Showing posts with label US President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US President. Show all posts

September 25, 2019

Fmer President Carter Says "Trump is Illegitimate and Should be Removed"




                          
   
                                     




Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday morning that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president due to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Carter, 94, was speaking at a Carter Center event on human rights in Leesburg, Va. when he was asked how he would deal with Russian meddling in the last presidential election.

“The president himself should condemn it, admit that it happened, which I think 16 intelligence agencies have already agreed to say,” said Carter. “And there’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference although not yet quantified if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”

Moderator Jon Meacham then asked if Carter thought Trump was an illegitimate president. Carter paused before replying as the audience laughed.

“Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract,” said Carter smiling, “I would say yes.”

At the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, on Friday, Trump joked with Russian President Vladimir Putin, wagging his finger and saying, “Don’t meddle in the election, please,” to which Putin smirked. Although a number of U.S. intelligence agencies and special counsel Robert Mueller found that Russia had systemically interfered in the 2016 election, Putin called it “mythical interference” earlier this week.

Though there has been no evidence that Russia interfered with vote tallies, they did reach out to the Trump campaign, hack Democratic email accounts and flood social media.  

The number of U.S. intelligence organizations that stated Russia interfered with the 2016 election include the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Trump himself nevertheless repeatedly cast doubt on that conclusion.

“They said they think it’s Russia,” Trump said on July 2018. “I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.” 

When pressed the following day, Trump attempted to clarify, saying, “I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. It could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.”  

April 9, 2019

Pete Buttigieg Generating A Big Buzz Puts Miguelito Pence On His Place About Gays


, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON – Pete Buttigieg got a hero’s welcome as he took the stage Sunday at a fundraising brunch for a group that supports LGBTQ candidates.
The improbable presidential campaign of the previously little-known, openly-gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has been generating significant buzz, positive headlines, and large crowds in important primary states like New Hampshire.
He arrived at the LGBTQ Victory Fund event fresh off an interview with NBC’s "Meet the Press."
He was on the front page of that morning’s Washington Post.
“In Buttigieg, gay Americans see a symbol of acceptance,” the headline read. 
But as he spoke to a packed hotel ballroom illuminated with lavender lights, Buttigieg shared something that he’s still uncomfortable admitting.
“It’s hard to face the truth that there were times in my life when, if you had shown me exactly what it was inside me that made me gay, I would have cut it out with a knife," he said. "If you had offered me a pill to make me straight, I would’ve swallowed it before you had time to give me a sip of water." Fortunately, there was no knife and no pill, Buttigieg said. Because then he would not have met his husband, Chasten, who has made him a better person, he said  – and their marriage has moved him closer to God. The message many gay people get that there’s something wrong with them, he continued, “is a message that puts you at war not only with yourself, but with your maker.”
