleberry .. Frankie gets to weed whack the rose garden
He thinks his sanctions hold merit. World has tuned him out.
No credibility whatsoever. His base rejoices in it.
Sequestration and isolationism straight ahead.

[XtremeJibber2001]

As the lies and contradictions mount, federal officials are deciding to simply ignore Trump

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/as-lies ... eningbrief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... but I thought he was a leader?

[madhatter]

this is how stupid you guys look...



nothing quite so pathetic as a sore loser...

[XtremeJibber2001]

It just keeps flowing ... they can't seem to find a way to plug the spigot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... dbdf95d72c

I'm in awe how some can't help themselves from defending him. Just a snake oil salesman.

Trump urged Mexican president to end his public defiance on border wall, transcript reveals
The Post has obtained transcripts of President Trump’s January phone conversations with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. (The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller August 3 at 8:58 AM

President Trump made building a wall along the southern U.S. border and forcing Mexico to pay for it core pledges of his campaign.

But in his first White House call with Mexico’s president, Trump described his vow to charge Mexico as a growing political problem, pressuring the Mexican leader to stop saying publicly that his government would never pay.

“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued to make defiant statements.

The funding “will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said, adding later that “it will come out in the wash, and that is okay.” But “if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”

He described the wall as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

The heated exchange came during back-to-back days of calls that Trump held with foreign leaders a week after taking office. The Post has obtained transcripts of Trump’s talks with Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Produced by White House staff, the documents provide an unfiltered glimpse of Trump’s approach to the diplomatic aspect of his job, subjecting even a close neighbor and long-standing ally to streams of threats and invective as if aimed at U.S. adversaries.

The Jan. 28 call with Turnbull became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “This is ridiculous.”

The White House declined to comment. An official familiar with both conversations, who refused to speak on the record because the president’s calls have not been declassified, said, “The president is a tough negotiator who is always looking to make the best possible deals for the American people. The United States has many vital interests at stake with Mexico, including stopping the flow of illegal immigration, ending drug cartels’ reach into our communities, increasing border security, renegotiating NAFTA and reducing a massive trade deficit. In every conversation the president has with foreign leaders, he is direct and forceful in his determination to put America and Americans first.”

The official noted that Trump has since met both the Australian and Mexican leaders in person and had productive conversations with them.

The transcripts were based on records kept by White House notetakers who monitored Trump’s calls. Known as a “memorandum of conversation,” such documents are commonly circulated to White House staff and senior policymakers.

Both documents obtained by The Post contain notes indicating they were reviewed and classified by retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg Jr., who serves as chief of staff on the National Security Council.

Portions of Trump’s strained conversations with Turnbull and Peña Nieto were reported earlier this year. But the transcripts trace the entire course of those calls from greeting to confrontation to — in the case of Turnbull — abrupt conclusion.

Both calls centered on immigration-related issues with high political stakes for Trump, who built his campaign around vows to erect new barriers — physical and legal — to entry to the United States.

But there was little discussion of the substance of those plans or their implications for U.S. relations with Australia and Mexico. Instead, Trump’s overriding concern seemed to center on how any approach would reflect on him.

“This is going to kill me,” he said to Turnbull. “I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.”

The agreement reached by the Obama administration actually called for the United States to admit 1,250 refugees, subject to security screening. A White House readout of the Trump call, issued at the time, said only that the two leaders had “emphasized the enduring strength and closeness of the U.S.-Australia relationship.”

Trump spent much of his call with Peña Nieto seeking to enlist the Mexican president in a deal to stop talking about how the wall would be paid for. Two days earlier, Trump had signed an executive order mandating construction of the wall, but funding for it remains unclear.

“On the wall, you and I both have a political problem,” Trump said. “My people stand up and say, ‘Mexico will pay for the wall,’ and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language.”

Trump seemed to acknowledge that his threats to make Mexico pay had left him cornered politically. “I have to have Mexico pay for the wall — I have to,” he said. “I have been talking about it for a two-year period.”

