Trump recruits airheaded bimbo for his very own propaganda channel

The Trump cult has decided that Fox News doesn’t provide the extreme level of propaganda that they crave, so what did they do? Launch their own “Real News” Trump weekly online news channel. The first episode was launched by Trump daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.

And then today, former CNN contributer Kayleigh McEnany showed up with a “report” of her own.

This latest gig for Kayleigh comes just one day after she announced her sudden departure from CNN. Previously, she served as the dead-eyed, rabid, intellectually-challenged Trump proxy on CNN panels, occasionally joined by dumb-as-dirt Jeffrey “KKK were Democrats” Lord.

Well, McEnany has moved on to a platform even more well-suited to her “talents” – an online Facebook page where she is limited to a few minutes of rambling about Trump “News of the Week.” The focus of the show is to rehash positive Trump news of the week, so each segment should be about 30 seconds long. Per week. Maximum.

If the launch of Trump’s News of the Week was a predictor, this show will become the butt of many, many jokes — broadcast on Facebook, the production  looks like a homemade video shot in someone’s garage with a backdrop of what they thought a studio looks like — with blonde airhead Kayleigh McEnany screeching in her grating nasal tones about Trump’s latest victory.

Let’s take a step back here. Trump decided Fox News wasn’t “real” (read: unquestioningly praising) enough for him so he made his own propaganda outlet to tout his successes (lie) and promote his agenda of wonderful things (awful things).

Can you imagine if the Democrats did this? How about Hillary and Bill Clinton launching their own news channel called “Clinton News Channel”…wait, Trumpkins already call CNN the same thing. Okay, how about Obama launching HIS own news channel? Hosted by his daughters or Michelle?

Collective heads would explode across Drudge, Daily Caller, Fox News and Breitbart.

Trump knows only seven topics to talk about . . . and not one of them has anything to do with governing

Donald Trump has the intellectual depth of a coat of paint and his vocabulary has been estimated as being 200 words, by his own “ghostwriter” Tony Schwartz, who in fact wrote every word of “Art Of The Deal.” Trump doesn’t write, he’s never read a book, and in the seven months he’s been in office only seven topics keep reoccurring. Here’s a list from the Los Angeles Times of Trump’s Magnificent Seven:

Topic 1 — Obama

Trump was a vocal spokesman for the fringe conservative “birther” movement, raising questions in television interviews and on social media about whether the nation’s first black president was born in Kenya.

Now, in office, Trump has jabbed the former president for, among other things, healthcare and trade. He’s also alleged Obama wiretapped his Trump Tower phones last year

Topic 2 — Loyalty

“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,” Trump told Comey, according to written testimony penned by the former FBI director. Trump has denied he asked Comey for loyalty.

In his words:

“As scout law says, a scout is trustworthy, loyal,” Trump said in a speech before the Boy Scouts of America last month. “We could use some more loyalty, I will tell you that.”

Topic 3 — Election Win

In his words:

“We won and won. … They said, there is no way to victory; there is no way to 270,” Trump said before the Boy Scouts. “But then Wisconsin came in. …Michigan came in.”

Topic 4 — Russia

In his words:

“Again, the story that there was collusion between the Russians & Trump campaign was fabricated by Dems as an excuse for losing the election.” twitter

“Russian officials must be laughing at the U.S. & how a lame excuse for why the Dems lost the election has taken over the Fake News.” twitter

Topic 5 – Fake News

Or, as the rest of us call it:  Facts.

Topic 6 – Crooked Hillary

So crooked she won the popular vote by 2,800,000 votes.

Topic 7 – Crowd Size

He had the smallest inaugural crowd of any president in modern times.

Trump boasted to the Boy Scouts at their Jamboree that he couldn’t even see the people in the back because there were so many, in his mind apparently, stretching out to the horizon. “I’m waving to people back there so small I can’t even see them. Man, this is a lot of people. Turn those cameras back there, please. That is so incredible,” [attendance was estimated at 35,000 to 40,000 and was by no means record breaking.] “By the way, what do you think the chances are that this incredible massive crowd, record setting, is going to be shown on television tonight? One percent or zero?”

