"His decision to choose someone in his inner circle is a sharp contrast to his choice after first winning the presidency in 2016."

"Then, he selected someone with whom he had little history for the chief of staff role: Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee at the time. Most members of Mr. Trump’s extended orbit wanted to see Ms. Wiles as chief. She has close relationships with Vice President-elect JD Vance and with Mr. Trump’s family, including his two older sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric...."

From "Trump Names Susie Wiles as His White House Chief of Staff/The president-elect turned to his top political aide to fill a key post managing the White House when he returns to office" (NYT).

Trump, in a 2016 practice debate, purportedly drew a "blank stare" from "the group," when he said "Cocked or decocked?"

From a Daily Beast article, based on the forthcoming Maggie Haberman’s book "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America"

According to an excerpt obtained by The Daily Beast, a week before the second debate unfolded in St. Louis in 2016, Trump’s close adviser at the time, Reince Priebus, presented the aspiring political figure with a question on same-sex bathrooms. 

In playing the role of a female transgender student, Priebus asked Trump whether this hypothetical student could still use the girl’s bathroom. 

Without missing a beat, Trump said he had a question. “Cocked or decocked?” Trump asked. 

When the Wisconsinite Reince Priebus was Chief of Staff, Trump would question him about the Wisconsin animal, the badger: "Are they mean to people? Or are they friendly creatures?"

According to "Trump repeatedly asked Reince Priebus if Wisconsin badgers are 'mean to people,' how they 'work,' and what they eat..."  at Business Insider, quoting from a new book, "Sinking in the Swamp: How Trump's Minions and Misfits Poisoned Washington."

Which makes me wonder: Can badgers swim in a swamp or do they sink?

The book is written by Daily Beast reporters Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suebsaeng, and that makes me wonder, does a daily beast sink in a swamp, and what would happen if a badger and a daily beast got in a fight? Would the badger tear the daily beast to shreds or would the daily beast skitter away and scribble scurrilous — squirrelous? — things?

From the book:

The president would also ask if Priebus had any photos of badgers he could show him, and if Priebus could carefully explain to him how badgers 'work' exactly.

He wanted Reince — resident White House badger historian, apparently — to explain to him Wisconsin's obsession with the animal, how the little critters function and behave, what kind of food they like, and how aggressive or deadly they could be when presented with perceived existential threats.

Trump also wanted to know if the badger had a 'personality' or if it was boring. What kind of damage could a badger to do a person with its flashy, sharp claws?

An obviously enthralled president would stare at Priebus as the aide struggled for sufficiently placating answers, all the while trying to gently veer the conversation back to whether we were going to do a troop surge in Afghanistan or strip millions of Americans of healthcare coverage.

Placating?! Why would Priebus seek to placate in the middle of a hilarious conversation with the funniest man in the world?! What a missed opportunity! And wasn't Trump essentially talking about Priebus when he talked about badgers and whether they have a personality or are boring. I don't know what words Priebus said, but he answered quite clearly: We badgers are very boring and have no sense of humor or inclination toward building camaraderie and having fun. We won't banter and we don't fight. There's nothing like flashy sharp claws or flashy anything. Just dull dull dull, exactly what you New Yorkers expect.

Thanks a lot, Reince. Thanks for representing Wisconsin so well and then padding away to tattle to the daily beast.

Scaramucci accused Reince Priebus of being the Iago to Trump's Othello.

I think. He wrote "Read Shakespeare. Particularly Othello. You are right there. My family is fine by the way and will thrive. I know what you did. No more replies from me."

Scaramucci believed he was writing to Priebus. He wasn't. He was fooled by a prankster who posed as Priebus. That was stupid. The inability of government officials to handle email competently is appalling, but I want to talk about the meaning of the "Othello" reference.

In the NY Post, where I'm reading the story, it says: "Scaramucci shot back with a veiled threat to destroy Priebus Shakespearean-style." That is, the NY Post, attempting to grope though the veil, imagines that Scaramucci saw himself as the villain Iago and Priebus as the hero Othello. How does that make sense?!

I think the intended implication is that Trump is the Othello character — Trump, like Othello, is the leader — and Priebus is Iago — the close associate who hates the man he pretends to serve and tricks him into destroying himself.