To solve that problem, Trump pressured Peña Nieto to suppress the issue. When pressed on who would pay for the wall, “We should both say, ‘We will work it out.’ It will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said. “As opposed to you saying, ‘We will not pay,’ and me saying, ‘We will not pay.’ ”

Peña Nieto resisted, saying that Trump’s repeated threats had placed “a very big mark on our back, Mr. President.” He warned that “my position has been and will continue to be very firm, saying that Mexico cannot pay for the wall.”

Trump objected: “But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that.”

Searching for an exit, Peña Nieto reiterated that the border plan “is an issue related to the dignity of Mexico and goes to the national pride of my country” but agreed to “stop talking about the wall.”

The exchange suggests that even at the outset of his presidency, Trump regarded the prospect of extracting money from Mexico as problematic but sought to avoid acknowledging that reality publicly.

Trump reiterated that vow as recently as last month, when he said during a summit of foreign leaders in Germany that he “absolutely” remained committed to forcing Mexico to pay for the wall. Weeks later, however, the House approved a spending bill setting aside $1.6 billion for a structure that is projected to cost as much as $21 billion.

Trump told Peña Nieto that he knew “how to build very inexpensively . . . and it will be a better wall and it will look nice.” He has suggested the money could come from border taxes and even threatened to block remittance payments that flow from workers in the United States to relatives in Mexico, but has yet to provide complete plans or funding details.

Trump also lashed out at Peña Nieto over the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

“We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy,” Trump said. “I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.”

Trump won the Republican primary in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton carried the state in the general election.

He described Mexican drug cartel leaders as “pretty tough hombres” and promised U.S. military support, saying that “maybe your military is afraid of them, but our military is not.”

Peña Nieto responded by saying that drug trafficking in Mexico is “largely supported by the illegal amounts of money and weapons coming from the United States.”

Trump also threatened to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on imports from Mexico, saying that as president he had been given “tremendous taxation powers for trade,” even though tariffs are mainly the province of Congress.

Despite the friction, Trump at other moments sought to sweet-talk Peña Nieto, telling him that “you and I will always be friends,” and that if they could resolve their disputes over the border and trade, “We will almost become the fathers of our country — almost, not quite, okay?”

Though Australia is one of the United States’ closest allies, Trump’s call with Turnbull was even more contentious. The prime minister opened by noting that he and Trump have similar backgrounds as businessmen turned politicians. Trump also inquired about a mutual acquaintance, the golfer Greg Norman.

But the conversation devolved into a blistering exchange over a U.S. agreement to accept refugees from Australian detention centers on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island and the island nation of Nauru. The Obama administration had agreed to accept some of those being detained on humanitarian grounds after intervention by the United Nations.

At one point, Trump expressed admiration for Australia’s refusal to allow refugees arriving on boats to reach its shores, saying it “is a good idea. We should do that too.” In a remark apparently meant as a compliment, Trump told Turnbull, “You are worse than I am.”

But the conversation rapidly deteriorated.

“I hate taking these people,” Trump said. “I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people” — an apparent reference to U.S. dairy farms.

Turnbull tried to salvage the deal, noting that the detainees were economic refugees who had not been accused of crimes. He explained that they were being denied entry into Australia because of a policy aimed at discouraging human smuggling.

“There is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal,” Turnbull said. “You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.”

Trump only became angrier, saying the refugees could “become the Boston bomber in five years.”

“I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made,” Trump said. “As far as I am concerned, that is enough, Malcolm. I have had it.”

Turnbull tried to turn to Syria and other subjects. But Trump refused. The call, which began at 5:05 p.m., ended 24 minutes later with Turnbull thanking the still-fuming Trump for his commitment.

“You can count on me,” Turnbull said. “I will be there again and again.”

“I hope so,” Trump said before saying thank you and hanging up.

[Bubba]

The five most revealing quotes from Trump's leaked calls. I especially like the "I am the world's greatest person..." statement.

http://time.com/4885703/donald-trump-ph ... tter-brief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

The five most revealing quotes from Trump's leaked calls. I especially like the "I am the world's greatest person..." statement.

http://time.com/4885703/donald-trump-ph ... tter-brief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me," Trump told Turnbull over a U.S. deal to accept hundreds of refugees. "I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people, and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."

what exactly to understand that to mean?