So there you have it, another day in the life of Donald Trump, another incredibly massive crowd, record setting. With only seven topics recycling ad nauseum, the next three years, four months are really going to drag. Yet another compelling reason for cancelling this show mid-season.

Trump is clueless . . . he is so ignorant, he does not know how ignorant he is

Why is Trump so completely clueless about the world?

Max Boot, a lifelong conservative who advised three Republican Presidential candidates on foreign policy, keeps a folder labelled “Trump Stupidity File” on his computer. It’s next to his “Trump Lies” file. “Not sure which is larger at this point,” he told me this week. “It’s neck-and-neck.”

Six months into the Trump era, foreign-policy officials from eight past Administrations told me they are aghast that the President is still so witless about the world. “He seems as clueless today as he was on January 20th,” Boot, who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said. Trump’s painful public gaffes, they warn, indicate that he’s not reading, retaining, or listening to his Presidential briefings. And the newbie excuse no longer flies.

“Trump has an appalling ignorance of the current world, of history, of previous American engagement, of what former Presidents thought and did,” Geoffrey Kemp, who worked at the Pentagon during the Ford Administration and at the National Security Council during the Reagan Administration, reflected. “He has an almost studious rejection of the type of in-depth knowledge that virtually all of his predecessors eventually gained or had views on.”

Criticism of Donald Trump among Democrats who served in senior national-security positions is predictable and rife. But Republicans—who are historically ambitious on foreign policy—are particularly pained by the President’s missteps and misstatements. So are former senior intelligence officials who have avoided publicly criticizing Presidents until now.

“The President has little understanding of the context”—of what’s happening in the world—“and even less interest in hearing the people who want to deliver it,” Michael Hayden, a retired four-star general and former director of both the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, told me. “He’s impatient, decision-oriented, and prone to action. It’s all about the present tense. When he asks, ‘What the hell’s going on in Iraq?’ people around him have learned not to say, ‘Well, in 632 . . . ’ ” (That was the year when the Prophet Muhammad died, prompting the beginning of the Sunni-Shiite split.*)

“He just doesn’t have an interest in the world,” Hayden said.

I asked top Republican and intelligence officials from eight Administrations what they thought was the one thing the President needs to grasp to succeed on the world stage. Their various replies: embrace the fact that the Russians are not America’s friends. Don’t further alienate the Europeans, who are our friends. Encourage human rights—a founding principle of American identity—and don’t make priority visits to governments that curtail them, such as Poland and Saudi Arabia. Understand that North Korea’s nuclear program can’t be outsourced to China, which can’t or won’t singlehandedly fix the problem anyway, and realize that military options are limited. Pulling out of innovative trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will boost China’s economy and secure its global influence—to America’s disadvantage. Stop bullying his counterparts. And put the Russia case behind him by coöperating with the investigation rather than trying to discredit it.

Trump’s latest blunder was made during an appearance in the Rose Garden with Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, on July 25th. “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah,” Trump pronounced. He got the basics really wrong. Hezbollah is actually part of the Lebanese government—and has been for a quarter century—with seats in parliament and Cabinet posts. Lebanon’s Christian President, Michel Aoun, has been allied with Hezbollah for a decade. As Trump spoke, Hezbollah’s militia and the Lebanese Army were fighting ISIS and an Al Qaeda affiliate occupying a chunk of eastern Lebanon along its border with Syria. They won.

The list of other Trump blunders is long. In March, he charged that Germany owed “vast sums” to the United States for NATO. It doesn’t. No NATO member pays the United States—and never has—so none is in arrears. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, in April, Trump claimed that Korea “actually used to be part of China.” Not true. After he arrived in Israel from Saudi Arabia, in May, Trump said that he had just come from the Middle East. (Did he even look at a map?) During his trip to France, in July, the President confused Napoleon Bonaparte, the diminutive emperor who invaded Russia and Egypt, with Napoleon III, who was France’s first popularly elected President, oversaw the design of modern Paris, and is still the longest-serving head of state since the French Revolution (albeit partly as an emperor, too). And that’s before delving into his demeaning tweets about other world leaders and flashpoints.

