Month: January 2019

The case for impeachment

by digby

I am glad to see that there are others out there coming around to the idea that Trump should be impeached, regardless of whether or not we know in advance that Republicans in the Senate will convict him.  I was not one who thought Democrats should run on it — I thought they should run on holding investigations and public hearings and letting the chips fall where they may. But I always figured that it would likely lead to impeachment hearings, based as much on the obvious, ongoing corruption, abuse of power and ineptitude as the Russia scandal.

I believe that if Democrats lay out a strong, clear, detailed case for impeachment and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to act on it, it will not help Trump and the Republicans in 2020. I’m not sure why people think it would. This isn’t Bill Clinton being impeached over a sexual affair after years of failed investigations into many petty matters that never added up to anything serious. This is a completely different scenario — this president is a danger to the country and the world.

An Atlantic cover story by Yoni Applebaum lays out the case in detail. It’s well worth reading.

An excerpt:

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump stood on the steps of the Capitol, raised his right hand, and solemnly swore to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has not kept that promise.

Instead, he has mounted a concerted challenge to the separation of powers, to the rule of law, and to the civil liberties enshrined in our founding documents. He has purposefully inflamed America’s divisions. He has set himself against the American idea, the principle that all of us—of every race, gender, and creed—are created equal.

This is not a partisan judgment. Many of the president’s fiercest critics have emerged from within his own party. Even officials and observers who support his policies are appalled by his pronouncements, and those who have the most firsthand experience of governance are also the most alarmed by how Trump is governing.

“The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naïveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate,” the late senator and former Republican presidential nominee John McCain lamented last summer. “The president has not risen to the mantle of the office,” the GOP’s other recent nominee, the former governor and now senator Mitt Romney, wrote in January.

The oath of office is a president’s promise to subordinate his private desires to the public interest, to serve the nation as a whole rather than any faction within it. Trump displays no evidence that he understands these obligations. To the contrary, he has routinely privileged his self-interest above the responsibilities of the presidency. He has failed to disclose or divest himself from his extensive financial interests, instead using the platform of the presidency to promote them. This has encouraged a wide array of actors, domestic and foreign, to seek to influence his decisions by funneling cash to properties such as Mar-a-Lago (the “Winter White House,” as Trump has branded it) and his hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. Courts are now considering whether some of those payments violate the Constitution.

More troubling still, Trump has demanded that public officials put their loyalty to him ahead of their duty to the public. On his first full day in office, he ordered his press secretary to lie about the size of his inaugural crowd. He never forgave his first attorney general for failing to shut down investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and ultimately forced his resignation. “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty,” Trump told his first FBI director, and then fired him when he refused to pledge it.

Trump has evinced little respect for the rule of law, attempting to have the Department of Justice launch criminal probes into his critics and political adversaries. He has repeatedly attacked both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. His efforts to mislead, impede, and shut down Mueller’s investigation have now led the special counsel to consider whether the president obstructed justice.

As for the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, Trump has repeatedly trampled upon them. He pledged to ban entry to the United States on the basis of religion, and did his best to follow through. He has attacked the press as the “enemy of the people” and barred critical outlets and reporters from attending his events. He has assailed black protesters. He has called for his critics in private industry to be fired from their jobs. He has falsely alleged that America’s electoral system is subject to massive fraud, impugning election results with which he disagrees as irredeemably tainted. Elected officials of both parties have repeatedly condemned such statements, which has only spurred the president to repeat them.

These actions are, in sum, an attack on the very foundations of America’s constitutional democracy.

There’s more. If you are on the fence about this I urge you to read it.

.

Who’s the big winner, Mikey?

by digby

He loved those onine polls.

The real polls showed something different:

A Morning Consult poll released Wednesday found 49 percent of respondents thought Clinton won, while 26 percent though Trump won. Another 25 percent were undecided.

A Public Policy Polling survey found 51 percent thought Clinton won, while 40 percent thought Trump won.