“That’s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand,” Buttigieg said of the vice president, who has opposed same-sex marriage. “That if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
It’s unusual for Democratic presidential candidates to talk about faith as often as Buttigieg does. It’s groundbreaking that he uses his marriage to another man to illustrate his personal relationship with God.
Buttigieg gets easy applause lines at Democratic-friendly audiences, as he did Sunday, for criticizing Pence when he talks about being gay. (His first mention of Pence on Sunday, when Buttigieg described coming out while Pence was serving as Indiana’s governor, generated boos and hisses.)
Buttigieg has also drawn headlines by questioning how President Donald Trump’s professed belief in God squares with his behavior – and by challenging the support Trump receives from many evangelical Christians.
“I can’t believe that somebody that was caught writing hush money checks to adult film actresses is somebody they should be lifting up as the kind of person they want to be leading this nation,” he said on "Meet the Press" Sunday.
Jack Jacobson, an openly-gay member of the D.C. State Board of Education who attended the Victory Fund brunch, said Buttigieg’s openness about his faith is part of what makes him an authentic candidate. 
“He talked about God in a room that’s probably full of atheists. That’s what I am,” Jacobson said. “He does it unabashedly and in a way that doesn’t come across as threatening, dismissive or negative.”
Heather Trout, 43, who lives with her wife in a rural county in Virginia, said Buttigieg’s faith is one reason she’s contributed to his campaign.
“I’m really very excited about hearing a voice from the Christian left,” she said before Buttigieg spoke. “I think that’s a voice not used in the Democratic Party for too long.”
Likewise, Brian Tyler, said he knew he had to come to the brunch when he found out Buttigieg was coming.
“I’m a big fan,” said Tyler, 24, a logistics coordinator. “Republicans don’t have a monopoly on faith.”
Excitement in his official candidacy – an announcement Buttigieg is expected to make this month in South Bend after spending weeks in an “exploratory” mode – made it easy for the Victory Fund to fill the hotel ballroom with more than 800 people, according to organizers.
But as proud as attendees said they would be to see one of their own as a presidential nominee, many said they are excited about other candidates as well.
“I would really like to vote for a woman,” said Elizabeth Carswell, a retired federal government worker who appreciates Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s work for economic justice. “But he brings a lot that is making me look at him.”
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights advocacy group, has said Buttigieg is one of many pro-equality candidates in the race.
California Sen. Kamala Harris and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker recently spoke at a major HRC dinner in Los Angeles.
Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten – who has been getting a lot of media attention of his own lately — addressed an HRC gathering in Houston on Saturday.
“Never underestimate what can happen when you agree to go on a date with a cute guy from South Bend, Indiana,” he said, calling his marriage to Pete “the adventure of a lifetime.”
“I now live in a world where people take photos of me in the deodorant aisle in the grocery story,” he said. “I could be the first man in history to pick out the White House china.”
The Victory Fund had planned to stay focused on candidates for 2019 races before wading into the presidential contest. (The group is on track to help triple from two to six the number of openly-lesbian mayors leading major cities.) But Victory Fund President Annise Parker hinted Sunday that the group will make an exception and endorse Buttigieg after he officially becomes a candidate.
“We are not going to look over 2019 and jump to 2020 – except in maybe one instance,” Parker told the crowd. “We knew he was something special. Now the rest of the world is catching up.”