“The sheer scale of his lack of knowledge is what has astounded me—and I had low expectations to begin with,” David Gordon, the director of the State Department’s policy-planning staff under Condoleezza Rice, during the Bush Administration, told me.

Trump’s White House has also flubbed basics. It misspelled the name of Britain’s Prime Minister three times in its official schedule of her January visit. After it dropped the “H” in Theresa May, several British papers noted that Teresa May is a soft-porn actress best known for her films “Leather Lust” and “Whitehouse: The Sex Video.” In a statement last month, the White House called Xi Jinping the President of the “Republic of China”—which is the island of Taiwan—rather than the leader of the People’s Republic, the Communist mainland. The two nations have been epic rivals in Asia for more than half a century. The White House also misidentified Shinzo Abe as the President of Japan—he’s the Prime Minister—and called the Prime Minister of Canada “Joe” instead of Justin Trudeau.

Trump’s policy mistakes, large and small, are taking a toll. “American leadership in the world—how do I phrase this, it’s so obvious, but apparently not to him—is critical to our success, and it depends eighty per cent on the credibility of the President’s word,” John McLaughlin, who worked at the C.I.A. under seven Presidents, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, and ended up as the intelligence agency’s acting director, told me. “Trump thinks having a piece of chocolate cake at Mar-a-Lago bought him a relationship with Xi Jinping. He came in as the least prepared President we’ve had on foreign policy,” McLaughlin added. “Our leadership in the world is slipping away. It’s slipping through our hands.”

And a world in dramatic flux compounds the stakes. Hayden cited the meltdown in the world order that has prevailed since the Second World War; the changing nature of the state and its power; China’s growing military and economic power; and rogue nations seeking nuclear weapons, among others. “Yet the most disruptive force in the world today is the United States of America,” the former C.I.A. director said.

The closest similarity to the Trump era was the brief Warren G. Harding Administration, in the nineteen-twenties, Philip Zelikow, who worked for the Reagan and two Bush Administrations, and who was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, told me. Harding, who died, of a heart attack, after twenty-eight months in office, was praised because he stood aside and let his Secretary of State, Charles Evans Hughes, lead the way. Hughes had already been governor of New York, a Supreme Court Justice, and the Republican Presidential nominee in 1916, losing narrowly to Woodrow Wilson, who preceded Harding.

Under Trump, the White House has seized control of key foreign-policy issues. The President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a real-estate developer, has been charged with brokering Middle East peace, navigating U.S.-China relations, and the Mexico portfolio. In April, Kushner travelled to Iraq to help chart policy against ISIS. Washington scuttlebutt is consumed with tales of how Trump has stymied his own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, the former C.E.O. of ExxonMobil.

“The national-security system of the United States has been tested over a period of seventy years,” John Negroponte, the first director of national security and a former U.N. Ambassador, told me. “President Trump disregards the system at his peril.”

Trump’s contempt for the U.S. intelligence community has also sparked alarm. “I wish the President would rely more on, and trust more, the intelligence agencies and the work that is produced, sometimes at great risk to individuals around the world, to inform the Commander-in-Chief,” Mitchell Reiss, who was chief of the State Department’s policy-planning team under Secretary of State Colin Powell, told me.

Republican critics are divided on whether Trump can grow into the job. “Trump is completely irredeemable,” Eliot A. Cohen, who was counselor to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, told me. “He has a feral instinct for self-survival, but he’s unteachable. The ban on Muslims coming into the country and building a wall, and having the Mexicans pay for it, that was all you needed to know about this guy on foreign affairs. This is a man who is idiotic and bigoted and ignorant of the law.” Cohen was a ringleader of an open letter warning, during the campaign, that Trump’s foreign policy was “wildly inconsistent and unmoored.”