Guess what?

Michael Cohen hired an IT firm to rig online polls in favor of Donald Trump ahead of the 2016 election and instructed the company to create the @WomenForCohen Twitter account to laud how sexually attractive he is, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Trump’s then-attorney—who has since spectacularly fallen out with the president—promised to pay $50,000 to the small tech firm run by a Liberty University staffer to help distort online polls on CNBC and the Drudge Report.

Cohen has confirmed the bombshell report to CNN, and claimed it was carried out “at the direction and for the sole benefit of Donald J. Trump.”

The report says that this effort was early in the campaign and wasn’t very successful. I’d guess that Trump’s digital director (and 2020 campaign manager) Brad Parscale was better at it.

.

Slipping with the faithful

by digby

NPR:

A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds Trump’s approval rating down and his disapproval rating up from a month ago. He currently stands at 39 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove — a 7-point net change from December when his rating was 42 percent approve, 49 percent disapprove.

He’s losing altitude even with some of those non-college educted white men and evangelicals.

This seems to be related to the shutdown although I don’t know that it isn’t a “last straw” situation rather than a specific reaction to that issue. It may just be that some of his people are starting to realize that it’s not working.

Maybe …

The president also faces some significant headwinds for re-election in 2020. Just 30 percent of registered voters said they will definitely vote for Trump in 2020, while 57 percent said they will definitely vote against him.

Just 76 percent of Trump supporters, 69 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelicals say they will definitely vote for him. Many, if not most, of them will likely vote for the president, but their softness in supporting him for re-election is a sign of vulnerability.

For context, in 2010, when asked about then-President Barack Obama, just 36 percent said they would definitely vote for him, while 48 percent said they would not. Obama went on to win with 51 percent of the vote.

But for Trump to have more than half the country already saying it definitely won’t vote for him indicates he is facing a difficult re-election.

“The president has had his base and not much else,” Miringoff said, “and when you look ahead to the election … he enters with a significant disadvantage. His re-election prospects would definitely be in jeopardy at this point.”

Trump has a lot of work to do to be able to reassemble the coalition that voted for him narrowly to win in the Electoral College in 2016. He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and won just 46 percent of the vote. He won by about 70,000 votes combined between Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, all states that have trended away from the president during his first two years in office.

Of course, much depends on who he will face.

.

The greatest manager the world has ever known

by digby

your president’s morning tweet

There was a time in America that people would hold the president accountable for his hiring decisions and the behavior of people in his campaign. That was before we elected a toddler who never takes responsibility for anything.

Still, this is quite the admission. Looks like we won’t be hearing “no collusion!” again.

GIULIANI: I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign —

CUOMO: Yes, you have.

GIULIANI: I have no idea — I have not. I said the president of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the president of the United States committed the only crime you could commit here — conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC.

CUOMO: First of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a president. It’s about what you knew —

GIULIANI: Well, he didn’t collude with Russia either!

CUOMO: — what was right, and what was wrong, and what did you deceive about? Those are going to be major considerations.

GIULIANI: The president did not collude with the Russians.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: He said nobody had any contact, tons of people had contact. Nobody colluded, the guy running his campaign —

GIULIANI: He didn’t say nobody —

CUOMO: — was working on an issue at the same time as the convention.

GIULIANI: He said he didn’t. He didn’t say nobody. How would you know that nobody in your campaign —

CUOMO: He actually did say that, Rudy. He said, nobody, and then he said, as far as I know.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Well, as far as he knows, it’s true.

Uhm:

1. November 2016: No communications, period

Hope Hicks: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

2. February 2017: There were no communications, “to the best of our knowledge”

Sarah Sanders: “This is a non-story because, to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place.”

3. March 2017: There were communications, but no planned meetings with Russians

Donald Trump Jr.: “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. . . . But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.”

4. July 8, 2017: There was a planned meeting at Trump Tower, but it was “primarily” about adoption and not the campaign

Trump Jr.: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up.”

