Trump II

[Alan Klein]

Meanwhile at the lair,  Kim reacts to Trump's Fire and Fury speech.  Such pranksters. Gotta love 'em.

Maybe it's time for a US president to talk tough.  Past presidents have been feckless with NK.  Speaking softly has only gotten us an NK with atomic bombs and missiles that are on the cusp of reaching New York and maybe Amsterdam. Diplomacy hasn't worked.

Fortunately, other countries concerned with a nuclear armed NK, aren't listening to the political comments of people who just want to make Trump look bad.  South Korea and Japan are anxiously looking to up their military to offset NK's nuclear position.  Japan's clamoring for military weapons that haven't been acceptable politically since the end of WWII.  South Korea is talking about letting the US move tactical nukes into their country to protect them against NK.  If others aren't taking the situation seriously, these neighbors of NK certainly are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-japan-missile-south.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSouth%20Korea&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection&_r=0

[Alan Klein]

But it doesn't.  The threat doesn't work. Otherwise, the number of addicts would be decreasing.

It's true that that the threat of jail often doesn't get people sober or free of addictions.  But it does work at times.  What's the alternative?  Give them free drugs so they stay addicted for life?  Of course the rate of addiction is going up faster than those being helped.  But that doesn't mean no one is being helped. 

Ever done any research about how and why they passed those laws?

It doesn't matter why there are laws against weed on the books.  The DOJ is suppose to enforce Federal law.  That's their sworn job, and the President's too.  If you don't like the laws, get Congress to change them. 

[Schewe]

Proof, please. When in doubt, blame Canada.  Just like 911.

Where does fentanyl come from? China is primary source in U.S., and much is ending up in Ohio

“China is a global source of fentanyl and other illicit substances because the country’s vast chemical and pharmaceutical industries are weakly regulated and poorly monitored,” the report states. “Chinese law enforcement officials have struggled to adequately regulate thousands of chemical and pharmaceutical facilities operating legally and illegally in the country, leading to increased production and export of illicit chemicals and drugs.”

Some of the fentanyl comes straight to the United States from China, while other shipments come in from China to Mexico (and to a lesser extent) Canada before making its way into the U.S.

The report said China exports a number of different fentanyl products into the U.S.: raw fentanyl, precursors, analogues, fentanyl-laced counterfeit prescription drugs like oxycodone, pill presses and other machinery necessary for fentanyl production.

“Chinese chemical exporters utilize various methods to covertly ship drugs to the Western hemisphere, including sending illicit materials through a chain of forwarding systems, mislabeling narcotics shipments and modifying chemicals so they are not controlled in the United States,” the report stated.

And...

US rates Canada once again as a “major money laundering country” in annual drug report

Fentanyl entering Canada from China by mail

The Report states that fentanyl is originating in China and entering the US via Canada or Mexico, making Canada a source country. The fentanyl that enters Canada from China is by mail. Heroin is being altered with low-cost synthetic opioids, especially fentanyl, by drug dealers which can be 25 to 50 times more potent than heroin. Fentanyl is also pressed into pill form and sold as counterfeit prescription opioid pills. Drug takers are not aware of the large quantities of fentanyl, causing thousands of overdoes fatalities in Canada and the US.

Volume 1 - The key findings of Volume 1 on the drug trade vis a vis Canada are:

Large amounts of fentanyl from China enter Canada by mail.

Canada is a major producer of precursor chemicals used in the production of illicit narcotics, along with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iraq, Mexico and several other countries.

Cannabis destined for the US is produced mostly in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.

Canada is a primary source country of high potency marijuana and estasy to the US.

Canadian synthetic drugs and amphetamine stimulants are exported to the US, Asia and Australia.

Cocaine continues to enter Canada from South America and Mexico, some of which is transited through the US.


Volume 2 - The key findings in respect of money laundering  in Volume 2 for Canada are:

Money laundering activities in Canada are primarily from tax evasion, corruption, illegal drug trafficking, fraud, piracy and tobacco smuggling.

Laundering methods in Canada have changed slightly and now involve smuggling, money services businesses, casinos, real estate, wire transfers, offshore companies, credit cards and digital currencies like Bitcoin.