But other Republicans from earlier Administrations still hold out hope. “Whenever Trump begins to learn about an issue—the Middle East conflict or North Korea—he expresses such surprise that it could be so complicated, after saying it wasn’t that difficult,” Gordon, from the Bush Administration, said. “The good news, when he says that, is it means he has a little bit of knowledge.” So far, however, the learning curve has been pitifully—and dangerously—slow.

Now we know how the Trump presidency will end . . . it will be ugly and the Republic may not survive

More than anyone, Trump knows what Mueller will discover. He knows the legal peril that he and his family are in. He also knows that his presidency is certain to end — in some way — if that story ever becomes public.

We should remember this when we see how Trump acts in the weeks to come. Like a cornered rat, he will fight to protect his interests. In every conceivable way, he will work to stop Mueller’s probe, to challenge Congress if it intervenes, to undermine the press and judiciary if they get in the way and — yes — even to engage in reckless military adventures if he thought that would strengthen his position.”

We now know how the Trump presidency will end. Let’s hope we survive

America is hurtling towards a constitutional crisis that will rock its institutions to the core.

Its president and his business empire will soon be exposed as beholden to Russian oligarchs and mobsters.

Trump will try to fire special counsel Robert Mueller to prevent this from becoming known, but Congress will intervene.

His only remaining hope will be a 9/11-scale disaster or contrived war that he can exploit.

If we are lucky enough to survive all of the above, Trump will resign before he is impeached — but only in exchange for a pardon from his servile vice-president, Mike Pence.

A stark warning about how Trump suddenly could become popular

First the good news. In the space of six months Americans have already rendered their verdict on the Trump Administration, and it is devastating:.

President Trump’s approval rating has dropped by about one percentage point per month and now sits in the mid-30s. At the current rate, it would hit zero in September 2020. (A highly unlikely possibility, though with Donald Trump, anything is possible.) Measured in less quantifiable terms, Trump’s political decline has not occurred in so linear a fashion. It has happened, as Ernest Hemingway wrote about bankruptcy, gradually and then suddenly.

It is impossible to pinpoint one single event that has cemented Trump’s precipitous downfall in the eyes of the American people—from his buffoonish and arrogant conduct towards our European allies, to the stench of corruption evident in all of his Cabinet picks, to the corrosive, fetid pool of collusion forming from the constant dripping evidence that he cravenly sought to secure his election with the assistance of a hostile foreign dictator to whom he is clearly in some type of financial hock.  A great number of Americans recognized Trump as an abhorrent person, grossly unfit for the office well before he secured an Electoral College majority while losing the popular vote substantially.

But probably the most accurate take is simply that Americans—at least ones capable of critical thinking– have quickly grown weary of his narcissistic showmanship and strutting reality-TV arrogance. Trump is as far from a “role” model for American children as can be imagined, and it is painful for parents of young children in particular to have to explain such a loathsome presence in a government they are being brough up to honor and respect. Even Republicans in Congress no longer feel the need to fake showing this person any respect. The same is true for the people within his own Administration:

The conviction that Trump is dangerously unfit to hold office is indeed shared widely within his own administration. Leaked accounts consistently depict the president as unable to read briefing materials written at an adult level, easily angered, prone to manipulation through flattery, subject to change his mind frequently to agree with whomever he spoke with last, and consumed with the superficiality of cable television.

As Joathan Chait, writing for New York Magazine, observes, the items on Trump’s agenda—to the extent he has a real agenda—are unlikely to ameliorate his sorry approval ratings at this point. Tax “reform” geared to enrich the top 1% and the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, all proposals Trump has threatened to pursue, will do nothing to reverse his fortunes in the eyes of the public.

Americans made a grievous mistake in electing this man, but the fact that they are coming around to recognize that fact is heartening.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Trump is a single significant terror event away from regaining his popular standing and one quick war away from enjoying a wave of popularity that will enable him to inflict even worse damage on our Republic than he already has.