Scaramucci expressed the view that Priebus is "right there" in the play "Othello." He doesn't say which character, but I think it's obvious. (Here's a plot summary of "The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice.") Scaramucci wouldn't align with Iago. Iago is the quintessential back-stabber...



... and Scaramucci proudly called himself — not a back-stabber — but a "front-stabber." And why would Scaramucci plot to destroy Priebus? Priebus was already out. The message of the email was "I know what you did." That pegs Priebus as the disloyal schemer. Scaramucci wasn't threatening to ruin Priebus. He was saying he knows what Priebus was doing to Trump.

Will the blabbermouth Scaramucci resist inquiries to explain his Shakespearean interpretation of The Tragedy of Trump, the Billionaire of Manhattan?

Name-calling in the Trumposphere.

We all know that Trump used name-calling (at least during the campaign) to get the better of his rivals, mostly by attaching a relatively ordinary adjective to the first name: "low-energy Jeb," "little Marco." Trump would repeat his chosen phrase until it stuck in your head.

Scaramucci is like Trump, but a step beyond. He's using name-calling, but it's not presented for public consumption. It just (somehow!) leaks out. And what leaks out is so nasty that: 1. It supports the claim that it was never intended to be heard by the general public, and 2. You only need to hear it once to get it stuck in your head.

What am I talking about? According to a HuffPo source in the White House, Scaramucci called Reince Priebus "Rancid Penis."

And then there is Scaramucci's notorious sideswipe of Steve Bannon: "I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock." It's not name-calling, per se. (No adjective attached to the name.) It's not even a direct insult, since he's talking about himself. You have to make an inference to get to Steve Bannon is trying to suck his own cock. But this is a characterization of Steve Bannon that only needs to be heard once to become unforgettable.

Some people think Trump is his own parody. No exaggeration needed to lampoon him. Just look at him as he is. Amazingly, Scaramucci shows the parody level that could be used by a Trump lampooner. But Scaramucci is doing it in real life and in service to Trump. We don't need a comedian to show us the leap from this service to Trump to sucking Trump's cock. (Remember the quaint old days of acting horrified that a comedian called Trump a "cock holster"?) Scaramucci has already said it about himself.

He's fired. Reince is out.

"I am pleased to inform you that I have just named General/Secretary John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff. He is a Great American...."

"..and a Great Leader. John has also done a spectacular job at Homeland Security. He has been a true star of my Administration."

"I would like to thank Reince Priebus for his service and dedication to his country. We accomplished a lot together and I am proud of him!"

3 tweets, just now.

"'Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,' Scaramucci said."

"He channelled Priebus as he spoke: '"Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months."'"

From "Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon/He started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there," by Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker.

Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.”...

Unlike other Trump advisers, I’ve never heard [Scaramucci] say a bad word about the President. “What I want to do is I want to fucking kill all the leakers and I want to get the President’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he told me.

ADDED: Scaramucci responds via Twitter:

I sometimes use colorful language. I will refrain in this arena but not give up the passionate fight for @realDonaldTrump's agenda. #MAGA

And:

I made a mistake in trusting in a reporter. It won't happen again.

"In terms of the DNC, are you suggesting that this was somehow a set up by Democrats to try and link them or compromise them with the Russians? And this was before there was any Russian interference in election?"

Chris Wallace asked Reince Priebus on Fox News Sunday today.

Priebus answered:

Well, look, why was Fusion GPS involved in putting together this dossier? I don't know, Chris. And I don't think too many people know why or how this meeting came about. However, what I can tell you is in my communication with our team on the subject, there was nothing to it, it was a 20 minute meeting, it ended after everyone was decidedly sitting there saying there's nothing happening here. They moved on. And I think, in the end, what you’re going to find in the story, if you read the Circa column, because I think there’s more questions on the Democrat side than anywhere else....

"White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is nervous about what could be in store for him if the former FBI director reveals more details of his secret memos."

Write Betsy Woodruff, Lachlan Markay, and Asawin Suebsaeng at The Daily Beast.

How do they know he's "nervous"?