Also noted was that bulk cash smuggling into Canada is “widespread”.

Gangs from Vietnam are a significant source of illicit funds.

Sorry to say, the fentanyl based overdose deaths are not just an American problem but also a Canadian problem.

A KILLER HIGH-How Canada got addicted to fentanyl

Manufactured in China, it easily crosses our porous borders, triggering a heroin-like bliss in users – and, all too often, death. The Globe investigates the rise of a fatal opioid

The Globe and Mail article is from April 2016 but the problem in Canada has only grown worse although efforts are being made at the UN to control fentanyl-making chemicals. UN adds fentanyl-making chemicals to list of controlled substances

The narcotic fentanyl took centre stage at the annual United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, March 16.

Two chemicals used in the making of fentanyl were added to the "International List of Controlled Substances."

However, a B.C. expert on substance abuse says controlling chemical ingredients isn't the solution.

"We need to do everything we can, so the decision is welcome," said Dr. Evan Wood, a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia.

"At the same time though, you can't get out of a problem with the same kind of thinking that got you into the problem."

But the problem is trying to keep up with the chemical labs in China and elsewhere...

Underground labs in China are devising potent new opiates faster than authorities can respond

Note, this is in the magazine Science so some of the info is high level and include formulas :~)

Public awareness of the crisis spiked last spring, after music icon Prince's death from an overdose of fentanyl. But in the months since then, the chemical one-upmanship has deepened the opiate crisis, as new and nastier substances appear on the streets in places like Cincinnati. The fentanyl derivatives not only allow makers and dealers to elude law enforcement; they blindside public health authorities and make addiction even riskier. "It's just going to get worse," Reagan says.

Last July, police and scientists here were bracing for a new villain—perhaps the deadliest fentanyl cousin yet. "We were hearing about something so dastardly we had to be prepared," recalls Lakshmi Sammarco, the coroner for Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati. Carfentanil, an elephant tranquilizer that apparently had never been studied in humans, was showing up mixed into heroin in nearby cities and felling addicts. That month, a Canadian man was arrested in Calgary after authorities intercepted a 1-kilogram package of carfentanil labeled as "printer accessories," which he had ordered from China. Other synthetic opiates had found their way into Ohio via Canada, so it was only a matter of time before carfentanil would make the journey as well. "We all looked at each other and said, ‘Alright, buckle your seat belts, this is going to get very bumpy,’" Sammarco says.

Fentanyl crosses the blood-brain barrier with ease. It binds to opioid receptors and floods the brain with dopamine, which creates intense euphoria but also slows the heart and depresses breathing. For most individuals, a lethal fentanyl dose is about 2 milligrams—an amount so minuscule that in a test tube it looks like a few grains of salt clinging to the glass. Carfentanil is 100 times stronger, making it about 10,000 times more potent than morphine. Crime labs keep autoinjectors of naloxone, the lifesaving opioid receptor antagonist, within reach in case their personnel are accidentally exposed to synthetic opiates.

So, Peter, I'm not blaming Canada, I actually blame the outdated attitude that addicts could just stop if they wanted to. That addicts are criminals that should be locked up instead of given medical treatment. I blame big pharma for pushing these opioids on doctors without fully warning of the addictive nature and how hard it is to overcome an addiction. I blame government and politicians who play politics with the problem and claim that better drug enforcement will solve the problem and building a friggin' wall will keep out stuff that users can buy and import via partial post.

The preliminary report had some good recommendations but the most important–for Trump to declare a national emergency was ignored.

The sad thing is Trump SHOULD know better..his brother Freddy ended up dying from a life suffering from alcoholism. Unfortunately, Donald may have learned the wrong lesson and though his brother to be weak and blamed the alcoholism on Freddy.

[Schewe]

As for addiction, you call it "illness," I call it "cleaning the gene pool."

Yeah, you would.

Your heartlessness has been in fine form in this thread. Pretty sure this surprises nobody here on LuLa.

So, just to be clear, you don't have a medical license, right? You don't know what causes addiction and alcoholism, right?