5. July 9, 2017: The meeting was planned to discuss the campaign, but the information exchanged wasn’t “meaningful”

Trump Jr.: “No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

6. December 2017: Collusion isn’t even a crime

President Trump: “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”

Jay Sekulow: “For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated. There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”

(Technically speaking, the criminal code doesn’t use the word “collusion,” but it’s generally understood as a broad term that could encompass more specific, codified crimes. And even special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team has used it in court filings.)

7. May 16, 2018: Even if meaningful information were obtained, it wasn’t used

Giuliani: “And even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it. If there was collusion with the Russians, they would have used it.”

[One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it.]

8. May 19, 2018: There was a *second* planned meeting about foreign help in the election, but nothing came of it either

The New York Times reported Sunday on yet another meeting about getting foreign help with the 2016 election. This one came three months before the election and featured Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary, George Nader, who said the princes who lead Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wanted to assist Trump.

Alan Futerfas, Trump Jr.’s attorney: “They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested, and that was the end of it.”

9. July 16, 2018: Trump couldn’t collude, because Trump didn’t even know Putin

Trump: “There was no collusion. I didn’t know the president. There was nobody to collude with.”

10. July 30, 2018: Collusion isn’t a crime, and Trump wasn’t physically at the Trump Tower meeting

With Michael Cohen alleging that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting in real time — despite many previous denials — Giuliani told both CNN and Fox News that Trump wasn’t physically at the meeting.

“I’m happy to tell Mueller that Trump wasn’t at the Trump Tower meeting,” Giuliani told CNN, adding that “Don Jr. says he wasn’t there.”

He added on Fox: “He did not participate in any meeting about the Russia transaction. . . . And the other people at the meeting that he claims he had without the president about it say he was never there.”

Giuliani also argued that collusion isn’t even a crime.

Jul 30, 2018

GIULIANI on MANAFORT trial: “He has no information incriminating of the president. I know that for a fact. They can squeeze him — he doesn’t know anything. He was with him for four months.”

GIULIANI argues ***collusion is not a crime***: “I don’t even know if that’s a crime — colluding with Russians. Hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack! He didn’t pay for the hacking.”

“I don’t even know if that’s a crime — colluding with Russians,” Giuliani said on CNN. “Hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack. He didn’t pay for the hacking.”

And on Fox: “I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. Collusion is not a crime.”

.

Somebody’s been studying their Leni Riefenstahl

by digby

Imagine if you saw this from another country. Would you not assume it was some fascist regime?

December 7, 2018: #CBPElCentro officers & agents #OFO #USBP conducted a large scale civil unrest readiness exercise @ the #Calexico West Port of Entry.

The port was shut down rapidly & likewise rapidly reopened – all complete and back to normal in less than 20 minutes. pic.twitter.com/vVT0GWtpqi— CBP El Centro (@CBPElCentro) January 16, 2019

To think they made this film and are now disseminating during a government shutdown.

Just creepy in every way.

.

All fun and games until …
by Tom Sullivan

Planes line up for takeoff at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Photo by Magnolia677 via Wikimedia Commons.

A tweet yesterday by writer Anne Lamott highlights one of the risks posed by the prolonged government shutdown:

This is horrible but I believe that the only way the shutdown ends is if a plane goes down.— ANNE LAMOTT (@ANNELAMOTT) January 16, 2019

It is not idle speculation.

Small-government conservatives may fantasize that if “big” government shuts down, no one will notice. Or they see President Donald Trump’s partial shutdown over border-wall funding as a golden opportunity to smoke out the Resistance and, disaster-capitalism-like, to wring waste out of the system and create a smaller, more efficient bureaucracy. Until a plane goes down.

Shutdown-related short-staffing in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) may not have allowed a man to carry a gun onto a flight to Tokyo earlier this month. TSA told reporters two inspectors at Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport had not followed proper procedures and were fired. The checkpoint was fully staffed. Other airports report closed lanes and longer lines resulting from the shutdown.

