The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump on SCOTUS in Wolff's "Landslide"
Trump "was now annoyed at all the people who had prevented him from appointing Giuliani to the Court."
I previously wrote about excerpts from Michael Wolff's new book, Landslide. Here is the full passage about Trump's reaction when the Supreme Court tossed Texas's election suit:
The president, who some had thought, perhaps wishfully might have been moving toward acceptance, reverted to high and bitter dudgeon. This was betrayal by the three justices he had personally appointed: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. He reserved particular bile for Kavanaugh, whom, he now noted, he had not wanted to appoint in the first place. "There were so many others I could have appointed, and everyone wanted me to. Where would he be without me? I saved his life. He wouldn't even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him." It was another persistent theme: he resented that he had been forced to appoint strangers rather than people he knew he could have depended on; he was annoyed at Giuliani for repeatedly assuring him that their allies on the Court would carry the day, and he was now annoyed at all the people who had prevented him from appointing Giuliani to the Court.
Rudy! For SCOTUS! Maybe we should be grateful it was Kavanaugh and not Judge Judy.
Earlier in the book, Wolff writes that he pitched Rudy for SCOTUS:
Giuliani was offered the Department of Homeland Security but thought that was beneath him—he did not want to forever be "9/11 Rudy." He was offered attorney general, but he said he was too old to go back to practicing law. Trump briefly suggested a Supreme Court position for him—risible for, among other reasons, Giuliani's long pro-choice history and the impossibility of his confirmation by a pro-life Republican Senate.
Trump said Kavanaugh lacked "courage"--and not just based on the election cases.
I don't want anything—one thing has nothing to do with another—but I am very disappointed in him, in his rulings. I can't even believe what's happening. I'm very disappointed in Kavanaugh. I just told you something I haven't told a lot of people. In retrospect, he just hasn't had the courage you need to be a great justice. I'm basing this on more than just the election. And the others … Roberts? What's going on with Roberts? I have no idea, and nobody else does. But the Supreme Court has shown no courage and no strength, and they have been horrible for the United States of America…"
Wolff also reports that Senator McConnell told Trump to cut Kavanaugh loose.
"I might as well tell you—Kavanaugh. Practically every senator called me, including Crazy Mitch, and said, 'Cut him loose, sir, cut him loose. He's killing us, Kavanaugh.' I said, 'We can't do that because it will destroy him—he won't be able to even go back to the second-highest court, right? They used the expression 'cut him loose,' and I said, 'I can't do that,' and it was very derogatory, that expression, 'cut him loose.' And I had plenty of time to pick somebody else … right? But they said, 'Cut him loose,' and I went through that thing and fought like hell for Kavanaugh—and I saved his life, and I saved his career. At great expense to myself.… okay? I had, let's say, fifty percent of the Republican senators or more saying cut him loose—fifty percent or more—and it made sense because they were saying, 'He's killing us.' And I fought for that guy and kept him.
This story includes the word "sir," which is usually an indication Trump is making it up. Then again, McConnell nudged Trump to pick Judges Kethledge or Hardiman for the Supreme Court. He said they would "presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed." Mitch was right.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This book is another anti-Trump screed from the guy who defended previous counterfactual claims by saying "if it rings true, it is true", right?
Trump was a weak leader. Fire the FBI, DOJ, State inauguration Day. Trplace with resl police and prosecutors. Arrest those wanting to reverse the 2016 election. I hope Trump learned.
The job of the president is the easiest job on the planet other than maybe Supreme Court justice. Trump’s original sin was not understanding how important appointments are….and how difficult it is for a Republican to staff up with competent workers when most high achieving Republicans are drawn to the private sector and not government jobs. Generally a president staffs up with people that served under the previous administration of president from their party…unfortunately that group had individuals that ranged from grossly incompetent to mildly incompetent. So that is why Trump eventually resorted to the military and Congress and George HW Bush administration to staff up because he discovered people from the W administration were incompetent and back stabbers.
Trump was elected to get rid of those failed elites. He will ger a second chance.
A lunatic authoritarian says what?
If true, then presumably you can demonstrate falsehoods.
In the meanwhile, the rantings of Trump are both easily identified as both genuine, and true to his (lack of) character.
You people can pretend that Trump is being misrepresented all you want. The truth is that we all saw exactly the kind of shit-stain he is through his numerous interviews and rallies over the years, and only a select group of cultists choose to disbelieve their own eyes and ears.