[madhatter]

It just keeps flowing ... they can't seem to find a way to plug the spigot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... dbdf95d72c

I'm in awe how some can't help themselves from defending him. Just a snake oil salesman.

Trump urged Mexican president to end his public defiance on border wall, transcript reveals
The Post has obtained transcripts of President Trump’s January phone conversations with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. (The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller August 3 at 8:58 AM

President Trump made building a wall along the southern U.S. border and forcing Mexico to pay for it core pledges of his campaign.

But in his first White House call with Mexico’s president, Trump described his vow to charge Mexico as a growing political problem, pressuring the Mexican leader to stop saying publicly that his government would never pay.

“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued to make defiant statements.

The funding “will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said, adding later that “it will come out in the wash, and that is okay.” But “if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”

He described the wall as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

The heated exchange came during back-to-back days of calls that Trump held with foreign leaders a week after taking office. The Post has obtained transcripts of Trump’s talks with Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Produced by White House staff, the documents provide an unfiltered glimpse of Trump’s approach to the diplomatic aspect of his job, subjecting even a close neighbor and long-standing ally to streams of threats and invective as if aimed at U.S. adversaries.

The Jan. 28 call with Turnbull became particularly acrimonious. “I have had it,” Trump erupted after the two argued about an agreement on refugees. “I have been making these calls all day, and this is the most unpleasant call all day.”

Before ending the call, Trump noted that at least one of his conversations that day had gone far more smoothly. “Putin was a pleasant call,” Trump said, referring to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “This is ridiculous.”

The White House declined to comment. An official familiar with both conversations, who refused to speak on the record because the president’s calls have not been declassified, said, “The president is a tough negotiator who is always looking to make the best possible deals for the American people. The United States has many vital interests at stake with Mexico, including stopping the flow of illegal immigration, ending drug cartels’ reach into our communities, increasing border security, renegotiating NAFTA and reducing a massive trade deficit. In every conversation the president has with foreign leaders, he is direct and forceful in his determination to put America and Americans first.”

The official noted that Trump has since met both the Australian and Mexican leaders in person and had productive conversations with them.

The transcripts were based on records kept by White House notetakers who monitored Trump’s calls. Known as a “memorandum of conversation,” such documents are commonly circulated to White House staff and senior policymakers.

Both documents obtained by The Post contain notes indicating they were reviewed and classified by retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg Jr., who serves as chief of staff on the National Security Council.

Portions of Trump’s strained conversations with Turnbull and Peña Nieto were reported earlier this year. But the transcripts trace the entire course of those calls from greeting to confrontation to — in the case of Turnbull — abrupt conclusion.

Both calls centered on immigration-related issues with high political stakes for Trump, who built his campaign around vows to erect new barriers — physical and legal — to entry to the United States.

But there was little discussion of the substance of those plans or their implications for U.S. relations with Australia and Mexico. Instead, Trump’s overriding concern seemed to center on how any approach would reflect on him.

“This is going to kill me,” he said to Turnbull. “I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.”

The agreement reached by the Obama administration actually called for the United States to admit 1,250 refugees, subject to security screening. A White House readout of the Trump call, issued at the time, said only that the two leaders had “emphasized the enduring strength and closeness of the U.S.-Australia relationship.”

Trump spent much of his call with Peña Nieto seeking to enlist the Mexican president in a deal to stop talking about how the wall would be paid for. Two days earlier, Trump had signed an executive order mandating construction of the wall, but funding for it remains unclear.

“On the wall, you and I both have a political problem,” Trump said. “My people stand up and say, ‘Mexico will pay for the wall,’ and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language.”

Trump seemed to acknowledge that his threats to make Mexico pay had left him cornered politically. “I have to have Mexico pay for the wall — I have to,” he said. “I have been talking about it for a two-year period.”