But maintenance is being deferred. The Federal Aviation Administration is calling 2,200 aviation safety inspectors and engineers back to work and hopes to have them in place by January 18:

“We are recalling inspectors and engineers to perform duties to ensure continuous operational safety of the entire national airspace,” an FAA spokesperson said. “We proactively conduct risk assessment, and we have determined that after three weeks it is appropriate to recall inspectors and engineers.”

Appropriate, indeed.

Trish Gilbert, executive vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told CNN on Wednesday, “I would say it is less safe today than it was a month ago. Absolutely.”

Gilbert explained, “We do not have the professionals on the job. We are working with bare-bones crews. We have controllers there, doing what they do very, very well. But how long can you expect them to do it without all of the systems behind them to keep the system safe and planes in the air?”

“This is a horrible game of chicken that we’re in the middle of,” said Gilbert.

Aubrey Farrar, 30, is the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) union representative at Washington’s Reagan National Airport. With the partial government shutdown approaching a month in duration, federal workers such as Farrar are still on the job working without pay. Farrar supports a 12-month-old baby and is putting his wife through medical school.

Looking out the windows of the control tower, Farrar told the CBC, “What you see happening across the river, that’s like they’re messing with the people you know and love.”

Meanwhile, the FAA is already making plans for increased flight restrictions around the capitol during the president’s State of the Union Address. But the January 29 date is uncertain now that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has advised the president that if the shutdown is still in effect, they should discuss another date. The U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security could be short staffed due to furloughs, dontcha know:

Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th.

Or Donald Trump could give it from the Oval Office reading coldly for an hour from a teleprompter.

But he wouldn’t have to worry there are not enough air traffic controllers to police the temporary flight restrictions.

Trump Quarantined 

by tristero

Good:

In her historic letter Wednesday morning, Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially disinvited Trump from delivering his address as planned on January 29. By way of explanation, her letter cited concerns about security stemming from the government shutdown.

The Politico article provides the obvious two other reasons Pelosi would disinvite Trump: (1) that certain new House members (you know who they are) wouldn’t be nice to Trump and that would ultimately backfire for Democrats; and (2) a certain president would use the occasion to be very un-nice to Democrats and blame them for the shutdown.

But speaking personally, there are two far more compelling additional reasons.

First, and foremost, SOTU’s are not that informative. If we really care to learn the state of the Union, we need a carefully researched, quite long, and non-partisan written document of some length that goes into detail on the state of our economy, our infrastructure, our foreign relations, our health (physical, mental, and cultural), and our environment. That can’t be addressed in a serious manner with the kind of a partisan stunt that the SOTU has devolved into.

The related second reason is that the SOTU is unbearably boring. The standing ovations, the ritualized joking, the partisan commercialism…please. It’s a total snooze fest, literally.

I’m not sure the Speaker had these reasons in mind, but I suspect that ultimately Pelosi may be playing a longer game with Trump of which this disinvite is but one example. She is seeking to quarantine him, refusing to provide him even the slightest opportunity to grandstand, preen, and provoke.

As Pelosi said: if he, all alone, wants to deliver the speech from the White House…whatever. But there is no reason that a separate branch of the government that is not beholden to Trump should lift a finger to promote the Trump brand or pretend the Trump/Putin presidency is normal.

Good for Pelosi.

Pay to Play in plain sight

by digby

This has been obvious from the moment Trump took office but apparently, it’s now official:

Officials leasing the Old Post Office Building for the Trump International Hotel in Washington improperly ignored the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses when they continued to lease the government property to President Trump even after he won the White House, according to an internal federal government watchdog.

The Inspector General for the General Services Administration, the agency that leased the building to Trump in 2013, said in a report published Wednesday that agency lawyers decided to ignore the constitutional issues when they reviewed the lease after Trump won the 2016 election.

