Tweetizen Trump - 2017-06-27: "Rants! Raves! Fake News!"

Whoa, Twitter madness, Donald. I've been off in the woods on vacation for a few days, away from keyboards, and what shows up on my return but a veritable slew of tweeting from you. I might have to just hit a few of the high points (and neglect the @POTUS account again) — but I'm sure there are high points to go over.

(More than usual, I'll be rearranging things a little bit to keep them topically grouped.)

===

IMMIGRATION

► As promised, our campaign against the MS-13 gang continues. "@ICEgov Busts 39 MS-13 Members in New York Operation" [1] (complete with link to a Breitbart (!) article)

There's certainly no doubt that the MS-13 folk are "bad hombres," Donald, which is why they were also a target of the Obama Administration. And while I'm glad to see ICE still going after them, it would be nice to see more focus on such guys (and less exaggeration about it [27]), and not so much on far lower-risk targets, like a mother of three who has lived here since she was five years old. [26]

► Mexico was just ranked the second deadliest country in the world, after only Syria. Drug trade is largely the cause. We will BUILD THE WALL! [2]

Are you suggesting that most drug trade (which is with the United States) is coming across unguarded borders, rather than through more conventional smuggling? Because unless that's the case, a "WALL" isn't going to do anything, is it?

And all those opioids that your Attorney General keeps talking about, as the deadly addition that's Target Number One? They're manufactured right here, Donald.

► Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE! [18]

That's a remarkably subdued (but expectedly slanted) view of the SCOTUS ruling. It is, in fact, a "unanimous" (9-0, not 9-O, Donald) decision, but an administrative one. It allows the temporary ban on refugees and those without a formal tie to the US to be kept out, but allows students, people with legitimate job offers, relatives being visited, etc., to come in without any further hassle. That was hundreds of thousands last year, Donald. So if blocking people from those countries was, in fact, critical to our homeland security and to keep us "SAFE" (the record of actual terrorist activities in the US not at all establishing that, of course), then the SCOTUS decision hasn't really helped all that much.

Heck, they didn't even really acknowledge that core argument of yours. They just said, "Hey, there's no constitutional right to entry, so those refugees can stew for a few more months."

Oh, that's the other fun bit — SCOTUS kicked down the road actually examining this until they come back in October. But by that time, the travel ban will have expired, so it will be a moot point. Of course, you could extend it — but then you'll need to argue in court why it had to be extended, and demonstrate even more that this isn't simply a series of ongoing "temporary" delays to let any folk from those mostly-Muslim countries in.

===

HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

► I am very supportive of the Senate #HealthcareBill. Look forward to making it really special! Remember, ObamaCare is dead. [3]

No, it's not, but you continue to make it worse through various administrative means.

You retweeted Fox Nation (with article):

► .@SenTedCruz: I want to Get to a 'Yes' Vote: [4]

Which was kind of funny because the article headlines Cruz thinking the Senate Bill doesn't go far enough in kicking people off of Medicaid. Remember when you told the House that their bill is "mean"? Given that the Senate only shaved off (during the CBO's 10-year scoring window) a million people from the number who will lose their insurance under their version of the AHCA, and given that Cruz wants them to ratchet those numbers up, it's kind of weird that you're retweeting him.

► Democrats slam GOP healthcare proposal as Obamacare premiums & deductibles increase by over 100%. Remember keep your doctor, keep your plan? [7]

That's a delightful melange of half-truths Donald. While there are some peak numbers that match your "over 100%," the average numbers are much, much lower. And, as we've discussed repeatedly, a large reason for those spikes is uncertainty over what the hell you're going to do with the ACA if it remains the law of the land this year. It's not a systemic flaw, Donald — it's mismanagement by seven years of GOP obstruction and, now, your Administration.

► I cannot imagine that these very fine Republican Senators would allow the American people to suffer a broken ObamaCare any longer! [10]

And, alas, I cannot imagine that they will let Obamacare be fixed, either. Because they've run into the problem of a rock (how they have been campaigning for the last eight years) and a hard place (having to actually pass a repeal-and-replace that arguably improves Americans' lives).

► The Democrats have become nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS, they have no policies or ideas. All they do is delay and complain.They own ObamaCare! [13]

Well, if they're pushing Obamacare, then, yes, they have policies and ideas. You just don't want to hear them, Donald.

It's not like the last eight years of GOP congresscritters wanting to repeal the ACA without having a concrete proposal on how to replace it.