To solve that problem, Trump pressured Peña Nieto to suppress the issue. When pressed on who would pay for the wall, “We should both say, ‘We will work it out.’ It will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said. “As opposed to you saying, ‘We will not pay,’ and me saying, ‘We will not pay.’ ”

Peña Nieto resisted, saying that Trump’s repeated threats had placed “a very big mark on our back, Mr. President.” He warned that “my position has been and will continue to be very firm, saying that Mexico cannot pay for the wall.”

Trump objected: “But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that.”

Searching for an exit, Peña Nieto reiterated that the border plan “is an issue related to the dignity of Mexico and goes to the national pride of my country” but agreed to “stop talking about the wall.”

The exchange suggests that even at the outset of his presidency, Trump regarded the prospect of extracting money from Mexico as problematic but sought to avoid acknowledging that reality publicly.

Trump reiterated that vow as recently as last month, when he said during a summit of foreign leaders in Germany that he “absolutely” remained committed to forcing Mexico to pay for the wall. Weeks later, however, the House approved a spending bill setting aside $1.6 billion for a structure that is projected to cost as much as $21 billion.

Trump told Peña Nieto that he knew “how to build very inexpensively . . . and it will be a better wall and it will look nice.” He has suggested the money could come from border taxes and even threatened to block remittance payments that flow from workers in the United States to relatives in Mexico, but has yet to provide complete plans or funding details.

Trump also lashed out at Peña Nieto over the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

“We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy,” Trump said. “I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.”

Trump won the Republican primary in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton carried the state in the general election.

He described Mexican drug cartel leaders as “pretty tough hombres” and promised U.S. military support, saying that “maybe your military is afraid of them, but our military is not.”

Peña Nieto responded by saying that drug trafficking in Mexico is “largely supported by the illegal amounts of money and weapons coming from the United States.”

Trump also threatened to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on imports from Mexico, saying that as president he had been given “tremendous taxation powers for trade,” even though tariffs are mainly the province of Congress.

Despite the friction, Trump at other moments sought to sweet-talk Peña Nieto, telling him that “you and I will always be friends,” and that if they could resolve their disputes over the border and trade, “We will almost become the fathers of our country — almost, not quite, okay?”

Though Australia is one of the United States’ closest allies, Trump’s call with Turnbull was even more contentious. The prime minister opened by noting that he and Trump have similar backgrounds as businessmen turned politicians. Trump also inquired about a mutual acquaintance, the golfer Greg Norman.

But the conversation devolved into a blistering exchange over a U.S. agreement to accept refugees from Australian detention centers on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island and the island nation of Nauru. The Obama administration had agreed to accept some of those being detained on humanitarian grounds after intervention by the United Nations.

At one point, Trump expressed admiration for Australia’s refusal to allow refugees arriving on boats to reach its shores, saying it “is a good idea. We should do that too.” In a remark apparently meant as a compliment, Trump told Turnbull, “You are worse than I am.”

But the conversation rapidly deteriorated.

“I hate taking these people,” Trump said. “I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people” — an apparent reference to U.S. dairy farms.

Turnbull tried to salvage the deal, noting that the detainees were economic refugees who had not been accused of crimes. He explained that they were being denied entry into Australia because of a policy aimed at discouraging human smuggling.

“There is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal,” Turnbull said. “You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.”

Trump only became angrier, saying the refugees could “become the Boston bomber in five years.”

“I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made,” Trump said. “As far as I am concerned, that is enough, Malcolm. I have had it.”

Turnbull tried to turn to Syria and other subjects. But Trump refused. The call, which began at 5:05 p.m., ended 24 minutes later with Turnbull thanking the still-fuming Trump for his commitment.

“You can count on me,” Turnbull said. “I will be there again and again.”