“The GSA Office of General Counsel recognized that the President’s business interest in the lease raised issues under the U.S. Constitution that might cause a breach of the lease, yet chose not to address those issues,” said Inspector General Carol F. Ochoa. “As a result, GSA foreclosed an opportunity for an early resolution of these issues and instead certified compliance with a lease that is under a constitutional cloud.”

Neither the White House nor the Trump Organization has responded to interview requests.

“Today, the GSA OIG confirmed what we all knew: The Trump Administration is in violation of the Emoluments clauses of the United States Constitution,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., in a statement. “GSA’s decision to not consider whether the President’s business interest in the Old Post Office lease might be unconstitutional has enabled the President to line his pockets.”

Apart from the constitutional issues raised by Trump’s stake in the hotel, the building’s lease states that no “elected official of the Government … shall be admitted to share any part of this Lease, or any benefit that may arise therefrom.” Trump’s attorneys have argued that didn’t apply since he signed the lease before he was elected.

This is a big duh. Of course he shouldn’t be pocketing money from people who have business before the government. This is plain old corruption.

Forget all the foreign emoluments, how about plain old bribery?

Last April, telecom giant T-Mobile announced a megadeal: a $26 billion merger with rival Sprint, which would more than double T-Mobile’s value and give it a huge new chunk of the cellphone market.

But for T-Mobile, one hurdle remained: Its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

The next day, in Washington, staffers at the Trump International Hotel were handed a list of incoming “VIP Arrivals.” That day’s list included nine of T-Mobile’s top executives — including its chief operating officer, chief technology officer, chief strategy officer and chief financial officer, and its outspoken celebrity chief executive, John Legere.

The executives had scheduled stays of up to three days. But it was not their last visit.

Instead, T-Mobile executives have returned to President Trump’s hotel repeatedly since then, according to eyewitnesses and hotel documents obtained by The Washington Post.

By mid-June, seven weeks after the announcement of the merger, hotel records indicated that one T-Mobile executive was making his 10th visit to the hotel. Legere appears to have made at least four visits to the Trump hotel, walking the lobby in his T-Mobile gear.
[…]
Last week, a Post reporter spotted Legere in the Trump hotel’s lobby. In an impromptu interview, the T-Mobile chief executive said he was not seeking special treatment. He chose the Trump hotel, he said, for its fine service and good security.

“It’s become a place I feel very comfortable,” Legere said. He also praised the hotel’s location, next to one of the departments that must approve the company’s merger.

I know, I know. Lobbyists are always passing out perks and contributing big bucks to politicians’ campaigns. But this takes it to a different level. This money is going into Trump’s personal coffers — as with all the golf club memberships and other pay to play and and access scams Trump has going.

This is real:

Moskowitz is a Palm Beach doctor who helps wealthy people obtain high-service “concierge” medical care.

More to the point, he is one-third of an informal council that is exerting sweeping influence on the VA from Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Florida. The troika is led by Ike Perlmutter, the reclusive chairman of Marvel Entertainment, who is a longtime acquaintance of President Trump’s. The third member is a lawyer named Marc Sherman. None of them has ever served in the U.S. military or government.

Yet from a thousand miles away, they have leaned on VA officials and steered policies affecting millions of Americans. They have remained hidden except to a few VA insiders, who have come to call them “the Mar-a-Lago Crowd.”

Tip o’ the iceberg, I’m afraid.

.

Bill Barr’s helpful Catch 22

by digby

Lawrence Tribe made a good point on Ari Melber’s show this afternoon. He noted that  Barr believes that the DOJ guidelines which say a president can’t be indicted is a correct one because it has held for 40 years.

And Barr also said this about the possible Mueller report yesterday:

“If you’re not going to indict someone, then you don’t stand up there and unload negative information about the person,” Barr said. “That’s not the way the Department of Justice does business.”