Three White House officials told The Daily Beast that Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has privately expressed worry about a possible Comey memo specifically involving one of their reported chats, and how it might play in the press and to investigators.

“Nervous laughter,” one official succinctly characterized Priebus’ demeanor in the midst of recent revelations.

So... he's "nervous" because he laughed at something — we're not told what — and one unnamed person characterized the laughter as nervous. And, in the opinion of the reporters, Priebus should be nervous — "Any anxiety on Priebus’ part, however, would appear to be well-justified" — because Comey wrote memos — which the reporters characterize as "judicious" — about conversations and
"Priebus’ private conversation with Comey could have violated longstanding FBI policy barring officials from discussing its cases with the White House."

Maybe Comey should be nervous, but Comey wrote a memo, and perhaps Priebus should be worried that any Comey memo in this situation would protect Comey's interest in not being seen as violating FBI policy.

I've noticed what I think may be a significant trend in reporting in the Trump era: reporting it as news that somebody is — perhaps only by slanted inference — nervous. Here's last Sunday's post, "Nervous." I'm making a new tag for this trend: nervous.

Liberals embarrass themselves going wild mocking Reince Priebus for screwing up a football metaphor.

After all the glee — including Stephen Colbert making another genitalia joke (because: balls) — they all had to admit that Priebus didn't get it wrong. He didn't say "The president stepped up and helped punt the ball into the end zone." He said "The president stepped up and helped punch the ball into the end zone."



Here's TPM with an updated post titled "No, Reince Priebus Did Not Screw Up That Football Analogy" — "A reporter for The Hill who landed White House chief of staff Reince Priebus in a dog pile of mockery Thursday has corrected her reporting and apologized to Priebus." The original post is there for your enjoyment: "White House chief of staff Reince Priebus found himself on the receiving end of his own unfortunate football metaphor Thursday...."

Here's Colbert (video at link):

"After the vote, one reporter ran into Reince Priebus who told her, the president stepped up and helped punt the ball into the end zone. Yes, a punt into the end zone. Accurate because it gets you zero points and gives your opponent good field position.... I think a more accurate football metaphor might have been the GOP just kicked America in the balls."

By the way, even if Priebus had said "punt," Colbert's joke should bother liberals. It's alienating to us women to hear things discussed in terms of football and the non-universal experience of getting kicked in the balls. It's frat-boy. In that analysis, Priebus is wrong even if he said "punch," which he did. Stop talking about football unless you're also talking about fashion. And stop talking about your balls, even if you're talking about your balls.

"'Work this out,' Mr. Trump said, according to two people briefed on the exchange."

"The admonition was aimed at Stephen K. Bannon, the tempestuous chief strategist, and Reince Priebus, the mild-mannered chief of staff, over a series of dust-ups with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and the top economic adviser, Gary D. Cohn. But they may not be able to...."

"If you look at these Cabinet appointees, they were selected for a reason, and that is the deconstruction."

"The way the progressive left runs is if they can't get it passed, they’re just going to put it in some kind of regulation in an agency. That’s all going to be deconstructed."

Steve Bannon, speaking at CPAC.

"I see tone. You know the word 'tone'? The tone is such hatred."

Let's read the transcript of Trump's epic press conference. This went on for over an hour, with Trump picking up energy as he went, almost as if he absorbs energy from his antagonists in the room. I'll show you a few things that jumped out at me, including the places where he expresses his delight in bouncing off whatever they dish up for him.

The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about [it], we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control....  I’m here... to take my message straight to the people...

The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday. And it was very much discredited, as you know. It was — it’s a joke.... Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Time’s story.... And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth that I guess I have all my life but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than frankly, the political media....

I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred....

"I’m quite aggressive, and Reince is a calming influence on hey — bang bang bang, here’s how we ought to think about doing that."

Said Steve Bannon.

“We talk a lot, pretty much all day long,” Priebus said. “And then we communicate at night —”

“Until we fall asleep,” Bannon interjected with a laugh.

Priebus cut in, “Until somebody falls asleep … You fell asleep last night.”

“I did,” Bannon said.

“I think, like, a quarter to 11,” Priebus added.

“I did,” Bannon said.

“He became unresponsive,” Priebus laughed.