Trump could regain public standing through the rally-round-the-flag effect that usually occurs following a domestic attack or at the outset of a war. A miniature version of that dynamic was on display in April, when Trump launched a small missile strike on Syria, garnering widespread praise in the media for his newfound stature. The 9/11 attacks elevated George W. Bush’s approval ratings for three years, long enough for his party to gain seats in the 2002 midterms and for Bush, two years later, to win what is still the Republican Party’s only national-vote plurality victory since 1988.

An Administration that thrives on exploiting American fears would find the swimming immensely pleasurable in the aftermath of a serious terror attack on American soil. The fact that Trump and his cronies have such little regard for Constitutional constraints on their power to begin with suggests that they would make every attempt possible to subvert those constraints given the opportunity provided by terrorism. And if such an attack never comes, there are other ways of ginning up Americans’ support, most notably by starting a war.

The clearest and most obvious example of this was the atrocious and obsequious conduct of the US media as well as both political parties—but most notably the Democrats, in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

After 9/11, Democrats and the mainstream news media, harking back to the national unity that prevailed after Pearl Harbor, demonstrated their patriotism by supporting their president almost unquestioningly. That choice allowed Bush to escape scrutiny for policies that may have helped enable the attacks to happen.

Whie 9/11 occurred in a somewhat different era, the right wing media noise machine was not nearly as sophisticated, nor its audience as domesticated, as they are today. Today a large segment of the public has willfully walled itself off from facts, preferring to be told what is right or wrong exclusively by the likes of Breitbart and whatever makes it into their heavily-filtered Facebook newsfeed.

Chait argues that the way to prevent this same, knee-jerk reaction from happening again under Trump is for the responsible media, and the American people, to refuse to accept the assumption in the first place—to refuse to kowtow and accept what comes out of this Administration’s communication organs in the event of such an attack, or war—as worthy of consideration, given its amply-demonstrated horrendous incompetence, enthusiasm for wholesale lying and general venality:

The ability of a president to gain popularity by launching (or suffering) an attack is not a law of nature. It reflects, in part, choices — by the opposition to withhold criticism and by the news media to accept the administration’s framing of the facts at face value. A chaotic, still-understaffed administration led by a novice commander-in-chief who has alienated American allies deserves no benefit of the doubt. Everything from Trump’s incompetent management of the Department of Energy, which safeguards nuclear materials, to the now-skeletal State Department, to his blustering international profile has exposed the country to an elevated risk of a mass tragedy. A long-term task of the opposition is to prevent the crumbling presidency from transmuting that weakness into strength.

When the event occurs—and it will very likely occur, in some fashion or another—the key will be not to fall into the trap of rallying behind a demonstrably incompetent Administration, but instead to oppose and resist any attempt by Trump to usurp power or defy the Constitution, both of which he has shown himself more than willing to do. This means holding Trump and his cronies–and holding the media–to account for every word they utter, and every action they propose.

Why the biblethumpers love Trump . . . in spite of the fact that he’s the antithesis of all that is “Christian”

Donald Trump is a man of many notable qualities. He is ignorant and a brute. He has bragged about sexually assaulting women by grabbing them by their genitals. He is a serial womanizer and has been divorced several times. He has also admitted to finding his own daughter sexually attractive. He is a serial liar who adores autocrats and dictators. He may even have gone so far as to collude with Russia and Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 presidential election. Trump is also violent, moody, vain and impulsive. He does not read and is proudly ignorant.

Why would anyone support such a leader? More specifically, why would any supposed “Christian” support Donald Trump, who appears to represent the antithesis of Christian virtues in so many ways?

Writing at Talking Points Memo, editor Josh Marshall offers the following insights:

But Trump is able to take people of some apparent substance and attainment and destroy them as well. The key though is that he doesn’t destroy them. In his orbit, under some kind of spell, he makes them destroy themselves. It is always a self-destruction. He’s like a black hole. But for this there’s no ready explanation. Because what is the power? The force?