“I hope so,” Trump said before saying thank you and hanging up.

you idiots make me laugh so fvcking hard, well for a minute or so then I'm completely exasperated trying to comprehend the supposed thought process you have that leads you to imagine this is of some importance...or that it's even verifiable...

the "leaks" will stop when the corruption stops...heads will have to roll...what really amazes me is that you find insubordination to be admirable or some kind of joke...I get it that leftists are convinced that the ends justify the means...what they don't understand is what that means when the opposition adopts the same approach...

no one is defending trump, I'm merely dismissing the left and MSM's attacks as immaterial irrelevant and of little to no importance other than to demonstrate why we voted for trump in the first place...we're sick of the MSM and the left dictating the narrative, a narrative most of us have never bought...you on the other hand seem to buy it lock stock and barrel....some independent you are...

how's that Russia thing going? impeachment? 25th amendment? all them rape lawsuits? the rest of the ridiculous narrative that you are so emotionally invested in? how's that all working out? you like being spoon fed your thoughts by the media?

[Bubba]

The five most revealing quotes from Trump's leaked calls. I especially like the "I am the world's greatest person..." statement.

http://time.com/4885703/donald-trump-ph ... tter-brief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me," Trump told Turnbull over a U.S. deal to accept hundreds of refugees. "I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people, and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."

what exactly to understand that to mean?

Could you put that question in English?

Seriously, I don't know if it means he's claiming to be the world's greatest person who also doesn't want to let people into this country, or that he's the world's greatest person because he doesn't want to let people into this country, Either way, who the hell ever claims to be the world's greatest person except a narcissist with the world's greatest ego?

[madhatter]

The five most revealing quotes from Trump's leaked calls. I especially like the "I am the world's greatest person..." statement.

http://time.com/4885703/donald-trump-ph ... tter-brief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me," Trump told Turnbull over a U.S. deal to accept hundreds of refugees. "I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people, and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."

what exactly do you understand that to mean?

Could you put that question in English? yep I f'd it up, but somehow you were able to figure it out anyway...

Seriously, I don't know if it means he's claiming to be the world's greatest person who also doesn't want to let people into this country, or that he's the world's greatest person because he doesn't want to let people into this country, Either way, who the hell ever claims to be the world's greatest person except a narcissist with the world's greatest ego?

or that he's the biggest advocate for not allowing refugees etc

isn't there a place in pittsfield that claims to have the worlds greatest breakfast? are they narcissists?

meanwhile you didn't build that some one else did actually didn't mean you didn't build that and that someone else did...but some other thing that implied that the public built the roads etcc as if the businessman isn't part of the public...

https://www.hermancain.com/leaks-become ... -the-white" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Try to imagine this: Your boss gets on the phone to an important client or vendor. While he's talking, several other people are in the room taking notes on the conversation. He trusts you as part of his team, so you're allowed to be in the room and allowed to take notes.

Shortly thereafter, you decide to provide these transcripts to a business or trade publication that covers your industry, on the condition that they not say who they got them from. They publish them in toto. Your boss is embarrassed. All his competitors are now aware of competitive information that puts your company at a decided disadvantage in the market.

What kind of traitorous turncoat are you? You know damn well that if you get found out, you will be out the door so fast you won't know what hit you, and you'd better hope you didn't sign any legal nondisclosure agreements because if you did your boss is going to take you for everything you've got - and you'll deserve it.

That's how much of a scumbag you are.

And apparently the White House is filled with people like this - people who pretend they're there to help President Trump govern while in fact they are looking for opportunities to undermine him. And this is all perfectly fine with the Washington Post, because it benefits from these people's dishonesty:

Can you imagine if you had an employee who did something like this to you? The far more important revelation here - much more than what Trump may or may not have said - is that the Washington culture is crawling with people who would do something like this. Not only that, but the press corps think it's wonderful. They think of these people as "whistleblowers" and view all this through the lense of "transparency."

But healthy transparency doesn't mean that conversations the president thinks are private end up in the newspapers because internal turncoats violate policy and give them to the press. That isn't just bad for the current sitting president. That's bad for the country.

How is any president supposed to be feel confident he can have a frank, honest conversation with a foreign leader - or with anyone for that matter - if there's a chance that his words will be blabbed via the media? And if presidents have to fear such leaks, then how can a foreign leader be confident a president is being candid with him?

And I would ask a question to the Washington Post and to any other media outlet that chooses to publish information like this, which is both classified and not authorized for release: Do you realize that the person you're trusting as your source lies to his boss? Do you realize this person engages in duplicity, pretending to be a loyal employee while going behind his boss's back and undermining him?