You just desire not to get drunk and you don't get drunk so anybody should be able to do what you do, right?

So, is this "cleaning of the gene pool" limited to the illness of addiction or alcoholism, what about genetic disorders?

What about a predisposition for heart disease or stroke, or mental illness, or limited intelligence or ugly features or bad hair, should all these imperfections make people consider termination of early pregnancy?

And why stop at termination of early pregnancy, why not nip it in the bud and simply sterilize anybody who doesn't pass muster?

You see where this goes right? Genetic cleansing...ring a bell?

[Schewe]

If an addict beats someone up to steal money for his habit, or an alcoholic kills someone while driving drunk, then both of them belong in jail. 

Assault and DUI are themselves crimes and I have zero problems throwing the book at them for those acts. But simple possession for personal use should not put an addict in the same kind of facility where hardened criminals are put or else you risk making an addict into a hard core criminal. And I would much rather see an addict's fate decided by a medical professional instead of a judge...jeeeesh, that's the least likely place to get reasoned help.

In any case, I don't know how legalizing marijuana will alleviate opioid addiction.  People in  heavy pain need opioids or some other drug that's effective.  Weed won't eliminate pain that's severe.  Legalizing weed to replace opioids is fraught with danger.  Also, people are substituting one addiction for another.

Again, did you read the article about opioid addiction and overdoses being reduced in states that had state legal marijuana? In point of fact, marijuana is useful for treating long term pain and while it can't completely eliminate severe pain, marijuana in combination with other pain relief techniques are effect-possibly as effective as opioids.

Also, it would be useful if you understood addiction better. One doesn't get physically addicted to marijuana in the same way a user gets addicted to opioids or cocaine or even alcohol because marijuana doesn't interfere with the mesolimbic dopamine system-which means a marijuana user doesn't have the same sort of physical withdrawals. One can become psychologically dependent on marijuana but that's much easier to deal with than a physical addiction.

All of which is pretty far afield from the failure of Trump and the administration to recognize the severity of the current opioid crisis and actually take the steps required for crisis mitigation.

[Schewe]

Donald Trump just picked a dumb fight with Mitch McConnell

By Chris Cillizza

(CNN)Even as the Trump White House continues to calibrate the right response to the news that North Korea may have miniaturized a nuclear weapon, President Donald Trump started a very public fight with the most powerful Republican in the Senate.

"Senator Mitch McConnell said I had 'excessive expectations,' but I don't think so," Trump tweeted Wednesday afternoon. "After 7 years of hearing Repeal & Replace, why not done?"

That Trump tweet came just hours after this one from White House social media director -- and Trump confidant -- Dan Scavino Jr.: "More excuses. @SenateMajLdr must have needed another 4 years - in addition to the 7 years -- to repeal and replace Obamacare..."

Scavino added a link to his tweet of a video of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaking at an event in Kentucky on Tuesday -- which is what started this all up.

"Our new President, of course, has not been in this line of work before," said McConnell, according to a local CNN affiliate, which covered the event. "I think he had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process."

McConnell's criticism -- Trump is a newbie in politics and doesn't totally get that things move incrementally even in the best of times -- seems relatively mild especially compared to Scavino's response.

--snip--

Picking a fight with someone: a) you need to get things done and b) people look up to, seems to me to be the essence of playing dumb politics. Maybe Trump (and Scavino) have some sort of grand plan here I don't see. Always possible! But from where I sit, this was a needless fight to pick that could have decidedly negative consequences on the Trump's agenda in the future.

So, do ya really wanna poke the bear that you have to work with for the rest of your legislative agenda (unless the rest of the legislative agenda is just a pipe dream).

Trump is simply unprepared to be the President of the United States of America...he's just interested in getting the adulation of his constantly diminishing base.

[Otto Phocus]

At this point, I am not sure that Trump even knows what the truth is or is not.  He seems to be operating in an emotional reactionary mode  -- saying what ever his emotions dictate at that specific time with no real strategic thought.

[Farmer]

At this point, I am not sure that Trump even knows what the truth is or is not.  He seems to be operating in an emotional reactionary mode  -- saying what ever his emotions dictate at that specific time with no real strategic thought.