March 31, 2019

Kenneth Starr, Special Prosecutor Who Went Crazy Trying To Get A Dem Pres. impeached, Responsible For Barr Power Now


and...we ...wait... before we find out if the President is a crook and wether he commited many crimes and felonies and misdemeanors which makes him a bad President and one to be impeached if there is enough evidence. The Waiting is and not legal nor right...tic tac tic tac and Trump keeps preaching how good he is and how he was exonerated by Barr and Mueller. He now plans to get back to media reporers and stations, etc that reported what we know about the report and Trump. He wants to to deny station licenses and is calling for Congressman to be fire (The President does not have that power)  The idiot lost it a long time ago but it seems being crazzy is not one of the reasons to lock you up or get you out of the job which will be enough for any one of us if we behaved on that way.

 Kenneth Starr, A Republican named special prosecutor not because he was good on his resume but partisan. As it happens he loved power and to bring down a popular president on sex, what else could make the religious right high on the sex stuff?? Even though they had to go for the dress and the stair because Clinton instead of following the Trump lawless book of justice decided to testify. Still, Starr lost and people hated him and his way of going around. A President being brought down on sex and a question which the answer lies? So what the Congress do?? The eliminated the office of specisl counsel. Ann ad hoc matter they will appoint one if one needed and the rules will be set by the ruling party, in this case, Trump and the GOP. Something now proved by the way Barr is impeding the release of their results on a two year investigation. On Barr The investigation all the boxes of the investigation were in Congress in hours not weeks.
(Adam Gonzalez)
Attorney General William Barr may have written the epitaph of Robert Mueller’s investigation, but another conservative lawyer from the ‘90s put an unmistakable imprint on the probe into President Donald Trump: former independent counsel Ken Starr. 
In 1998, Starr published his official report on former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky — chockfull of lurid detail about the couple’s sexual relationship, including oral sex in the Oval Office.  It was considered so explicit that it was dubbed a “voluminous work of demented pornography” by the writer Renata Adler. And it provoked such a severe backlash that it changed how American presidents get investigated — and it's why you can't read the Mueller report. It also helped make sure Trump’s own attorney general got to make a ruling on his boss’s alleged obstruction of justice — before Congress could even review the evidence. 
Starr’s report drifted so far from his original mandate, which was to investigate the Clintons’ shady land deals in Arkansas, that both Republicans in Congress and the Clinton administration agreed to rein in the power of the independent counsel’s office. 
Even Starr ultimately agreed the old law should go. So did Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General at the time. During Congressional hearings about the rules in the spring of 1999, Reno called big final reports a “problem.”
“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Reno told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry…. We have come to believe that the price of the final report is often too high.”
So in the summer of 1999, the old law was allowed to quietly die, and Reno’s DOJ put new regulations in place, which have governed Mueller’s entire investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia. They are the reason his final report isn’t yet public.
What changed:
  • The title: “independent counsel” became “special counsel.” That word change signified a major shift in the power and independence granted to the position.
  • The process: The new rules put more power in the hands of the attorney general — including the right to decide how much of the investigator’s concluding document would ever see the light of day. Specifically, the old rules had called for the independent counsel to submit a report directly to Congress that documented any “substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed” — a standard Ken Starr himself later described as a “surprisingly low threshold of evidence.”
  • The power: Now, the only thing that the attorney general had to share with Congress was a notification that the special counsel’s investigation was over, and a list of every time the AG had overruled the special counsel.
The new rules required a “confidential” final report to be sent to the attorney general, granting the AG near-total discretion over how much of that final report should be shared with anyone else.
This fundamental shift rests at the heart of the battle that is now brewing between Democrats in Congress, who are pounding their desks to read the full report, and Barr, who has so far only shared a four-page letter summarizing what Mueller found.
Barr wrote that Mueller did not find that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian efforts to tip the 2016 election — or at least, that the evidence Mueller found wasn’t enough to allow him to charge a crime.
“Prosecutors can only bring charges when they believe they have evidence to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Mary McCord, a former top DOJ official who oversaw the department’s investigation of foreign interference in the election before Mueller was appointed. 
Yet crimes are not the same thing as impeachable offenses — which was what Starr was tasked with reporting to Congress. Starr’s report outlined plenty of behavior that didn’t rise to the level of a chargeable crime, such as when Clinton lied to the American people about his relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton’s public lying and “refusing to testify for six months during the independent counsel investigation,” Starr wrote, helped delay a possible Congressional inquiry. “This represents substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment,” Starr wrote. 
Trump, of course, never agreed to speak with Mueller’s team at all, only submitting written answers to questions.  
 It’s easy to imagine that if Mueller had been operating under Starr’s old rules, the endgame of the Russia investigation would have played out very differently.
Congress — and anyone with access to the internet — would have been able to instantly access every relevant clue that Mueller found, and judge for themselves whether it appeared likely that the Trump campaign had actively supported or cooperated with Russian efforts to tip the 2016 election.
And they would have been able to sift through Mueller’s evidence regarding the question of obstruction of justice, too, for themselves — just like Americans did with the Starr report.
Instead, interested outsiders were only told that Mueller had not found enough evidence of coordination with Russian spies to formally include any members of Trumpworld into the conspiracy charges that were already outlined against Russian spies and internet trolls.
Mueller specifically wrote that his report did not “exonerate” the president. But uncovering a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is a far higher threshold than pointing to “substantial and credible information” that impeachable offenses occurred like those Starr cited against Clinton. 
This shift in the counsel’s threshold takes on added urgency when considering the question of obstruction of justice, especially because Mueller declined to offer a final decision on the matter. 
Neal Katyal, who helped write the 1999 regulations himself, tweeted this week that Mueller may well have wanted the obstruction question to be decided by Congress.  
The more I think about it, the more it looks like Mueller believed that Congress, not Barr, should resolve the obstruction of justice Question&Barr inserted himself in.

