Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Trump Spokesman Denies National Security Pick Michael Flynn Met With Austrian Far-Right Leader

By JTA:

A Donald Trump transition team spokesman denied a report that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the president-elect’s designated national security adviser, had met with a leader of Austria’s far right.

In a Thursday morning call with reporters, Jason Miller said Flynn had never met with Heinz-Christian Strache, who heads the Freedom Party.

“The fact of the matter is that General Flynn has never spoken with or met the Austrian politician in question and strongly disavows groups with such viewpoints,” Miller said.


Earlier this week, Strache wrote on his Facebook page that he had met with Flynn a few weeks ago at Trump Tower in New York.

The Freedom Party, which narrowly lost in presidential elections earlier this month, was founded in 1956 by a Nazi SS officer. Its past leader, Joerg Haider, called SS veterans “decent people of good character.”

The Full Story (December 22, 2016)

Washington Post: Donald Trump is Holding a Government Casting Call. He’s Seeking ‘the Look.’

By Philip Rucker and Karen Tumulty:

Presentation is very important because you’re representing America not only on the national stage but also the international stage, depending on the position,” said Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller.

To lead the Pentagon, Trump chose a rugged combat general, whom he compares to a historic one. At the United Nations, his ambassador will be a poised and elegant Indian American with a compelling immigrant backstory. As secretary of state, Trump tapped a neophyte to international diplomacy, but one whose silvery hair and boardroom bearing project authority.

* * *

As Trump formally announced his vice presidential pick in July, he said that Mike Pence’s economic record as Indiana governor was “the primary reason I wanted Mike, other than he looks very good, other than he’s got an incredible family, incredible wife and family.”

And in picking retired Marine Gen. James Mattis as his nominee for defense, Trump lauded him as “the closest thing to General George Patton that we have.”

Mattis has a passing physical resemblance to the legendary World War II commander, as well as to the late actor George C. Scott, who won an Academy Award for his portrayal of Patton in the 1970 biopic. Trump also seems particularly enamored with a nickname that Mattis is said to privately dislike.

“You know he’s known as ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, right? ‘Mad Dog’ for a reason,” Trump said in a recent interview with the New York Times.

The Full Story (December 22, 2016)

Talking Points Memo: Trump - I Just Want To Be (Celebrity) Loved

By Josh Marshall:

On the one hand, this is the most frivolous and inconsequential of stories. And yet, it captures quite a bit about the coming Trump Era. From one perspective, it's the ultimate confirmation of the Trumpian narrative. The cultural elite - the top musicians and movie stars - look down on Trump and refuse to associate with him. What's notable though is that it's not just Katy Perry and Bruce or other mega stars who we either know or assume we know have predictably liberal politics. Trump appears to be getting shut out even in the Country music world where the cultural politics run considerably more conservative and where Republican politicians usually find their entertainers.

* * *

If Ted Cruz had been elected President you'd likely see something close to as total a shut out. But Cruz would strap on his Lee Greenwood and love the smell of Hollywood's contempt in the morning. Not Trump. All reporting suggests that Trump is extremely unhappy about the situation. Which of course makes perfect sense. Depending on how you choose to inflect it - with sympathy or derision - Trump's movement is based on a rejection of the condescension and arrogance of the cultural elite. And yet no one yearns more achingly for celebrity approval than Trump.

The Full Story (December 22, 2016)

Washington Post: Trump on the Future of Proposed Muslim Ban, Registry - ‘You Know my Plans’

By Abby Phillip and Abigail Hauslohner:

Trump has long called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States and has expressed openness to a registry of Muslims already in the country.

A year ago, in a statement, Trump said he wanted a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The proposal was sharply criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike. And later, Trump and his senior aides and surrogates sought to soften the proposal, suggesting that Trump would support a ban on immigration only from countries that had been "compromised by terrorism."

In interviews, Trump has characterized his position as an expansion, not a contraction of his proposal.

But given an opportunity on Wednesday to clarify his remarks, Trump suggested that his plans stood as he had articulated them early in his campaign. The statement proposing a “complete” shutdown of Muslim immigration remains on Trump's website. And Trump has not clarified how exactly he would address the issue as president.

The Full Story (December 22, 2016)

National Review: Conservatism in the Era of Trump

By Tim Alberta:

All of this is a gamble, of course, as Trump’s ideology is disjointed at best and his core philosophy on the appropriate role of government is anyone’s guess. So while his presidency represents a prime opportunity for conservatives to influence the direction of the party and the country, it also threatens to redefine Republicanism in a way that is hostile toward traditional concepts of limited government. In some areas, no doubt, Trump’s agenda will mesh nicely with these principles. When it inevitably does not, conservatives will find themselves facing a quandary: Fall in line and risk damaging the credibility of conservatism, or push back and risk provoking a thin-skinned and Twitter-addicted president.

Further complicating things is the fact that Trump dominated — in the primary and general elections — those districts represented by Congress’s most conservative members. They once believed they were elected to advance a narrowly ideological agenda, but Trump’s success has given them reason to question that belief. Knowing this, GOP leadership officials are betting that Trump’s popularity among conservative constituents will make their representatives less obstructionist and therefore less influential in the upcoming Congress.

* * *

Consider Trump’s stated intention to seek a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure package soon after taking office. At a conservative forum one week after the election, Labrador told reporters that any such bill “has to be paid for” with spending cuts or revenues from elsewhere, “and if Trump doesn’t find a way to pay for it, the majority of us, if not all of us, are going to vote against it.” Otherwise, conservatives reasoned, it would be no different than the Obama stimulus package they once railed against. But their thinking has shifted in the weeks since. According to several members, there has been informal talk of accepting a bill that’s only 50 percent paid for, with the rest of the borrowing being offset down the road by “economic growth.” It’s an arrangement Republicans would never have endorsed under a President Hillary Clinton, and a slippery slope to go down with Trump.

The Full Story (December 21, 2016)

[Special] The Machinations Behind Trump's Immigration Ban

Trump's immigration ban rolled out as one would expect from his administration, half-formed, chaotic, controversial, and unsustainable. I will leave it to the words of professionals to explain, although I note this post is particularly long because it is important for context.

Talking Points Memo: Big Griftin'

By Josh Marshall:

The Trump sons and two longtime pals stand up a one-off 'nonprofit' to hold a fundraiser the day after the inauguration to sell access to the Trump Family. Nominally, the cause is 'conservation'. But they hadn't even figured out an explanation of what they were going to do with the money. The putative charity which stood to benefit said it hadn't decided whether it wanted to be involved. So much for that.

Once the operation was publicized, the Trumps said the proposals were not finalized and the planners behind the event hadn't gotten approval from the Trump sons. But the Trump sons were listed on the incorporation papers of the nonprofit! The EventBrite ticket page listed Don and Eric as the event organizers! In other words, the Trump boys weren't ill-used by people trading on their name. They were the people! It's their nonprofit. They were organizing the event! It's the standard hang the organizers out to dry approach; but they're the organizers. The blame shifting, under the bus throwing is a just a chain reaction of nonsense.

We know how the Trumps handle their charities. And this isn't even something six months into the administration. It is difficult to quite capture not just the brazenness of this idea but how totally the Trump boys were caught in the act. The Trump Family is basically already at the "Who Are You Going to Believe? Me or Your Lying Eyes" stage and we're not even out of the Transition yet.

Drop the idea of thinking the Trumps need a better framework, better advice or anything else. This is the plan. Crooked nonprofits are just part of it. The real action will be turbocharging the family business with the juice of the American presidency. The sooner you realize that, the better you'll understand what's going on.

The Full Story (December 21, 2016)