It would be interesting to plot his tweet times versus the time he reads his "ego folder" to see how it bumps his mood or bravado and how that wears off over time before the next boost.

[Robert Roaldi]

It's true that that the threat of jail often doesn't get people sober or free of addictions.  But it does work at times.  What's the alternative?  Give them free drugs so they stay addicted for life?  Of course the rate of addiction is going up faster than those being helped.  But that doesn't mean no one is being helped. 
It doesn't matter why there are laws against weed on the books.  The DOJ is suppose to enforce Federal law.  That's their sworn job, and the President's too.  If you don't like the laws, get Congress to change them.

You seem to locked into the mindset that people who take drugs are criminals. And I don't mean that just from the point of view that some laws are being contravened, because that can easily be remedied by repealing those laws. I mean that you actually seem to believe it, the way you keep talking about a "stick". Think back, there was a time when people who drank alcohol in the US were declared to be criminals, something which also didn't work very well. I hope you'll agree that alcohol prohibition was basically a nutty idea.

There is no need for a "stick" in this scenario, because viewing the issue from the criminal point of view makes no sense. People will do things that are not good for them, and humans have always devised ways to help mitigate that. Drugs are no different and it serves no purpose whatsoever to compound the problem by criminal action.

Your self-stated moral objection to the government providing drug relief (such as safe injection sites or other related programs) is nonsensical and is based on the notion that using drugs is, in itself, a criminal act. But that notion is an arbitrary one, not based on reality. Why would you morally object to handling a problem in a cheaper way that works better? It seems to me that you should have a moral objection to spending money unnecessarily through criminal action when it itself obviously causes so much harm, and has not only NOT helped solve the problem but has made it worse by increasing the cost of the crime, and thus increased the power of the criminal gangs who control drug distribution.

People who self-administer drugs often harm themselves, so doesn't it make sense to direct help to them specifically? By arbitrarily making them criminals, and making them dependent on criminal systems for drug delivery,  that ends up causing harm to the rest of society, something that is utterly unnecessary. It simply makes everything worse for everyone.

[Alan Klein]

You seem to locked into the mindset that people who take drugs are criminals. And I don't mean that just from the point of view that some laws are being contravened, because that can easily be remedied by repealing those laws. I mean that you actually seem to believe it, the way you keep talking about a "stick". Think back, there was a time when people who drank alcohol in the US were declared to be criminals, something which also didn't work very well. I hope you'll agree that alcohol prohibition was basically a nutty idea.

There is no need for a "stick" in this scenario, because viewing the issue from the criminal point of view makes no sense. People will do things that are not good for them, and humans have always devised ways to help mitigate that. Drugs are no different and it serves no purpose whatsoever to compound the problem by criminal action.

Your self-stated moral objection to the government providing drug relief (such as safe injection sites or other related programs) is nonsensical and is based on the notion that using drugs is, in itself, a criminal act. But that notion is an arbitrary one, not based on reality. Why would you morally object to handling a problem in a cheaper way that works better? It seems to me that you should have a moral objection to spending money unnecessarily through criminal action when it itself obviously causes so much harm, and has not only NOT helped solve the problem but has made it worse by increasing the cost of the crime, and thus increased the power of the criminal gangs who control drug distribution.

People who self-administer drugs often harm themselves, so doesn't it make sense to direct help to them specifically? By arbitrarily making them criminals, and making them dependent on criminal systems for drug delivery,  that ends up causing harm to the rest of society, something that is utterly unnecessary. It simply makes everything worse for everyone.

I guess my posts weren't clear. I never said people who take drugs are criminals.  I said their acts may be criminal.  I recognize that drug addiction and alcoholism, for that matter,  are diseases.  However, people are responsible for their actions regardless.   They can't cop out and say that they robbed some guy because they have a drug habit or for that matter that they ran over someone while driving drunk because they're an alcoholic.  Even though alcohol is legal, and alcoholism is recognize legally as a disease, the drunk is still liable and can be sent to jail.   Likewise, people who commit a crime relating to drugs such as robbing someone or selling drugs to pay for their habit is also a criminal for which prison time is applicable.     