If Mueller Report said “I’m leaving this to AG,” wouldn’t Barr have quoted that yest? https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/neal-katyal-don-t-take-barr-s-word-on-obstruction-1464674371817 
 Katyal’s argument fits with previous investigations into obstruction of justice by a sitting president: That exact charge loomed large in the impeachment proceedings against both Richard Nixon and Clinton. 
But Barr, Trump’s hand-picked attorney general, issued a public ruling on the criminal question before Congress got a chance to decide for itself on the basis of Mueller’s findings. And it’s safe to say that Barr’s got a decidedly different perspective of the matter than Congress. 
In fact, Barr had already telegraphed his conclusion months ago, when he wrote a lengthy, detailed memo calling the potential obstruction-of-justice case against Trump “fatally misconceived.”
While Mueller’s evidence remains unseen, the decision that there was no obstruction of justice was essentially a judgment call by Barr, said McCord.
Another attorney general could have conceivably reached a different conclusion while reviewing the same evidence, McCord added.
And until we get to see Mueller’s report, and possibly his underlying evidence, the entire country, including the President of the United States himself, will have to take Barr’s word for it. 
Cover: Then-independent Counsel Kenneth Starr holds up his report while testifying on Capitol Hill Thursday, Nov. 19, 1998, before the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearing. (AP Photo/Joe Marquette)

January 25, 2019

A Vet, A Mayor, A Gay Man and Running For President




 Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for President




By Tim Fitzsimons


Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, became the first openly gay candidate in the 2020 presidential race Wednesday, joining an already crowded field of Democratic hopefuls.

Buttigieg, whose name is pronounced “BOOT-edge-edge,” is better known as “Mayor Pete” in South Bend, where he was elected in 2011. He’s 37, which makes him a millennial and just old enough to become president (the minimum age is 35). He married his partner, Chasten Glezman, in 2018 and live-streamed the wedding.

For the past several years, Democratic leaders, including former President Barack Obama, have called him an example of the future of the Democratic Party. His status as the first millennial presidential candidate is central in the video he released Wednesday announcing the formation of an exploratory committee.

"We can't look for greatness in the past," Buttigieg said in his announcement video. "Right now, our country needs a fresh start."


I launched a presidential exploratory committee because it is a season for boldness and it is time to focus on the future. Are you ready to walk away from the politics of the past?

Join the team at http://www.peteforamerica.com .


 
While Buttigieg has not released his platform, he says it will focus on three pillars: freedom, democracy, and security. In a conversation with NBC News, he spoke favorably of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

Buttigieg said that members of the millennial generation like himself “have a different sense of urgency about fixing our country’s problems.”

The millennial generation is not only the first to make less than their parents, Buttigieg said, but it also “grew up with school shootings,” will have to “pay the bill of these tax cuts for the wealthiest” and will have a “lifetime of impact from climate change,” all of which he called “time bombs” for his generation. 

When he was elected mayor eight years ago, Buttigieg was only 29. He described South Bend as a very diverse, largely low-income community that “never recovered from losing auto factories” — in this case, a Studebaker plant that closed in the 1960s. But under his leadership, he says, the city has “changed its trajectory.”

“The national media often misrepresent us as a part of the country where looking backward is all we know how to do,” Buttigieg said. Riffing on the president’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, Buttigieg said that in the most successful Midwestern cities, “there’s no such thing as ‘again’ — you can’t turn back the clock.”

One “again” he hopes to avoid: repeating the “horrible mistake” of the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton ignored the industrial Midwest in the race for the White House.

“I’m from the Midwest, so these issues of making sure that we have a positive way forward for workers and families in the industrial Midwest — this is not theoretical for me, it’s my home,” Buttigieg said. 

Democratic mayor Pete Buttigieg running for president; would be the first openly gay nominee
If Buttigieg were to overcome the long odds and become the Democratic nominee for president, he would be the first openly gay nominee and the first veteran of the Afghanistan War, where he served a tour as a Naval Reserve officer. When he was elected mayor in 2011, he was still in the closet. Just before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Buttigieg came out in a column in the local newspaper.

