The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-republicans-guide-to-presidential-behavior.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=MayMC78&mcdt=2017-05&subid=MayMC78&ad-keywords=AudDevGate

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD MAY 13, 2017




This editorial has been updated to reflect news developments.

It wasn’t so long ago that Republicans in Congress cared about how a president comported himself in office. They cared a lot! The president is, after all, commander in chief of the armed forces, steward of the most powerful nation on earth, role model for America’s children — and he should act at all times with the dignity his station demands. It’s not O.K. to behave in a manner that demeans the office and embarrasses the country. Shirt sleeves in the Oval Office? Disrespectful. Shoes on the Resolute desk? Even worse. Lying? Despicable, if not impeachable.

Now seems like a good moment to update the standards. What do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders think a president may say or do and still deserve their enthusiastic support? We offer this handy reference list in hopes of protecting them from charges of hypocrisy in the future. They can consult it should they ever feel tempted to insist on different standards for another president. So, herewith, the Congressional Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior.

If you are the president, you may freely:

• attack private citizens on Twitter

• delegitimize federal judges who rule against you

• refuse to take responsibility for military actions gone awry

• fire the F.B.I. chief in the middle of his expanding investigation into your campaign and your associates

• accuse a former president, without evidence, of an impeachable offense• employ top aides with financial and other connections to a hostile foreign power

• blame the judiciary, in advance, for any terror attacks

• call the media “the enemy of the American people”

• demand personal loyalty from the F.B.I. director

• threaten the former F.B.I. director

• accept foreign payments to your businesses, in possible violation of the Constitution

• occupy the White House with the help of a hostile foreign power

• intimidate congressional witnesses

• allow White House staff members to use their personal email for government business

• neglect to fill thousands of crucial federal government positions for months

• claim, without evidence, that millions of people voted illegally

• fail to fire high-ranking members of your national security team for weeks, even after knowing they lied to your vice president and exposed themselves to blackmail

• refuse to release tax returns

• hide the White House visitors’ list from the public

• vacation at one of your private residences nearly every weekend

• use an unsecured personal cellphone

• criticize specific businesses for dropping your family members’ products

• review and discuss highly sensitive intelligence in a restaurant, and allow the Army officer carrying the “nuclear football” to be photographed and identified by name

• obstruct justice

• hire relatives for key White House posts, and let them meet with foreign officials and engage in business at the same time

• promote family businesses on federal government websites

• tweet, tweet, tweet

• collude with members of Congress to try to shut down investigations of you and your associates

• threaten military conflict with other nations in the middle of news interviews

• compare the U.S. intelligence community to Nazis

• display complete ignorance about international relations, your own administration’s policies, American history and the basic structure of our system of government

• skip daily intelligence briefings

• repeat untruths

• lie

• share highly classified information with a hostile foreign power without the source’s permission

If you’re a Republican legislator, stick this (updated) list on the fridge and give it a quick read the next time you get upset at a president.

If you think we have left something out, please leave a comment with this article, or on our Facebook page. We’ll update the Congressional Republican’s Guide with some of your suggestions in a follow-up article.

*************

If you're a Republican president, you get to do those things, and more. If a Democratic president did any of them, or less, they'd be accused of everything from treason to witchcraft.

zsomething wrote:If you're a Republican president, you get to do those things, and more.   If a Democratic president did any of them, or less, they'd be accused of everything from treason to witchcraft.

And why does this seem to be true? I mean we've got a president who for whatever reason has cozied up to the Russians like nothing we've ever seen ever by any American president.

The GOPer's do not have the slightest bit of problem with it. No complaints or concerns by them at all. It is as if this is totally expected behavior. We see resistance from the Dems but nothing to the extent that the GOP would be displaying if the situation were reversed. It is mystifying to say the least.

othershoe1030 wrote: I mean we've got a president who for whatever reason has cozied up to the Russians like nothing we've ever seen ever by any American president.

Really?

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

It sure would be nice if we could play with one set of standards and facts.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote: I mean we've got a president who for whatever reason has cozied up to the Russians like nothing we've ever seen ever by any American president.

Really?

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

It sure would be nice if we could play with one set of standards and facts.

Quiet everybody, little PkrBoy is chanting his mantra:  OBAMAOBAMAOBAMA.

Look at little PkrBoy go into a trance as he loses himself in the past. Isn't he just the most pathetic little thing?

It won't be long before his eyes roll back in his head and he starts chanting  WITTLE SNOWFLAKES WITTLE SNOWFLAKES WITTLE SNOWFLAKES.

Poor little PkrBoy, he's just so disturbed.

If you don't hold a potus from your party to the same standards you have for the other parties potus...

you are a very large part of the political problem. That you can admit it is different... that's psychological.

PkrBum wrote:If you don't hold a potus from your party to the same standards you have for the other parties potus...

you are a very large part of the political problem. That you can admit it is different... that's psychological.

Oh, poor little PkrBoy's all upset because things just aren't fair. I guess he's the real "wittle snowflake" isn't he?

Poor, pathetic little PkrBoy, he just can't accept reality. Don't cry, little PkrBoy,  you'll feel better after mommy changes your diaper.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote: I mean we've got a president who for whatever reason has cozied up to the Russians like nothing we've ever seen ever by any American president.

Really?

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

It sure would be nice if we could play with one set of standards and facts.