Of course, that opens the question for what to do with drug addicts who only break possession laws.  Well, first there are laws against drinking in public even though alcohol is legal. So laws against drug possession are not that far afield.  But the main question is do we keep possession laws on the books and use potential jail time as a way to help  get the addict into treatment.   Or do we legalize possession and let the addict go his own way without legal intervention condemning him to continued addiction and probable death?  I think legally imposed rehabilitation is the better approach for the addict and society.   

Systems should be set up as they already are in many parts of the country where judges have discretion to propose an option even before criminal sanctions are imposed.  The person is allowed to start rehabilitation or a criminal process is started.  It's up to the addict to decide.

Getting back to Trump, I don't think the Federal government should get into these procedures.  They should be handled by local authorities and courts since violations of the laws in these kind of cases are local as well. 

[scyth]

And why stop at termination of early pregnancy, why not nip it in the bud and simply sterilize anybody who doesn't pass muster?

USA, http://cironline.org/reports/female-inmates-sterilized-california-prisons-without-approval-4917

[Chris Kern]

Getting back to Trump, I don't think the Federal government should get into these procedures.  They should be handled by local authorities and courts since violations of the laws in these kind of cases are local as well.

The Justice Department under the Obama Administration's Attorney General, Eric Holder, moved to some extent in this direction, but only with respect to marijuana.  While pointing out that possession of marijuana remained a federal crime, the department advised U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) that they should use their "investigative and prosecutorial discretion" to focus on eight national priorities: e.g., preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing it from being "diverted" from states which permitted limited personal use to states that did not, preventing drugged driving, etc.  Where states had enacted some form of legalization or decriminalization, the department recommended that U.S. Attorneys not interfere with the state "regulatory and enforcement systems."

This policy has been countermanded by the current Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who reportedly has even asked Congress to revoke a law that effectively permits the states to authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

[Alan Klein]

The Justice Department under the Obama Administration's Attorney General, Eric Holder, moved to some extent in this direction, but only with respect to marijuana.  While pointing out that possession of marijuana remained a federal crime, the department advised U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) that they should use their "investigative and prosecutorial discretion" to focus on eight national priorities: e.g., preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing it from being "diverted" from states which permitted limited personal use to states that did not, preventing drugged driving, etc.  Where states had enacted some form of legalization or decriminalization, the department recommended that U.S. Attorneys not interfere with the state "regulatory and enforcement systems."

This policy has been countermanded by the current Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who reportedly has even asked Congress to revoke a law that effectively permits the states to authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

That's the problem with Obama.    He arbitrarily and unilaterally overruled legislation enacted for the People by our Congress.  Like in so many things he did, he thought he was king.  He had no right to order the DOJ to not enforce the law.  The President is constitutionally required to enforce federal law.  It's not up to him to decide which laws he likes and those he doesn't.  He's not Putin, Castro or Maduro. 

Secondly, allowing States to manufacture and sell marijuana as Obama decided is on a magnitude of scale way different then how local judges handle State penalties for minor infractions.  In NYC for example, State jurisdiction applies in those situations in any case, not federal.   Again, Obama should have gone back to Congress to change the laws.  I suppose this might wind up in the Supreme Court - State's rights vs. the Federal government.

As an aside, in NYC, first time offense for a doobie or two is $100 fine, like  a parking ticket. It's a "violation".  It's not considered a misdemeanor or a more serious felony.  The penalties do get larger depending on amount and whether you're selling.  Here's the chart of penalties.
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/marijuana-law/new-york-marijuana-legal.htm

[Chris Kern]

That's the problem with Obama.    He arbitrarily and unilaterally overruled legislation enacted for the People by our Congress.  Like in so many things he did, he thought he was king.  He had no right to order the DOJ to not enforce the law.  The President is constitutionally required to enforce federal law.  It's not up to him to decide which laws he likes and those he doesn't.  He's not Putin, Castro or Maduro. 