You could, you know, bother to do even a remote bit of checking about Wolff's last attempt to sell fiction as non-fiction. For example, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/07/michael-wolffs-fire-and-fury-some-of-the-facts-just-dont-stack-up.html . Or you could just do a web search for the (literal) quote I provided.
I did, you know, do exactly that. I'm waiting for you to provide some evidence that this is just an 'anti-Trump screed' and that the quoted excerpts are not true.
People thought the same thing you did about the claims in The Atlantic about Trump's canceled visit to the cemetery at Aisne-Marne -- until John Bolton said Trump was telling the truth about that.
Go read the PolitiFact check of Wolff's last book: the parts that it doesn't show he got wrong (like claiming that the Steele dossier showed that Trump was actively being blackmailed by Russia, or writing that John Boehner retired the year he became Speaker of the House) are self-serving, and likely distorted, descriptions from one of the stars of the book. Your confirmation bias has confused you about who has the burden of proof for this kind of thing.
Again, if you're so sure that it's just bullshit, then you should be able to prove that.
The rantings seem 100% genuine to me, based on Trump's behavior over the years and the syntax, yet here you are claiming beyond any doubt that they are completely false and not possibly true.
So prove it. It's really that simple. Either you can prove that it's just bullshit, or you have to acknowledge that it could be true. I can't get Wolff here to back up his quotes, so the only one left to prove anything is you.
So back up your position, or acknowledge that you have no idea if it's true or not, and have no basis to determine that the entirety of it is false.
There is no reason to believe that something is true just because Michael Wolff wrote it.
Very true. Who is using that rationale in this discussion? Nobody.
What I recall about the reviews of Fire and Fury was that a lot of it was unsubstantiated. Is there reason to believe in the accuracy of this book?
You guys should continue to believe and stick with Trump. Your gullibility is quite useful.
Artie is pro unsubstantiated rumors and gossip, while being bigoted.
George Wu Bush attempted to appoint a loyalist to the Supreme Court and Republicans in the Senate figuratively smacked him upside the head. Trump was duped into appointing a loyalist to the Supreme Court—Kavanaugh is a Bush loyalist!! Trump was also duped into appointing a Bush loyalist to SoS.
You don’t recognize that the “Wu Bush” stuff immediately identifies you as a partisan hack with a broken brain and signals that the rest of what you wrote probably isn’t worth wasting time on.
Think of the guys who use “Obummer”. That’s you.
The people who say both Wu Bush AND Barfsack Obungler are the sensible consensus-builders.
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking’. But only if they also use “Sleepy Joe” and Drumpf.
He's not partisan, just nuts.
I'd vote for "Crank" over "Nut".
Doing a taxonomy of Volokh commenters would be an amusing exercise. Among other classifications, I see (and granted, there is some overlap): Cranks, Nuts, Partisan Hacks, Trolls, Out-and-out racists and/or anti-Semites, Fair-minded partisans, Passers By, and TDS Victims.
Mmm. I must recede under such a detailed taxonomy. Crank, not nut!
Wu is the name of the Chinese official that would funnel money to the Bush family via Neal Bush. So Bush shipped millions of manufacturing jobs to China…and China funneled millions of dollars to the Bush family.
Funny, I never knew that Bush was making business decisions for American tech companies like Apple. The money came to the States in black helicopters, right?
And what about the Kochs? They had to be in the middle of this, right? You can’t do one of these without the Kochs.
Or maybe Soros.
If he’d been talking about conspiracy around Obummer, then that would involve Soros. Gotta keep the two sides straight.
According to legal documents disclosed Tuesday, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.
Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.
"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.
"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.
It is pretty common in much of the world to try to gain influence by giving money to members of a leaders family. Pretty much the same as Hunter Biden.
Semiconductors?? In the early 2000s??? And to this day the guy defends China!?! Nothing like Hunter Biden’s unethical behavior but however you sleep at night knowing your vote for Bush in 2004 nearly destroyed America. And without the black swan event of fracking being developed America would be in a very sorry state importing LNG from Russia as Tillerson advocated for years!
Looks like Neil Bush and Hunter Biden have chosen the same career path.
But this doesn’t mention George and you’ve got no way to demonstrate that W “moved a bunch of jobs to China” since he had management authority over zero jobs.
This is ridiculous fruit loops conspiracy crap and I’m not wasting any more time on it.
TRUMP: “We have created 5.3 million new jobs and, importantly, added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs — something which almost everyone said was impossible to do.” — State of the Union speech.
McConnell nudged Trump to pick Judges Kethledge or Hardiman for the Supreme Court. He said they would "presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed." Mitch was right.