I think if we were playing with one set of standards and facts, it wouldn't work out too well for you. You've got a molehill and you're trying to build a ski-slope on it. There's really no comparison that's going to be in any way favorable to you: you have that against Obama, while Trump actively encouraged Russian interference in the election (inviting them to hack Hillary's e-mails, and repeatedly saying "I love Wikileaks!"), and giving secret intel to the Russians in the Oval Office (and then further blowing Israel's cover by stupidly confirming that was the source by telling Israel, "I didn't mention your name!"). And instead of Obama just mentioning that he'd have more leverage later, the Trump team has multiple people contacting the Russians -- Michael Cohen, Rex Tillerson, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, J. D. Gordon, Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner... many of whom have lied about their contacts, and some of whom have made money deals. And there's the whole obstruction-of-justice thing around the firing of Comey, with Trump bragging to his Russian cohorts that he "took the pressure off." There are lies from the Trump team that they had no contact with the Russians, while the FBI has intercepts that prove that yes, there was. And there's the rumors (admittedly unconfirmed, as of yet, but from a reliable source) that the Ruskies have "compromat" on Trump... and he's certainly acting like that there could be something to that. And there are also likely Trump financial ties to Russia... which is a likely reason he's not showing his tax returns.

And all of that's just some what we know so far.

So, if we really wanted to play with one set of standards and facts (and, spoiler alert: you don't) when it comes to Russian collusion, then, if you're honest at all, you'd have to admit that you're standing there with a damp cap gun while your opposition's got a loaded .44 Magnum with the hammer back, and a bunch of spare speedloaders ready to be slapped in.

All of your talkingpoint is conjecture at this point... largely unnamed sources... and unverified leaks. That may turn into something... but i wouldn't hold your breath. Obama set the gold standard for obfuscation and obstruction. If trump is half as good... little to nothing will come of it.

As far as the obstruction of the fbi investigation goes... sorry more nothing burger. I've said before... but will say again... the potus should NEVER speak to open investigations. Obama did repeatedly. He denied admin knowledge of the fast and furious gun running to Mexican cartels... then fired whistleblowers and withheld the atf and dhs key players from testifying in front of Congress... finally trying to quash it by claiming executive privilege to hide documents (later thrown out by scotus). He spoke to the irs targeting saying that nothing happened... right before the irs destroyed the Lerner and others emails. How convenient... eh? He spoke to the benghazi slaughter... both lying and refusing open access to the white house admin records. He also came out during the Hillary investigation saying she had broken no laws.

What did you have to say about those instances? He also set a record for fighting foia requests and suits.

But that was ok... right?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn't find a single page of files that were requested.

And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.

The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.

PkrBum wrote:All of your talkingpoint is conjecture at this point... largely unnamed sources... and unverified leaks. That may turn into something... but i wouldn't hold your breath. Obama set the gold standard for obfuscation and obstruction. If trump is half as good... little to nothing will come of it.

As far as the obstruction of the fbi investigation goes... sorry more nothing burger. I've said before... but will say again... the potus should NEVER speak to open investigations. Obama did repeatedly. He denied admin knowledge of the fast and furious gun running to Mexican cartels... then fired whistleblowers and withheld the atf and dhs key players from testifying in front of Congress... finally trying to quash it by claiming executive privilege to hide documents (later thrown out by scotus).  He spoke to the irs targeting saying that nothing happened... right before the irs destroyed the Lerner and others emails. How convenient... eh? He spoke to the benghazi slaughter... both lying and refusing open access to the white house admin records. He also came out during the Hillary investigation saying she had broken no laws.

What did you have to say about those instances? He also set a record for fighting foia requests and suits.

But that was ok... right?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn't find a single page of files that were requested.

And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.

The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.

No link...again? Let me guess...Judicial Watch. I wonder how many of those FOIA requests came directly from that psycho Larry Klayman.

https://apnews.com/0b27c4d4b23b436d805328694e58c605/obamas-final-year-us-spent-36-million-records-lawsuits

PkrBum wrote:All of your talkingpoint is conjecture at this point... largely unnamed sources... and unverified leaks. That may turn into something... but i wouldn't hold your breath. Obama set the gold standard for obfuscation and obstruction. If trump is half as good... little to nothing will come of it.

As far as the obstruction of the fbi investigation goes... sorry more nothing burger. I've said before... but will say again... the potus should NEVER speak to open investigations. Obama did repeatedly. He denied admin knowledge of the fast and furious gun running to Mexican cartels... then fired whistleblowers and withheld the atf and dhs key players from testifying in front of Congress... finally trying to quash it by claiming executive privilege to hide documents (later thrown out by scotus).  He spoke to the irs targeting saying that nothing happened... right before the irs destroyed the Lerner and others emails. How convenient... eh? He spoke to the benghazi slaughter... both lying and refusing open access to the white house admin records. He also came out during the Hillary investigation saying she had broken no laws.

What did you have to say about those instances? He also set a record for fighting foia requests and suits.

But that was ok... right?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn't find a single page of files that were requested.

And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.

The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.

This is so sad. Little PkrBoy is throwing another fit because things just aren't fair. He's chanting his mantra, OBAMBAOBAMAOBAMA, but it just isn't working.

Poor little PkrBoy, will he ever learn?  Run to mommy, little PkrBoy, hug her tight and cry, cry, cry.