The NYT view of "Trump’s First Week" — "Misfires, Crossed Wires, and a Satisfied Smile."

This sign over the door says: If you loathe Trump, you will get comfort here. The readership — dwindling? surging? — is offered a safe space. I don't want a safe space. But let's see what's beneath that headline:

If other new occupants of the White House wanted to be judged by their first 100 days in office, President Trump seems intent to be judged by his first 100 hours. No president in modern times, if ever, has started with such a flurry of initiatives on so many fronts in such short order.

The action-oriented approach reflected a businessman’s idea of how government should work: Issue orders and get it done. But while the rapid-fire succession of directives on health care, trade, abortion, the environment, immigration, national security, housing and other areas cheered Americans who want Mr. Trump to shake up Washington, it also revealed a sometimes unruly process that may or may not achieve the goals he has outlined.

That's a fair start. If you like Trump, you can read that as high praise. Imagine if a liberal President entered the White House and got things moving so quickly. The NYT would lavish praise.

What gets counted as "unruly" and potentially ineffective?

Orders were signed without feedback from the agencies they would affect. Policy ideas were floated and then retracted within hours. Meetings and public events were scheduled and then canceled....

I'm pretty sure those who like where Trump seems to be going have no problem with any of that and might even portray it in a positive light. He's not getting bogged down in process...

To get off to a powerful start, Mr. Trump chose speed over process.

... and the process is shaping up as he goes:

"It may rain, it may not rain. I don't care, it doesn't matter. If it really pours that's OK because people will realize it's my real hair and that's OK."

Said Donald Trump, at last night's pre-inaugural dinner. Lots of pictures at the link (to The Daily Mail). Unlike the previous night's dinner, this one had not just Kellyanne Conway but the full triumvirate of Trump women. Melania was sheathed from neck to wrists to floor in skin-tight, nude-tone sparkle. Ivanka was a tower of white with a black void midsection.

Rounding out the female entourage — in addition to Tiffany — was Caitlyn Jenner, dripping fringe and displaying side-boob.

But I want to concentrate on the little speech Trump gave, his last pre-President speech. I was a bit critical of the remarks he made, earlier in the evening, at the feet of the statue of Abraham Lincoln. I said it was too partisan, with the bragging about the campaign and the polls. Some of it was fine, and I'm looking forward to hearing the Inaugural Address, which I hope turns out to be if not appropriate in the standard way at least some new kind of Trump appropriate — Trumpropriate.

The post title is from the text of last night's dinner speech, and now I'm reading the whole thing, live-blogging my reading. Go to the first link to find the full text. I'm just picking out things I want to talk about:

That was some big victory, some victory. And records were set that haven't been beaten since Ronald Reagan from the Republican side. 

That's how he begins, partisan and bragging about winning. And a bit incoherent. If you haven't beaten Reagan, you haven't set a record.

"Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King."

Wrote Reince Priebus.

Did Priebus intend to compare Trump to Jesus and the presidency to being a king?

Yes, and it's quite okay.

Yes, and it's awful.

No. It's just badly written.

No, and the writing is just fine.

 

pollcode.com free polls

So what did Obama say about believing the CIA and the FBI? I think it was just about nothing.

I was watching "Fox News Sunday" today. Reince Priebus was on, and he was shown a clip of something Obama said at his press conference on Friday. I just want to concentrate on what Obama said:

Unless the American people genuinely think that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI are less trustworthy than the Russians, then people should pay attention to what our intelligence agencies say.

That's a damned low standard! We're supposed to believe whatever is isn't less trustworthy than the Russians? That would implicitly include even the Russians, since the Russians aren't less trustworthy than the Russians. They are the Russians.

Now, to be fair, Obama didn't say we must believe the CIA and the FBI, only that we should pay attention to what they say. That's a low standard of another kind, because we might as well pay attention to everything. I pay attention to the Russians and lots of people whose word I don't accept on faith. In fact, I accept almost nothing on faith.

Obama seemed to be making a strong statement, but if you examine the words — and he spoke slowly and carefully chose his words — he said next to nothing.

The FNS host Chris Wallace translated the question into something distinctly more forceful...