McConnell was certainly at least aware of rumors about Kavanaugh. He said several times, including to several reporters, that there would be confirmation difficulties with him.
Liberals (including me) don't like McConnell very much, for good reason, but nobody should ever doubt his political acumen.
I would bet it had to do with the fact Kavanaugh used his lawyerly talents to help George Wu Bush steal an election and then as Bush’s right hand man he helped Bush lie America into an asinine war…and most likely helped Bush pressure CIA interrogators to torture detainees in order to elicit false confessions tying Saddam to 9/11. Unfortunately a big part of Trump Derangement Syndrome is the belief Bush wasn’t a bottom 5 president that actually committed more (and worse) impeachable offenses than Trump.
Since we're piling on Brett Kavanaugh, it’s worth remembering he was the most corrupt hack to ever run a special counsel investigation. He spent over three years “investigating” the suicide of Vince Foster – not far from twice the length of Mueller’s inquiry. He inherited a finished & thorough five-month investigation from Robert Fiske and would add nothing to it except trivia in the margins. He later gleefully admitted he knew Foster killed himself all along.
So what did he “investigate” ? Basically, nothing. It was all a scam where Kavanaugh recycled dreg from the right-wing gutter press. An Ambrose Evans-Pritchard or Christopher Ruddy would print Foster was a secret agent who was blackmailed by Mossad. Kavanaugh (smirking) would then dispatch the FBI to run down this “theory”. Meanwhile, he leaked like a sieve right-back to the people who produced this garbage in the first place. He kept this vacuous process churning on for years.
During which Foster’s surviving family begged for an end to something they found a torment. Remember Kavanaugh whining about his family’s suffering over his few days of hearings? Well, he put Foster's family thru years of hell – and all over something he knew was a farce all along.
Two-plus years in, he sicced the FBI on Foster’s teenage daughter for a lock of her hair. (“We have Foster’s hair” an agent working for Mr. Kavanaugh reported in triumph.). Why? The daughter was blonde & Kavanaugh still hoped to prove Vince & Hillary had “done it”.
Special counsel investigations deserve their poor reputation, but only one was a total sham from beginning to end: Kavanaugh’s. No one holding the position has ever shown his contempt for the law.
What a great reminder of how Republicans were awful long before Trump ever showed up.
+1
Did you read about Starr defending Epstein?? Totally insane!
“Two-plus years in, he sicced the FBI on Foster’s teenage daughter for a lock of her hair. (“We have Foster’s hair” an agent working for Mr. Kavanaugh reported in triumph.). Why? The daughter was blonde & Kavanaugh still hoped to prove Vince & Hillary had “done it”.”
Your Conspiracy Theory needs some work, or perhaps you need to brush up on the Birds & Bees?
Um, it's not grb's conspiracy theory. It's Kavanaugh's.
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/kavanaugh/releases/docid-70105212.pdf
Hardly the worst thing to happen politically over the past 5 years, but the rehabilitation of Bush among a certain class of liberals has been truly nauseating.
Bush benefits from two post-presidential bonuses:
1) He's not making shitty decisions any more so there's no new drama there as he quietly retires into painting charmingly horrible portraits of famous people
2) Compared to Trump, he was far, far better at acting presidential (while grinding disfavored minorities under his heal.) So Trump accidentally put a bit of shine on that turd. Mission Accomplished!
No. There were no rumors about Kavanaugh. McConnell said that Kavanaugh would pose more of a confirmation issue because of his extensive paper trail, not because of a completely out of the blue allegation that had never surfaced in repeated FBI background checks.
That and his role in the Starr investigations.
Recall Bork -- a lot of the hatred for him stemmed from his role in Watergate. It was clothed in language about legal norms and "Robert Bork's America", but the animus was older.
Miers and Garland show that you can simply vote against a nominee for any reason you want…the party that nominates should do the background checks because a justice can be impeached if something bad turns up and that could give the opposing party a chance to appoint a justice.
How could Miers and Garland show that one can vote against a nominee for any reason one wants when not a single senator voted against Miers or Garland?
More than enough good reasons existed based on easily accessible public records for Democrats to reject Kavanaugh…which is why it was so dumb to potentially piss off the Bush family and Never Trumpers (turns out most of the right wing blogosphere were establishment Republicans all along) with the salacious allegations that couldn’t be proven.
The Blasey Ford allegation wasn't out of the blue in Washington, David. She had told some people about it and it was percolating. It's very possible McConnell heard it.