So, basically he’s saying that since the president can’t be indicted any evidence turned up by the Department of Justice must be suppressed. Sure, he can be impeached. But the Congress can’t have access to any of the information turned up by the Special Counsel because that would inevitably make that info public.

I guess this means that the congressional committees will have to guess at the evidence and try to put some facsimile of the case together on their own. Maybe if Tump is re-elected, they’ll have time in his second term if they keep their majority. So that’s good.

.

50 Shades of Coulter

by digby

The president’s Dom speaks:

Ann Coulter said that Donald Trump will be “dead in the water” if he fails to build his proposed border wall, applying more pressure to a president who, some say, has continued to keep the federal government partially closed in part because of criticism from commentators on the right.

On “Vice News Tonight,” which aired Tuesday, Coulter suggested she was not concerned about the ongoing partial government shutdown — which caused hundreds of thousands of federal workers to miss paychecks on Friday — as long as public attention remains on immigration.

“Oh, gosh, they’ll have to wait a few months before they know fully well they’re going to be paid in full,” Coulter said. “Look, I’m not in favor of this, but previous shutdowns have been much more difficult.”

She added: “More Americans die from drug overdose every year than died in the entire course of the Vietnam War, and the vast majority of those drugs are being brought in because we have a wide-open border. I care more about that than I care about the Yosemite gift shop being open,” Coulter said (the Drug Enforcement Administration says most illicit drugs enter the United States through legal ports of entry, as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker notes).

Coulter’s latest remarks continue a mostly one-sided exchange between Coulter and Trump. The conservative pundit has repeatedly urged the president to fulfill his campaign promise of constructing a wall at the southern border to stymie illegal immigration.

Trump hasn’t responded publicly to Coulter but did unfollow her on Twitter, hinting at a fracture in their relationship. That hasn’t stopped Coulter from goading the president, who “reads my stuff,” she claimed in the interview.

When asked why the president is “digging his heels on immigration” now, Coulter replied that it was a self-preservation tactic. The shutdown began Dec. 22 over Trump’s demand for more than $5 billion to build a border wall between the United States and Mexico.

“He is dead in the water if he doesn’t build that wall. Dead, dead, dead,” she said. Coulter cast blame on Democrats for prolonging the shutdown, adding that they’re “obsessing” over the wall because they want Trump to break his promise.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe Trump and the Republicans are mostly at fault for the shutdown, compared with 29 percent who blame the Democrats in Congress.

Coulter was accused in December of playing a role in the shutdown after she and other high-profile pundits lambasted the president for appearing to concede on funding the wall. In the week leading up to the shutdown, the White House briefly showed support for a stopgap spending measure that would have kept the government open until early February. This caused conservative talking heads such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and the hosts of “Fox & Friends” to speak out against the president and say he was “getting ready to cave.”

At the time, Coulter said during a podcast on the Daily Caller that not building a wall would be an indelible stain on Trump’s presidency and would cause her not to vote for the president in 2020.

“It’ll just have been a joke presidency who scammed the American people,” she said at the time. “. . . he’ll have no legacy whatsoever.”

Soon after that commentary, Trump said he would refuse to sign any funding bill that didn’t include money for the wall. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused the commentators of “completely” flipping Trump, adding that it was a “tyranny of talk radio hosts.”

In her interview with Vice, however, Coulter took her sentiments a step further. She said Trump had “screwed up for two years” by not building the wall. But now, “with three seconds on the clock, he’s finally throwing the ball, so I’m not going to complain about that,” she said.

“As long as he makes the fight about immigration, he will win,” she added.

[T]he man she once called an “emperor God” is “the worst negotiator God ever created,” she told Vice. Trump’s inability to deliver on the wall — the hallmark promise of his presidential campaign — led her to run a column on Breitbart titled “Gutless President in a Wall-Less Country.”

I guess they cut the segment where Tump crawled across the room on his belly and licked her high heeled boots squealing “hit me again Mistress!”

He loves it when she puts him in his place.

.