“I was well into adulthood before I was prepared to acknowledge the simple fact that I am gay,” Buttigieg wrote at the time. “It took years of struggle and growth for me to recognize that it’s just a fact of life, like having brown hair, and part of who I am.”

Buttigieg told NBC News he "believed that coming out might be a career death sentence."

“It's extraordinary — the changes that we are living through right now — that I was able to come out in the middle of a reelection campaign and win with 80 percent of the vote," he added. “I think it shows that in a place like Indiana, which is deeply conservative, that people really are opening their minds." 

Buttigieg's career in politics was jumpstarted back in 2000 when he was an undergraduate student at Harvard College. The teenage Buttigieg won an award for an essay he wrote about then-U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, bemoaning the “cynicism” of politics and calling Sanders an example of “public integrity.” Buttigieg met Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., at the essay award ceremony and was offered an internship by the late lawmaker.

“I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service,” Buttigieg wrote in his essay almost two decades ago. “I can personally assure you this is untrue.”


January 23, 2019

Simm’s Book: “THE White House OUT of Control"




 White House lower corridor





President Trump watched on television, increasingly angry as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan criticized his handling of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. He held the remote control “like a pistol” and yelled for an assistant to get the Republican leader on the phone.
“Paul, do you know why Democrats have been kicking your ass for decades? Because they know a little word called ‘loyalty,’ ” Trump told Ryan, then a Wisconsin congressman. “Why do you think Nancy [Pelosi] has held on this long? Have you seen her? She’s a disaster. Every time she opens her mouth another Republican gets elected. But they stick with her . . . Why can’t you be loyal to your president, Paul?”
The tormenting continued. Trump recalled Ryan distancing himself from Trump in October 2016, in the days after the “Access Hollywood” video in which he bragged of fondling women first surfaced in The Washington Post. “I remember being in Wisconsin and your own people were booing you,” Trump told him, according to former West Wing communications aide Cliff Sims. “You were out there dying like a dog, Paul. Like a dog! And what’d I do? I saved your a--.” Paul Ryan's path to supporting Donald Trump 
 House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) did not always support Donald Trump's quest to the White House. 
The browbeating of the top Republican on Capitol Hill was one of the vivid snapshots of life inside the Trump White House told by one of its original inhabitants, Cliff Sims, in his 384-page tell-all, “Team of Vipers,” which goes on sale next week and was obtained in advance by The Post. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Sims, who enjoyed uncommon personal access to Trump, recounts expletive-filled scenes of chaos, dysfunction, and duplicity among the president, his family members, and administration officials.
Unlike memoirs of other Trump officials, Sims’s book is neither a sycophantic portrayal of the president nor a blistering account written to settle scores. The author presents himself as a true believer in Trump and his agenda and even writes whimsically of the president, but still is critical of him, especially his morality. Sims also find fault in himself, a rarity in Trump World, writing that at times he was “selfish,” “nakedly ambitious” and “a coward.
The author reconstructs in comic detail the Trump team’s first day at work when the president sat in the residence raging about news coverage of the relatively small size of his inauguration crowds, and White House press secretary Sean Spicer scrambled to address it.
Spicer had worked the team “into a frenzy,” and it fell to Sims to write the script for his first statement to the media. Nervously chewing gum, Spicer dictated “a torrent of expletives with a few salient points scattered in between.” At one point, Sims’s computer crashed and he lost the draft, so it had to be rewritten. And in their rush to satisfy the impatient president, nobody checked the facts. Spicer, he writes, was “walking into his own execution.”
“It’s impossible to deny how absolutely out of control the White House staff — again, myself included — was at times,” Sims writes. The book’s scenes are consistent with news reporting at the time from inside the White House.
President Trump speaks at a Dec. 18, 2018, roundtable event at the White House. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
 
