OMG

But my emails. https://t.co/G7TIWDEG0p

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 14, 2018

A New Tune In The Repertoire?

Thread on the latest statements being vomited out.

During interview with @BretBaier, Trump says he hopes to get US troops out of South Korea as soon as possible, indicates he's not happy with fact that "we don't get paid fully for that military" presence there. pic.twitter.com/Jb2ORhI97C

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 13, 2018

He's said this kind of stuff all along. His line on Xi is also a rerun: "He's an incredible guy. You know, essentially president for life. That's pretty good."

Exactly the same as his previous line about Putin is here applied to Kim: "A lot of other people have done some really bad things"...

Loathesome it is, but always full of the same tells. In particular, there's Trump's recognition that his interlocutors expect him to endorse such conventions as, "dictatorship is bad." He pays quick and unconvincing lip service, before moving on to how much the dictator under discussion excites him.

But this one seemed novel...

Trump claims, preposterously, that parents of Korean War veterans came up to him during the 2016 campaign and said, "when you can, we'd love our son to be brought back home -- you know, the remains."

The Korean War ended in 1953. pic.twitter.com/f4HEHZ22YM

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 13, 2018

Make that, centenarian parents. Who previously knew so many "thousands and thousands" of centenarians had attended his rage fests? Perhaps they were camouflaged in "Fuck your feelings," and "Trump that bitch" shirts.

At first I thought Trump sounded even more unhinged than usual, to have retroactively seized on "return of remains" as a rationale for meeting Kim. On second thought, I suspect the very concept of "The Korean War" suddenly prompted Trump to remember the war in Viet Nam, and particularly, the "POW/MIA" furor. Public rage was inflamed when remains of some casualties had not been returned, which was the case simply because bodies could not always be recovered from the jungle. Anger over this was fueled in the 1970s, Trump's formative period. Surely, he recalls the public emotion, and he must remember how politically useful claims of government conspiracy were.

Trump's Korean War arithmetic may be a howler, but his base will believe he's always planned to do something for families that traitor Obama refused.

Speaking Truth To Money

Michelle Wolf looking back on the WHCD: "It was gross! Like, I saw Jeff Zucker hugging Kellyanne Conway, and it was just like, Oh! You’re all in this together! People are really getting hurt, and you guys are just celebrating your money.” https://t.co/KXOolpO0Q4

— Saeed Jones (@theferocity) June 12, 2018

"New York Times bad takes"? An institution now gets its own richly deserved production number.

Finally discovered why @nytopinion has so many bad takes. pic.twitter.com/IFIW8M1pkY

— The Break with Michelle Wolf (@thebreaknetflix) June 11, 2018

It Takes A Comedian

Samantha Bee's critique of the media: "I should have known that a potty-mouthed insult would be inherently more interesting to them than juvenile immigration policy. I would do anything to help those kids. I hate that this distracted from them..." https://t.co/WIOfb2zBgA

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 7, 2018

It'll Be The Biggest, Most Beautiful Axis You've Ever Seen

Trump has accomplished something no previous president has been able to do: created an actual Axis of Evil https://t.co/raJ9uFyMAJ

— Post-Impressionist Liberal (@Yastreblyansky) June 3, 2018

Footnotes Critiqued

Under this logic, the president could open a booth on Pennsylvania Ave to accept bribes, people under federal investigation could stop by with a briefcase full of cash, and he could order their investigations closed—all without incurring any criminal liability for himself. pic.twitter.com/3WI2ZVff07

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

He could call it the Trump Hotel.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

The Guilty Act Is Sure to Prove His Innocence

Breaking News: In a confidential memo to the special counsel, President Trump's lawyers made broad claims of executive power in a bid to avoid a subpoena https://t.co/MxPvKViUA9

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 2, 2018

Aren't leakers supposed to be the sent to the dungeon?