I realize you hate this man's boss, so maybe this is a case of situational ethics for you. His dishonesty is fine as long as it's at the expense of someone we can't stand. But if this person is accepting a paycheck to work for the president while secretly undermining him, then he's a liar. You understand this, yes? And if he lies to his boss, what makes you so sure he's being truthful with you? And when you refuse to name your source, but tell us to trust you that this is all on the up and up, why should we accept that when we already know that your source is a duplicitous liar?

And why should we feel good about trusting our well-being to Washington, when Washington is full of people like this and those of you who are supposed to be holding them accountable encourage the most dishonest, disloyal behavior - as long as it benefits you?

President Trump is absolutely right to rail against leaks. No corporation in America would tolerate what goes on routinely in Washington D.C. Yet the Beltway yawns, or scoffs, at Trump's concerns.

This is why the swamp needs to be drained. I hope whoever leaked this transcript, which was classified, is caught and sent to prison for a very long time. At least.

[Nikoli]

The five most revealing quotes from Trump's leaked calls. I especially like the "I am the world's greatest person..." statement.

http://time.com/4885703/donald-trump-ph ... tter-brief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me," Trump told Turnbull over a U.S. deal to accept hundreds of refugees. "I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people, and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."

what exactly do you understand that to mean?

Could you put that question in English? yep I f'd it up, but somehow you were able to figure it out anyway...

Seriously, I don't know if it means he's claiming to be the world's greatest person who also doesn't want to let people into this country, or that he's the world's greatest person because he doesn't want to let people into this country, Either way, who the hell ever claims to be the world's greatest person except a narcissist with the world's greatest ego?

or that he's the biggest advocate for not allowing refugees etc

isn't there a place in pittsfield that claims to have the worlds greatest breakfast? are they narcissists?

meanwhile you didn't build that some one else did actually didn't mean you didn't build that and that someone else did...but some other thing that implied that the public built the roads etcc as if the businessman isn't part of the public...

https://www.hermancain.com/leaks-become ... -the-white" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Try to imagine this: Your boss gets on the phone to an important client or vendor. While he's talking, several other people are in the room taking notes on the conversation. He trusts you as part of his team, so you're allowed to be in the room and allowed to take notes.

Shortly thereafter, you decide to provide these transcripts to a business or trade publication that covers your industry, on the condition that they not say who they got them from. They publish them in toto. Your boss is embarrassed. All his competitors are now aware of competitive information that puts your company at a decided disadvantage in the market.

What kind of traitorous turncoat are you? You know damn well that if you get found out, you will be out the door so fast you won't know what hit you, and you'd better hope you didn't sign any legal nondisclosure agreements because if you did your boss is going to take you for everything you've got - and you'll deserve it.

That's how much of a scumbag you are.

And apparently the White House is filled with people like this - people who pretend they're there to help President Trump govern while in fact they are looking for opportunities to undermine him. And this is all perfectly fine with the Washington Post, because it benefits from these people's dishonesty:

Can you imagine if you had an employee who did something like this to you? The far more important revelation here - much more than what Trump may or may not have said - is that the Washington culture is crawling with people who would do something like this. Not only that, but the press corps think it's wonderful. They think of these people as "whistleblowers" and view all this through the lense of "transparency."

But healthy transparency doesn't mean that conversations the president thinks are private end up in the newspapers because internal turncoats violate policy and give them to the press. That isn't just bad for the current sitting president. That's bad for the country.

How is any president supposed to be feel confident he can have a frank, honest conversation with a foreign leader - or with anyone for that matter - if there's a chance that his words will be blabbed via the media? And if presidents have to fear such leaks, then how can a foreign leader be confident a president is being candid with him?

And I would ask a question to the Washington Post and to any other media outlet that chooses to publish information like this, which is both classified and not authorized for release: Do you realize that the person you're trusting as your source lies to his boss? Do you realize this person engages in duplicity, pretending to be a loyal employee while going behind his boss's back and undermining him?