I puzzled over this for some time. Eventually I sensed that Trump wasn’t inducing people’s self-destruction so much as he was acting like a divining rod, revealing rot that existed already but was not apparent. … The rot was there but hidden. Trump is the moonlight. Perhaps better to say, to invert our metaphor, Trump is the darkness. …

This seems most palpably the case with the political evangelical community with which Trump has maintained, since early in his campaign, a profound and profoundly cynical mutual embrace. Here I use the term advisedly: I don’t mean evangelical Christians or even conservative evangelical Christians but the evangelical right political faction, which is distinct and differentNothing I have seen before has more clearly revealed this group’s moral rot than the adoration of Trump, an unchurched hedonist with the moral compass of a predator who is lauded and almost worshipped purely and entirely because he produces political deliverables.

Despite his strong words, Marshall does not go far enough. Christian evangelicals (“Dominionists” and Christian nationalists especially) support Trump because he shares their most important values.

Trump and the Republican Party are waging a crusade to take away women’s reproductive rights and freedoms.

Trump and the Republican Party want to remove constitutional and other legal barriers that limit the ability of churches and other religious organizations to engage in overt political lobbying while retaining their tax-exempt status.

Trump and the Republican Party want to destroy the social safety net and believe that wealth and money are indicators of human worth and value. A belief in the “prosperity gospel” and a crude form of Calvinism where money and wealth are signs of being among “the elect” and of God’s blessing has been endorsed by many Christian evangelical leaders.

Trump and the Republican Party embrace racism and white supremacy. Southern Baptists and other white Christian evangelical faith communities have a long and deep history of racism against people of color — especially African-Americans.

There is also a biblical-mythological dimension for why Christian evangelicals support Trump. Many right-wing Christians have convinced themselves that he is a leader in the tradition of Cyrus the Great or King David who, while being deeply flawed, can be used as an instrument of God’s will.

There is another factor, rooted in emotion and irrationality, that also helps explain evangelical Christians’ support for Donald Trump.

New research published in the Journal of Religion and Health explains it this way:

The studies, based on surveys of more than 900 people, also found some similarities between religious and non-religious people. In both groups the most dogmatic are less adept at analytical thinking, and also less likely to look at issues from other’s perspectives. … The results showed religious participants as a whole had a higher level of dogmatism, empathetic concern and prosocial intentions, while the nonreligious performed better on the measure of analytic reasoning. Decreasing empathy among the nonreligious corresponded to increasing dogmatism.

Professor Anthony Jack highlights the implications of this research for American politics: “With all this talk about fake news, the Trump administration, by emotionally resonating with people, appeals to members of its base while ignoring facts.”

Jared Friedman, a co-author of this new research, concludes, “It suggests that religious individuals may cling to certain beliefs, especially those which seem at odds with analytic reasoning, because those beliefs resonate with their moral sentiments.”

Christian evangelicals’ rejection of empirical reality and their habituation into believing the absurd and the fantastical mates perfectly with the zealotry of the broader American right, which views politics as a form of religious fundamentalism.

Faith, after all, is a matter of believing in that which cannot be proven by normal or empirical means. This definition is a perfect description of both movement conservatism and the Christian right.

Ultimately, Christian evangelicals and Donald Trump are united in an imperfect marriage because they share mutual goals. This is an unholy alliance and, as such, a perfect emblem of today’s Republican Party.

Russians financed Trump’s campaign as well as campaigns of other big-name Republicans

Courtesy of Dallas News:  

Donald Trump and the political action committees for Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich and John McCain accepted $7.35 million in contributions from a Ukrainian-born oligarch who is the business partner of two of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s favorite oligarchs and a Russian government bank. 