And, no, the Dems do not own Obamacare. Obamacare had many, many Republican amendments added to it during its crafting (something the GOP is not returning the favor on), and then was forced to run without maintenance by the GOP in Congress, and, in fact, had a number of its provisions challenged in courts by the GOP (challenges that could have been easily fixed through legislation, but the Republican idea wasn't to fix the problems, but make them worse).

If the ACA fails, it will be laid directly in the lap of the GOP by anyone who knows anything about the healthcare industry.

► Republican Senators are working very hard to get there, with no help from the Democrats. Not easy! Perhaps just let OCare crash & burn! [16]

Yes, because a collapse of insurance under your administration would look so good on you, Donald.

Then you retweeted a fluff video from the @WhiteHouse account (!) from 6/21:

► #Obamacare has led to higher costs and fewer health insurance options for millions of Americans. It has failed the American people. [17]

Yeah, really, not so much.

===

RUSSIA & THE 2016 ELECTIONS

► Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY? [6]

So this, and the succeeding tweets, are sort of fascinating, Donald.

You've spent the last several months, with just occasional lapses, attacking even the idea that the Russians were actively working to meddle in our elections — in part because of investigations into whether anyone on Team Trump was colluding with them, in part because it's an affront to the idea that you are the Winningest President Ever, All On Your Own Merits.

Now you see an opportunity to attack your predecessor — and suddenly the Russians "meddling" becomes the cause celebre for your Twitter stream.

So which is, it, Donald? Did they meddle, or didn't they? If so, then all the other objections you've been making — calling the meddling a Democratic "hoax," etc — is clearly a lie, Donald. If not, then this whole line of attack is … well, a lie, Donald.

► Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T! [8]

Of course, there's "action" and there's "action." The Obama Administration did not make a "federal case of it," as the saying goes, at least not in public. We know that there was push-back behind the scenes, we know Congress was informed (and the GOP blew off any question of a bipartisan investigation or action), we know that Federal cyber-security folk were active during all of this, including counter-hacking that was ordered. There was all sorts of "action."

What there was not was an early, or vigorous, or prolonged public announcement and pressure put against Russia over this.

► Obama Administration official said they "choked" when it came to acting on Russian meddling of election. They didn't want to hurt Hillary? [9]

I know it's hard to remember this far back, Donald, but from early in the campaign you were sprinkling your election rhetoric with charges that they elections were going to be "rigged" against you, than you would be defeated by chicanery by the Obama Administration operating at Clinton's behest. You even claimed that you would "have to see" before accepting the results of the election.

That — and a compulsive level of process-orientation by the White House — led to the high understandable conclusion by Obama and his advisors than going big on this story that the Russians were meddling in the election — in fact, were meddling to assist you, Donald — would be seen as a patently political ploy to disrupt the elections and tilt the electorate toward Clinton. Heck, folk would have been concerned that Obama was going to use this to cancel the elections altogether and remain in power (frankly, I can imagine you making such accusations).

It would have been wildly damaging to the political fabric of this nation. Not, perhaps, as damaging as your winning (with or without meddling and/.or collusion), but nobody thought you were going to win, Donald.

In retrospect, it was probably a mistake. At the time, I don't know that I would have disagreed with the decision.

► Hillary Clinton colluded with the Democratic Party in order to beat Crazy Bernie Sanders. Is she allowed to so collude? Unfair to Bernie! [12]

I do love how obsessed you seem to be with the internals of the Democratic primaries a year ago. And your compassion for Bernie Sanders is noteworthy (even if you on the one hand declare something "unfair" toward him, and on the other continue to give him the epithet "Crazy").

Naw, who am I kidding? This is just your Loki side, sowing dissent and discord, and taking advantage of the opportunity to call people names (and maybe change Google responses on "collude" to not automatically come up with your name).

(As to actual Clinton/DNC shenanigans? From what I know, for the most part they seem weak beer — irksome, but not unexpected in party politics and, frankly, something that doesn't seem to need to be litigated by you, Donald.)

► The reason that President Obama did NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Clinton would win…..and did not want to "rock the boat." He didn't "choke," he colluded or obstructed, and it did the Dems and Crooked Hillary no good. [14]

You keep using that "colluded" word, Donald. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Well, you probably know what it means. You just like using it about others, whether it fits or not.

Anyway, your tweet pretty much lines up with what I said above, except that it's not collusion (Obama wasn't working with the Russians) and it's not obstruction (unless you have information that Obama blocked investigations into what was going on or sabotaged prosecutions).

You are correct that it didn't "the Dems and Crooked Hillary [oh, how you like to call people names]" any good. It didn't help the American people, either.