No, it was entirely out of the blue in Washington. I mean, not the day it was released — she had told Feinstein weeks earlier (which was one of the perceived dirty tricks about the whole situation: Feinstein sat on it while the vetting was going on, and then leaked it just before the vote). But at the time of the nomination — which is what we're discussing — it was not percolating. Nobody anywhere knew anything about it.
Also, just to be clear, when I said that McConnell said that Kavanaugh would pose more of a confirmation issue because of his extensive paper trail, I was not speculating about McConnell's inner motives. That's literally what he said.
I give this as much credence as all the other TDS screeds from the past several years which have turned out to be blatant lies. Not saying it didn't happen, not saying it did; saying that victims of TDS have lost all credibility with me, and everything they say is about as useful as instant water.
Tips on credibility from the birther, QAnon, stolen election, global warming hoax, creationist, virus-flouting, Trump-hugging element of our society are always a great treat!
Carry on, clingers. We'll let you know how far.
GOP in full control by 2025, 7-2 court, that's the outcome.
When will Trump be "reinstated?" When will Obama's birth certificate finally be revealed? When will Q reveal all? When will the Confederacy rise again? When will the Moral Majority assume its rightful (and righteous) place on America's throne of glory? When will the magnets injected with the vaccines take effect?
Half-educated, bigoted, delusional right-wingers make winning the culture war -- and shaping American progress -- worthwhile.
I can be skeptical of court drama books about all Presidents without resorting to partisan claptrap.
You should try it!
Your advice on partisanship is of accord with every dictator in history.
That you don't need it to be skeptical of court drama books?
Speaking of credibility: Is Joe Biden the "Big Guy"?
Speaking of changing the subject to things that don't even matter if they're true...
Speaking of partisanship!
Doubting the partisanship threadjack makes Sarcastro partisan?
You think it doesn't matter if Joe Biden was intended to be the beneficial owner of equity in a business deal where he played no direct role? Exactly how would you distinguish that from a bribe?
I think that's not established even by the reference to 'the big guy.'
Yes, we know you think a lot of stupid stuff these days, if "think" is actually the right word.
Bribe in what capacity? He was out of office at the time of that exchange.
Speaking of the Big Guy, would you like to buy an authentic Hunter Biden painting? Only $500,000!
All sales are anonymous. We "promise".
Paintings selling will because they're by the rich and famous is not a scandal. It's actually not even uncommon.
You see how you need to appeal to incredulity to make your scenario work? That's a tell.
"Paintings selling will because they’re by the rich and famous"...
From Hunter Biden? Really? Wow. You've outdone yourself.
Also you see how you can't stop bringing up Hunter Biden on threads not about him?
Also a tell.
Propagating uncorroborated speculation seems beneath the intellectual level of this blog.
As Eleanor Roosevelt has been credited with saying (under Stigler): "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
Propagating uncorroborated speculation seems beneath the intellectual level of this blog.
LOL.
Are you saying the book is corroborated? I mean, I haven't read it, so for all I know Wolff has named sources backing up everything in the book. Is that the case? If so I might bother to read it.
You missed it Brett. Unless you can prove it isn't true, you should believe it is.
Your knee jerk suppositions about people not on your side continue to make you look very silly.
No, I'm not. See my post above about court drama books.
What's funny is the idea that someone things in this age of Blackman posts uncorroborated speculation is beneath the intellectual level of this blog.
This is the first time Eleanor Roosevelt was credited with saying that.
I chuckled.
But it appears the presumed misattribution has gone around a bit.
"Propagating uncorroborated speculation seems beneath the intellectual level of this blog."
Half of Prof. Blackman's posts are his own uncorroborated speculation, so that's a weird take.
Wolff?
Wasn't his first book exposed as pure supposition, and mind reading? I know some find this interesting, but its on the same level of Marvel Comics. Entertaining fantasy.
No.
Jake Tapper of CNN said that Fire and Fury "should be met with skepticism" as it was "riddled with errors and rumors",[46] while Isaac Chotiner in Slate wrote that "Wolff is not merely out of his depth—he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology."[47]
I don’t know how much of this is true or isn’t, but the most astonishing thing here is that there was even five minutes of consideration re nominating Rudy to the SC.
Given post election events, it’s easy to see why he was tired of practicing law.
Almost as astonishing as the notion that being AG would involve "practicing law" in any normal sense of the word. Do you think it was Rudy or Trump that was confusing AG with SG?
Flip a coin man. Or maybe that particular assertion is bullshit. Beats me.