During the 2015-2016 election season, Ukrainian-born billionaire Leonid “Len” Blavatnik contributed $6.35 million to leading Republican candidates and incumbent senators. Mitch McConnell was the top recipient of Blavatnik’s donations, collecting $2.5 million for his GOP Senate Leadership Fund under the names of two of Blavatnik’s holding companies, Access Industries and AI Altep Holdings, according to Federal Election Commission documents and

Marco Rubio’s Conservative Solutions PAC and his Florida First Project received $1.5 million through Blavatnik’s two holding companies. Other high dollar recipients of funding from Blavatnik were PACS representing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker at $1.1 million, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham at $800,000, Ohio Governor John Kasich at $250,000 and Arizona Senator John McCain at $200,000. 

In January, Quartz reported that Blavatnik donated another $1 million to Trump’s Inaugural Committee. Ironically, the shared address of Blavatnik’s companies is directly across the street from Trump Tower on 5th Avenue in New York.

Right across the street huh? Well that’s certainly handy.

The Dallas News also makes this rather astute point:

Blavatnik’s relationships with Russian oligarchs close to Putin, particularly Oleg Deripaska, should be worrisome for Trump and the six GOP leaders who took Blavatnik’s money during the 2016 presidential campaign. Lucky for them no one has noticed. Yet.

Well guess what? We’ve noticed.

I should point out that this is not definitive proof that Russian oligarchs directed Blavatnik to donate any of this money, but of course they probably did.

And there is no proof that the donations have impacted the way that certain Republicans react to the news of Russian interference in our elections, but of course it certainly might.

And finally on its own this would probably not even seem like such a big deal, but when you add it to the pile of what we already know about the 2016 elections, well then it certainly does.

Trump’s ban on transgendered troops was result of his childish temper tantrum

We already knew that Donald Trump’s new ban against transgendered troops in our nation’s military came as a surprise to military leaders. Now we’re learning that the impetus for the sudden policy change was considerably more crude than even detractors suspected.

The short version? Politico reports that Donald Trump announced a ban on transgendered military members because he was frustrated with the government’s lawyers trying to explain the implications of such policies to him.

President Donald Trump’s White House and Defense Department lawyers had warned him against the transgender military ban for days. They were concerned about the ramifications of the policy, how military officials would respond and what legal backlash it could cause, two West Wing officials familiar with last month’s discussions said. The lawyers thought there would be plenty of time for more discussions and were analyzing arguments.Frustrated with being “slow-walked,” in the words of one White House official, the president took to Twitter last week — jarring many in the West Wing out of complacency and startling his lawyers, Defense Department officials and West Wing aides, who learned of the change in a series of tweets.

This is remarkable reporting, and paints a picture of Trump as exactly the sort of unstable, petty know-nothing that his worst critics feared. His advisers had come to him with a new policy request—originally, it seems to have been the Republican lawmakers’ demands to bar the military from paying for gender transition and hormone therapies. The implications of this were being hashed out by administration and military lawyers at the time; at some point, in the White House, this evolved into a discussion of banning transgendered service members outright. Possibly, and this is speculation on our part, because it would require fewer words.

Apparently, however, it was these discussions themselves that set Trump off. Too dim or hotheaded to grasp the nuances of the issue and too impatient to tolerate substantive explanations of it with others, he instead lashed out with his new, most simplistic “policy” banning transgendered service members apparently as an attempt to stop his own staff from asking him further questions on it.

The administration had no plan in place, but Trump told others they would have to “get in gear” if he announced the ban first, one White House adviser who spoke to Trump said. He also said the announcement would stop the lawyers from arguing with him anymore.

That, of course, hasn’t quite happened. The implications of Trump’s would-be ban have not gone away simply because he said it out loud; it remains unenforced while the same lawyers grapple with turning his crude, primitive solution into something both practical and legal. The military services themselves are not implementing the ban and will not implement the ban until they get language from the White House that is implementable. There has been considerable political fallout, with even stalwarts of his own party issuing public condemnations of the move.

But Trump appears to have believed that by simply issuing his Twitter decree, the decision would magically become legal and enforceable and keep him from having to make further decisions on it. And he did it because he was tired of his own advisers and experts attempting to ask him and warn him about the various nuances of the original “issue.”