I realize you hate this man's boss, so maybe this is a case of situational ethics for you. His dishonesty is fine as long as it's at the expense of someone we can't stand. But if this person is accepting a paycheck to work for the president while secretly undermining him, then he's a liar. You understand this, yes? And if he lies to his boss, what makes you so sure he's being truthful with you? And when you refuse to name your source, but tell us to trust you that this is all on the up and up, why should we accept that when we already know that your source is a duplicitous liar?

And why should we feel good about trusting our well-being to Washington, when Washington is full of people like this and those of you who are supposed to be holding them accountable encourage the most dishonest, disloyal behavior - as long as it benefits you?

President Trump is absolutely right to rail against leaks. No corporation in America would tolerate what goes on routinely in Washington D.C. Yet the Beltway yawns, or scoffs, at Trump's concerns.

This is why the swamp needs to be drained. I hope whoever leaked this transcript, which was classified, is caught and sent to prison for a very long time. At least.

Leaks are part of the job. Trump should stop crying and start working. If the man wasn't inept half of this stuff wouldn't see the light of day.

[Mister Moose]

I don't care if Steve Urkel is President, leaking content from private conversations between heads of State is inexcusable.

Grand Jury being empaneled by Mueller.

[madhatter]

The five most revealing quotes from Trump's leaked calls. I especially like the "I am the world's greatest person..." statement.

http://time.com/4885703/donald-trump-ph ... tter-brief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me," Trump told Turnbull over a U.S. deal to accept hundreds of refugees. "I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people, and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."

what exactly do you understand that to mean?

Could you put that question in English? yep I f'd it up, but somehow you were able to figure it out anyway...

Seriously, I don't know if it means he's claiming to be the world's greatest person who also doesn't want to let people into this country, or that he's the world's greatest person because he doesn't want to let people into this country, Either way, who the hell ever claims to be the world's greatest person except a narcissist with the world's greatest ego?

or that he's the biggest advocate for not allowing refugees etc

isn't there a place in pittsfield that claims to have the worlds greatest breakfast? are they narcissists?

meanwhile you didn't build that some one else did actually didn't mean you didn't build that and that someone else did...but some other thing that implied that the public built the roads etcc as if the businessman isn't part of the public...

https://www.hermancain.com/leaks-become ... -the-white" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Try to imagine this: Your boss gets on the phone to an important client or vendor. While he's talking, several other people are in the room taking notes on the conversation. He trusts you as part of his team, so you're allowed to be in the room and allowed to take notes.

Shortly thereafter, you decide to provide these transcripts to a business or trade publication that covers your industry, on the condition that they not say who they got them from. They publish them in toto. Your boss is embarrassed. All his competitors are now aware of competitive information that puts your company at a decided disadvantage in the market.

What kind of traitorous turncoat are you? You know damn well that if you get found out, you will be out the door so fast you won't know what hit you, and you'd better hope you didn't sign any legal nondisclosure agreements because if you did your boss is going to take you for everything you've got - and you'll deserve it.

That's how much of a scumbag you are.

And apparently the White House is filled with people like this - people who pretend they're there to help President Trump govern while in fact they are looking for opportunities to undermine him. And this is all perfectly fine with the Washington Post, because it benefits from these people's dishonesty:

Can you imagine if you had an employee who did something like this to you? The far more important revelation here - much more than what Trump may or may not have said - is that the Washington culture is crawling with people who would do something like this. Not only that, but the press corps think it's wonderful. They think of these people as "whistleblowers" and view all this through the lense of "transparency."

But healthy transparency doesn't mean that conversations the president thinks are private end up in the newspapers because internal turncoats violate policy and give them to the press. That isn't just bad for the current sitting president. That's bad for the country.

How is any president supposed to be feel confident he can have a frank, honest conversation with a foreign leader - or with anyone for that matter - if there's a chance that his words will be blabbed via the media? And if presidents have to fear such leaks, then how can a foreign leader be confident a president is being candid with him?

And I would ask a question to the Washington Post and to any other media outlet that chooses to publish information like this, which is both classified and not authorized for release: Do you realize that the person you're trusting as your source lies to his boss? Do you realize this person engages in duplicity, pretending to be a loyal employee while going behind his boss's back and undermining him?