► The real story is that President Obama did NOTHING after being informed in August about Russian meddling. With 4 months looking at Russia…..under a magnifying glass, they have zero "tapes" of T people colluding. There is no collusion & no obstruction. I should be given apology! [15]

How do you know what they have, Donald? Or don't have?

Regardless, so now you accept there was meddling, but continue to deny collusion and obstruction.

Of course, the "obstruction" charges have nothing to do with anything that happened under Obama — that's all about your actions as President, Donald.

As to Obama — you're actually in an interestingly advantageous position, Donald. You can sit back and accuse him of whatever you want, knowing that his instinct toward decorum and norms will restrain him from blasting back at you — making him an easy target. Or, if he gets fed up and starts lobbing a few tweets back — well, then it just becomes a name-calling match, and you always have the advantage there. Or think you do.

(This does all raise the issue, of course, what you plan to do to protect the election system from Russian "meddling" in the future, now that you admit it happened in the past. But you're still busy looking for "millions" of illegal immigrant voters, right?)

From there you made an interesting shift, Donald, instead starting this barrage of retweets from various supporters (mostly Fox & Friends) . You retweeted "JeffTutorials" posting a logo of "FNN – Fake News Network" [19] (classy!). You retweeted Fox & Friends (!) quoting Mark Levin (with linked article), echoing your "collusion" accusation. [21] You retweeted Fox & Friends (!) with a story by Sean Hannity (of course), about how the Russia stuff was "boomeranging" back toward the Dems. [22]

You retweeted Fox & Friends again:

► Another Dem 'queasy' over claim of Loretta Lynch meddling in Clinton case [23]

And, look — another story ultimately based on hacked files. Well, at least now we can all agree that Russia continues to play a "meddlesome" role in American politics. It is interesting, though, Donald, that on the one hand when it's someone in your administration that leaks things, you tell the press that the real story is about the leaking, not what was revealed; when a "leaked" story comes out that hurts your perceived opponents (i.e., not you or your administration), then the leaked information is most important, and how it was obtained is trivial.

Oh, and then there was the Big Scandal That Wasn't.

► Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down! [24]

Well, honestly, Donald, I hadn't read about this story before I saw your tweet, so I wondered what it was about. And, honestly, it was about something a lot less false or misleading than your tweet about it.

In short, a CNN story about ties between a Russian investment fund and people on Team Trump was published online at CNN. CNN management itself reviewed the story, determined that it had not gone through the standard editorial workflow for stories based on anonymous sources, and the story was retracted, pulled off the website. The writer of the story, an editor in the investigative unit, and the editor who oversaw the unit have resigned.

So you've taken a narrative about a media outlet itself pulling down a story that was not editorially vetted appropriately, with the journalists / editors resigning because of that, and turned it into some weird scandal about "falsely pushing their phony Russian stories." [28] No wonder you never apologize for or retract anything incorrect or false that you say, Donald, if self-correction is a sign of massive, unrevealed sins.

Oh, by the way, Donald — CNN ratings are not "way down" — they are "way up". [29] Just in case you want to correct that.

Oh, and CNN hasn't admitted the story was wrong, just that it was not vetted by their current standards.

Oh, and Anthony Scaramucci, your advisor who was targeted in the story, while still denying the story was correct, has tweeted:

► .@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on. [30]

So I'm sure that will be the end of it, right?

► So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News! [25]

That dog still won't hunt, Donald. The idea that everyone is out to get you (except your dear friends at Fox) is just too goofy.

Also "the failing New York Times"? Still not failing. [31]

You might want to retract that, too, if you want to hold yourself to CNN's journalistic standards.

===

THIS & THAT

► I've helped pass and signed 38 Legislative Bills, mostly with no Democratic support, and gotten rid of massive amounts of regulations. Nice! [5]

Self-congratulatory, much, Donald?

► MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! [11]

Alllllrighty, then.

===

Your Social Media Minions also tweeted under your name about …

…your faboo rally in Iowa
… Steve Scalise
… the White House Congressional Picnic
… a retweet of a silly Fox & Friends (!) article about how you "predicted" the housing market upswing in 2012.
… how you were going to be on Fox & Friends (!)
… signing the "Fire VA People More Easily, Even If Evidence Is Lacking: Act.
… your WEEKLY ADDRESS
… meeting the Prime Minister of India at the White house
… a retweet (!) of Fox & Friends (!) announcing you were nominating Christopher Wray to head the FBI.
… a retweet of Fox News' (of course) Eric Bolling, touting his new book about how you will "drain the swamp" in Washington.

—-