Trump tweeted about this before it broke, right? https://t.co/FbIwRN7tIX

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

I have exclusively obtained this Fox News twete for you, dear readers. https://t.co/IRXiJGqnM2

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

NEWS ALERT: Fox News has obtained exclusively a letter President @realDonaldTrump's legal team sent to Mueller in January outlining many reasons why the President should not sit down for an interview with Mueller. pic.twitter.com/ORhxqwMuWp

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 2, 2018

One nice thing abt Trump's letter becoming public is you can see where the conspiracy theory transcribers were getting their language from. Literally cutting and pasting.

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) June 2, 2018

All this was sent in January, so the purposes of the sudden release are yet to be known. Surely, to claim Mueller's team leaked, and to set talking points for Magats. In other speculation, because Trumps other than Melania and Barron left for a trip to Camp David, is the gathering to coordinate stories?

For the first time, Trump's lawyers say he dictated his son's response to NYT over Russian lawyer meeting. They call the statement "short but accurate." https://t.co/NJigLuXPfi

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 2, 2018

When did Trump learn that the Trump Tower meeting was about to become public and Don Jr would have to make a statement? Likely well before the events in early July 2017. Trump Org lawyers were tracking down Rob Goldstone as early as the end of May 2017. https://t.co/Okhpi8hR7Y

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

Sure, this is within the normal run of criminal behavior...

In case you've been off Twitter today, here's a catch-up:

A guy who says he is innocent had his lawyers write a 20-page letter on why he refuses to explain how innocent he is.

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) June 2, 2018

... Then there's the more ground-breaking stuff...

...and then he talked to Putin "about adoption" for an hour with no one taking notes.

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

And NYT helps us answer the question more definitively from their side.

"Early on the morning of Friday, July 7, reporters from The Times approached White House officials and lawyers with questions about the Trump Tower meeting a year earlier." https://t.co/2QPBW3tKKA

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

This is an astounding argument to make: https://t.co/bS83VdX4AD pic.twitter.com/iapJrDFph0

— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) June 2, 2018

I wasn't sold one @emptywheel’s Putin theory before, but the desperation wafting from "this is a *private matter*" is leading me to reassess. https://t.co/VvfOdGZU9d https://t.co/Hk61AFK5Bp

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 2, 2018

From "Emptywheel's Putin Theory":

Right in the middle of this heated effort to respond to the NYT, Trump bizarrely spent an hour chatting Vladimir Putin up over dinner at the G-20.... The question here is not just "why did you release such a partial statement that the documentary record proves is inaccurate?" Nor is it, "why did you emphasize adoptions — Russian code for sanctions — rather than the sanctions that were at the core of the meeting?"

It's also the unstated question: "Did you dictate that statement? Or did Vladimir Putin?"

Here's the nutty bit. We don't actually have to speculate about whether that spin — adoptions rather than sanctions — came up in the chat between Putin and Trump. In an interview not long after news of the June 9 meeting broke, Trump actually told the NYT he and Putin were talking about adoptions.

TRUMP: We talked about Russian adoption. Yeah. I always found that interesting. Because, you know, he ended that years ago. And I actually talked about Russian adoption with him, which is interesting because it was a part of the conversation that Don [Jr., Mr. Trump’s son] had in that meeting. As I’ve said — most other people, you know, when they call up and say, "By the way, we have information on your opponent," I think most politicians — I was just with a lot of people, they said [inaudible], "Who wouldn't have taken a meeting like that?" They just said——

HABERMAN: The senators downstairs?

TRUMP: A lot of them. They said, "Who wouldn't have taken a meeting like that?"

By his own admission, Trump went from the July 7 dinner chat about adoptions with Putin and "dictated" a statement that just happened to focus, misleadingly, on adoptions.

So, yeah, the big question in this entire list is the unstated one: did you dictate that statement? Or did Putin?

The Week In Review

This Is America, via @sltrib https://t.co/vTaqaDpkoc

— Pat Bagley (@Patbagley) June 1, 2018