I realize you hate this man's boss, so maybe this is a case of situational ethics for you. His dishonesty is fine as long as it's at the expense of someone we can't stand. But if this person is accepting a paycheck to work for the president while secretly undermining him, then he's a liar. You understand this, yes? And if he lies to his boss, what makes you so sure he's being truthful with you? And when you refuse to name your source, but tell us to trust you that this is all on the up and up, why should we accept that when we already know that your source is a duplicitous liar?

And why should we feel good about trusting our well-being to Washington, when Washington is full of people like this and those of you who are supposed to be holding them accountable encourage the most dishonest, disloyal behavior - as long as it benefits you?

President Trump is absolutely right to rail against leaks. No corporation in America would tolerate what goes on routinely in Washington D.C. Yet the Beltway yawns, or scoffs, at Trump's concerns.

This is why the swamp needs to be drained. I hope whoever leaked this transcript, which was classified, is caught and sent to prison for a very long time. At least.

Leaks are part of the job. Trump should stop crying and start working. If the man wasn't inept half of this stuff wouldn't see the light of day.

you'd do well to be so inept... leaks are actually illegal in many cases and grounds for dismissal in any case...of course if you weren't so politically inept you'd know that...

what's really astounding is the joy some of you get from seeing our govt, the electoral process and the constitutionally elected president being undermined from within by establishment loyalists with the support of an entrenched media...I mean what could possibly go wrong there?

[Bubba]

I do not support leaking, however, leaks are often the way information gets out in DC. And it's clearly one of the key tools of political infighting. Politics ain't beanbag.

As for who leaked the latest info to the Post, don't jump to the easy conclusion that it must be someone currently in the White House and is part of the "deep state". It could just as easily be Sean Spicer, Reince Preibus or even Gen. Flynn, all of whom would've had the transcripts and all of whom have motive, having been unceremoniously let go or pushed out. How about Jeff Sessions or a Sessions supporter? Talk about motivation to get back at the boss. Or even Rex Tillerson, who has taken some flak as well? And, how about anyone who was in the NSC meeting where Trump allegedly trashed the generals over Afghanistan? Trump keeps going after people and, in DC, there's an easy way to return fire. He doesn't seem to have learned that yet.

[deadheadskier]

Here's a simple concept. If Trump hired the right people and managed them properly, the leaking wouldn't happen.

Trump clearly doesn't have the best judgment for building a staff. Just look at the ten day train wreck experiment of Scaramucci. Can even the most loyal Trump supporter say with a straight face that he was a good hire?

His Twitter tantrums against people probably doesn't help matters either. The straight up bullying of Jeff Sessions on Twitter was beyond disrespectful and a joke. I say that being no fan of Sessions. Jeff probably has some fairly high ranking staff members with access to just about everything in the White House. They could be more loyal to Jeff than Trump and say, "You know what, F that guy. Here you go WaPo."

At what point do Trump supporters stop pointing the finger at everyone else and realize that perhaps the problem is his own incompetence to do the job? It's one thing to have ideas that are popular. That's what got him elected. But, if he can't build the political capital necessary to execute those ideas, then that's all on him.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Leaks are part of the job. Trump should stop crying and start working. If the man wasn't inept half of this stuff wouldn't see the light of day.

you'd do well to be so inept... leaks are actually illegal in many cases and grounds for dismissal in any case...of course if you weren't so politically inept you'd know that...

what's really astounding is the joy some of you get from seeing our govt, the electoral process and the constitutionally elected president being undermined from within by establishment loyalists with the support of an entrenched media...I mean what could possibly go wrong there?

What about the joy you got from seeing the same undermining when the DNC e-mails were leaked, possibly with Russian involvement, I mean what could possibly go wrong there?

Early in my career I remember someone telling me ... don't say anything in a meeting, in a conference room, or in an e-mail that you wouldn't want on the evening news. Some haven't received such guidance. Then again, I don't think many politicians get to where they are for having integrity. More like lots of fortitude at the expense of integrity.