Sims depicts Trump as deeply suspicious of his own staff. He recalls a private huddle in which he and Keith Schiller, the president’s longtime bodyguard and confidant, helped Trump draw up an enemies list with a Sharpie on White House stationery. “We’re going to get rid of all the snakes, even the bottom-feeders,” Trump told them. 
White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly told the staff that he viewed his job as serving the “country first, POTUS second,” which Sims interpreted as potentially hostile to Trump’s agenda.
Sims recounts that Kelly once confided to him in a moment of exasperation: “This is the worst [expletive] job I’ve ever had. People apparently think that I care when they write that I might be fired. If that ever happened, it would be the best day I’ve had since I walked into this place.”
A conservative media figure in Alabama, Sims came to work on Trump’s 2016 campaign and cultivated a personal relationship with the candidate-turned-president. Sims writes rich, extended dialogue from his conversations with Trump and others in the administration.
As White House director of message strategy, Sims regularly met Trump at the private elevator of the residence and accompanied him to video tapings — carrying a can of Tresemmé Tres Two hair spray, extra hold, for the boss. At one such taping, about an hour after Trump had tweeted that he saw MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski “bleeding badly from a facelift,” the president sought feedback from Sims and Spicer. 
“They’re going to say it’s not presidential,” Trump said, referring to the media. “But you know what? It’s modern-day presidential.” The president then raged about the “Morning Joe” program on which Brzezinski appears and instructed Spicer, “Don’t you dare say I watch that show.”
President Trump greets House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) at a Dec. 20, 2017, White House event celebrating passage of the tax cut bill, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other lawmakers looking on. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
 Sims also recounts a meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a longtime friend, and former chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon at which Sessions suggested a polygraph test of national security officials to root out “leakers” after The Post reported the transcripts of Trump’s phone calls with the Mexican president and Australian prime minister.
At times, Trump evinced less rage than a lack of interest. Sims recounts one time when Ryan was in the Oval Office explaining the ins and outs of the Republican health-care bill to the president. As Ryan droned on for 15 minutes, Trump sipped on a glass of Diet Coke, peered out at the Rose Garden, stared aimlessly at the walls and, finally, walked out. 
Ryan kept talking as the president wandered down the hall to his private dining room, where he flicked on his giant flat-screen TV. Apparently, he had had enough of Ryan’s talk. It fell to Vice President Pence to retrieve Trump and convince him to return to the Oval Office so they could continue their strategy session.
 White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci talks with reporters outside the White House on July 25, 2017. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
 
Sims reconstructs moments of crisis for the West Wing communications team in play-by-play detail, including the domestic abuse allegations against former staff secretary Rob Porter and the firing of James B. Comey as FBI director.
He paints Spicer, counselor Kellyanne Conway, and communications adviser Mercedes Schlapp in an especially negative light, calling Conway “the American Sniper of West Wing marksmen” and describing her agenda as “survival over all others, including the president.” 
Sims writes that former aide Omarosa Manigault cursed members of the Congressional Black Caucus when they asked for a moment of privacy in the West Wing after meeting with Trump and before addressing the media.
“Privacy?!” Manigault said. “You think you can come up in our house and demand [expletive] privacy? Hell, no! You must be outta your . . . mind.”
Perhaps the book’s most cinematic chapter of chaos is “The Mooch Is Loose,” a reconstruction of Anthony Scaramucci’s 11 days as White House communications director.
Sims was Scaramucci’s right-hand man and describes the flamboyant aide’s hunt for “leakers,” which began with his own staff. Scaramucci assembled the 40-odd media aides and threatened to fire them all, Sims writes, as if he were a “fire-breathing dragon that had just returned from laying waste to the unsuspecting peasants in the village.”
Sims writes that Scaramucci ordered them to reply to anyone in the White House instructing them to leak information to a reporter, including then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, by saying: “I cannot do that. I only report to Anthony Scaramucci and he reports directly to the president of the United States.”
Even Trump was amused.
“Can you believe this guy?” the president told Sims. “He’s completely out of his mind — like, on drugs or something — totally out of his mind. We’ll figure it out, but the guy is crazy.”

Featured Posts

This is The Worse LGBT Rights Trump Has Appointed To Date, GOP Confirmed (51 Votes)

What is he against? "Anti Women, Gays, bi and Trans, HIV'ers, to name a few. Never been a judge, never had a trial. The...