But his attempts to practice law over the last year have been awful.
Didn't JFK say that he wanted to give Bobby some experience as AG before he went out to practice law?
Trump gave the most concise description of his strategic method at cpac on Sunday. When speaking about the cpac 2024 gop presidential nomination straw poll, he said:
"Now, if it’s bad, I just say, “It’s fake”. If it’s good, I say, “That’s the most accurate poll perhaps ever”.
So, whatever trump deems "bad" (including within the contents of this book), he'll just say “It’s fake.”
It may seem like a simplistic strategy, but it takes a lot of work to convince at large mass of people to reflexively accept him as the sole authority of what's bad.
I don’t understand how he can do that. I mean, he first became nationally famous in 1980 give or take, right? I was in college then and the first time I saw him say anything on television my immediate reaction was “that guy is completely full of shit”. I have not seen anything that contradicts that in the ensuing decades.
How does he do it?
I think David Bernstein had a good column on this here on VC. There's a large group on the right that feels like a 'silent majority,' like no one nationally says the things they think. Every now and then a candidate has captured the imagination of these folks, George Wallace did for a while, Nixon played to them, Reagan to some extent, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot. For all of his shortcomings Trump's big political win is seeming to speak for these people, and they are *very* happy about it.
I agree with you on this.
What do you think anyone can do to engage these disaffected citizens?
Neither major party seems interested.
Remember how, inexplicably, a big plus for W Bush was that, supposedly, you could imagine yourself sitting down and have a beer with him.
The former President is a grifter. That was clear from the start of his campaign. People saw him a successful businessman and not the guy who ran numerous companies into bankruptcy. Ever notice how real successful business people kept him at arms length. They knew he was a charlatan. He preys on the weak mind and is successful. Successful enough to kept Republican leaders who know better scared.
Reality, as is usually the case, is complicated. He's both a successful businessman AND a grifter, and has both run numerous companies into bankruptcy AND run numerous profitable companies.
If he had JUST run companies into bankruptcy, after all, who would ever have heard of him?
For what it’s worth I wouldn’t put Perot on that list. I knew Perot personally in that time frame. Love him, hate him, whatever- he believed what he believed and didn’t really play to anyone.
I was less than impressed with his tossing away the advantage the major parties had given him by gifting him with the ballot access real third parties had to work for, by suspending his campaign.
For all I know he was a nice guy, but he was a nice guy who was given a pass on the rules, that real third parties didn't get, so that he could play spoiler. And his subsequent campaign suggests to me at least that a spoiler was all he was trying to be.
As always, you have invented some weird conspiracy theory where everyone who isn't doing what you want acted in bad faith. There was no pass on the rules. What on earth are you talking about? The parties can't "gift him with ballot access" even if they wanted to.
The movement of his lips is the indication he's making it up. The inclusion of "Sir" is just a helpful reminder he isn't merely a compulsive liar; he's a hilariously grandiose compulsive liar.
Can someone tell me what the title means? Was there some Trump landslide?
Just guessing, but I'll bet according to Trump there was.
The former President has a long history of not liking anybody that does do what he wants. The list of ex's from his administration is long. Is it any wonder he is not happy with his SCOTUS picks. Difference here is he can not do anything to them. They now have a lifetime appointment.
Trump talked a good game and then put war monger failed generals in DOD, DHS and Keynsians in charge of the Fed and a poor choice for SC. Now what if....
Ron Paul was put in charge of the Fed, Mike Lee for SC, Andrew Napolitano at DHS, and Walter Jones as head of the DOD....along with closing down the CIA (a threat to liberty), shutting down most federal agencies created since 1960..bringing the troops home and allowing for competing currencies...now that mf'er would have been epic..not John Bolton, Pompeo and who ever that guy was a Treasury who just wanted to have the Fed print money
Yeah. Just imagine.
Putting a Jewish banker in charge of Treasury made it clear that he had no interest in draining the swamp.
"...This story includes the word "sir," which is usually an indication Trump is making it up...."
Well, with Trump, anything he says that has a subject and a verb is probably made up. Wait, I forgot about him always saying the full sentence, "Fake News!!!" Never mind . . . Trump doesn't even need a verb to be making shit up. It's like his superpower.
I was hoping for Kethledge. Good writer.
This is weird.
I've just noticed that some comments in this page don't have a reply button.
Once you reach the maximum nesting depth for comments, the reply button goes away. The best you can do is reply to the last comment that had one, placing your comment at the end of that line.
Been that way for a long time.