Does President Trump accept -- or trust the intelligence community -- this is a CIA director saying this, not a third party -- or does he trust the Russian denials?

... and Priebus pushed back. But I'll let you go to the link and read that. I just wanted to do a post about the emptiness of Obama's rhetoric.

Reince Priebus calls Trump "a Socratic method guy" — "It kind of reminds me of being back in law school."

"He asks a lot of questions, asks questions about questions. And he will keep going until he’s satisfied with the information that he’s getting."

That was on "Face the Nation" today, in answer to probing by John Dickerson about whether Trump is getting intelligence briefings. Priebus says he is  — "it feels like every day." And then:

I’m not sure if it is every day. But it’s a lot. And that’s who he is. It’s someone who studies and someone that wants to be informed and it’s someone who asks a lot of questions and listens.

Dickerson asks if Trump is "a details guy," and Priebus says "He is a details guy," and then "I would say it’s he’s a Socratic method guy" and the rest of the quote I've set out above.

Dickerson asks Priebus what he does when Trump tweets something that's not true, such as when he said there were millions of illegal votes in California. Priebus's lame response was that we don't know it's not true. Dickerson patiently, politely nailed him:

I guess [the] question is, when you’re president, can you just offer a theory that has no evidence behind it, or does he have to tighten up his standard of proof?

We all know the answer to that question, but I appreciate that Dickerson had the presence of mind to put it in the form of a question... especially nice, since Priebus had just expressed admiration for the Socratic method. What can Priebus say (except You got me, Socrates)? He makes a lateral leap:

I think he’s done a great job. I think the president-elect is someone who has pushed the envelope and caused people to think in this country, has not taken conventional thought on every single issue. And it’s caused people to look at things that maybe they have taken for granted. 

Priebus distracts us onto the subject of Trump's ability to distract us with some new nutty thing. Hey, here's a theory! Ever think about it that way? Then Priebus brings up the flag-burning issue. That was a faux pas from Trump, wasn't it? So why shift to that? Priebus says flag-burning "is an 80% issue" — meaning (I presume) that 80% of Americans want to punish protesters who burn flags as a way of expressing themselves.

And then you watch the news media and they say, well, it’s constitutional. Well, right, it is constitutional...

He means the Supreme Court has found a constitutional right to burn the flag as symbolic expression.

... and but it doesn’t mean it’s not a subject for debate and discussion for the Supreme Court to revisit down the road.

That is, a Supreme Court opinion on a constitutional matter does not stop the conversation about what the constitution means. A case can be overruled. And a Supreme Court appointment is in the offing. What issues will come to the foreground as we grill the new nominee? Why not make it flag burning? Whether the flag-burning decision is ever overruled, there's political advantage in getting us talking about how we feel about it.

America! The flag!  

It's an 80% issue.

The Clinton campaign's joining the recount effort is "a total and complete hypocritical joke."

Said Reince Priebus on Fox News Sunday this morning. These people who purported to worry that Trump wouldn't concede the election are now doing recounts "in states where we won by over 68,000 votes."

I think the American people know this is a waste of everyone's time and money, and it's only... to divide this country when we need to come together no matter who you are, Republican, Democrat, race, gender, whatever it is, and look forward to the future of rebuilding this country and getting us back on track. That's what President Trump is going to do, that's what we want to do, and this is a total and complete distraction and a fraud and something that they should drop. But, look, they will waste our time and we will staff up with thousands of people, we will sit there and look through Scantron ballots, we will win again for the second time and they will lose again for the second time. But our country doesn't need it.

Later in the show, Michael Needham, head of Heritage Action for America, said:

The whole thing is just -- it’s a lot to take. I mean the weeping and gnashing of the teeth from the left, if anything remotely similar had gone on from a Republican, especially Donald Trump, would just be endless. It would have been -- and when you want to look at why people across the country feel like cultural elites, like our media establishment, just don't get them. The notion that this is going on, the notion that Hillary Clinton is joining in, the notion that her campaign is -- it’s just, stop it. Donald Trump won the election. Donald Trump is going to be the president of the United States. The alt-left needs to move on from this nonsense. 

The alt-left. That amused me. (Me, the alt-house.)