Actually, no.  In three respects:

• If you have a complaint about the prior Department of Justice policy, it's with Eric Holder, not Obama.  It has been well-established, at least since the Watergate era, that neither the president nor any member of the White House staff gives orders respecting or otherwise interferes with decisions by the Attorney General and his subordinates involving criminal enforcement, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  (It's not clear whether Trump will respect this tradition, but I suspect Congress would statutorily compel him to do so if it appeared he was injecting himself into decisions regarding federal prosecutions other than by the exercise of his constitutional authority to grant pardons.)
• No legislation has been "overruled," arbitrarily or otherwise.  The Controlled Substances Act remains in effect and the various U.S. Attorneys have continuously enforced it.  The Holder policy set national priorities for prosecution and recommended that the U.S. Attorneys defer to the state governments to the extent that the state approaches to enforcement did not undermine the federal priorities.
• The U.S. Attorneys inevitably need to exercise discretion in deciding which criminal cases to prosecute for a variety of reasons, including the likelihood of securing a conviction, the availability of staff time, and whether the benefit to the public of proceeding with enforcement justifies the cost to the public of litigation.  State prosecutors also routinely exercise prosecutorial discretion.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, no.  In three respects:

• If you have a complaint about the prior Department of Justice policy, it's with Eric Holder, not Obama.  It has been well-established, at least since the Watergate era, that neither the president nor any member of the White House staff gives orders respecting or otherwise interferes with decisions by the Attorney General and his subordinates involving criminal enforcement, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  (It's not clear whether Trump will respect this tradition, but I suspect Congress would statutorily compel him to do so if it appeared he was injecting himself into decisions regarding federal prosecutions other than by the exercise of his constitutional authority to grant pardons.)
• No legislation has been "overruled," arbitrarily or otherwise.  The Controlled Substances Act remains in effect and the various U.S. Attorneys have continuously enforced it.  The Holder policy set national priorities for prosecution and recommended that the U.S. Attorneys defer to the state governments to the extent that the state approaches to enforcement did not undermine the federal priorities.
• The U.S. Attorneys inevitably need to exercise discretion in deciding which criminal cases to prosecute for a variety of reasons, including the likelihood of securing a conviction, the availability of staff time, and whether the benefit to the public of proceeding with enforcement justifies the cost to the public of litigation.  State prosecutors also routinely exercise prosecutorial discretion.

If you think that Obamas buddy Eric Holder didn't check with Obama before he instituted the marijuana policy then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.  Frankly I don't have a problem with that.   If a president wants his Department of Justice to focus on a specific crime that's rampant, and that's what is election asked him to do through his voters, then he should direct his attorney general to focus on that issue. After all, the Attorney General works for the president.


The issue in this case is that Obama or Eric Holder or both instituted policies that were so different than the laws issued by Congress. They in fact the allowed states to produce distribute sell a drug substance that is illegal nationally. He should have gone back to Congress to modify the law and not play King. So now Trump's going to reverse his policy.

[Alan Klein]

Trump declares opioid crisis a national emergency.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/10/health/trump-opioid-emergency-declaration-bn/index.html

[Chris Kern]

the Attorney General works for the president.

Well, he serves at the pleasure of the president.  In other words, the president has the authority to dismiss the attorney general just as he does any other member of the cabinet.  (For a while, until Republican members of the Senate made it clear they would block any attempt to do so, it appeared that Trump was preparing to replace the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, because Sessions had recused himself from involvement in the investigation of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election and Sessions' deputy had appointed an independent special counsel to conduct the investigation.)

Congress has gone to considerable lengths to ensure the independence of the attorney general.  His responsibilities are established by statute, and the law requires him to carry out those responsibilities directly—not pursuant to the direction of the president or any other executive branch official.  In many respects, it would probably be more accurate to say that he works for the public, and reports to the respective judiciary committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

[Alan Klein]

 Well Holder worked for Obama not congress.   There's wasn't an  inch of space between them.  He ran Obama's campaign.   Holder was the only AJ held in contempt of court in US history.

[Schewe]

The Big Orange Dummy strikes again....

Trump thanks Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats

President Trump thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday for expelling hundreds of U.S. diplomatic employees from Russia, saying he appreciated the ability to cut the federal government's payroll.

"I want to thank him because we're trying to cut down our payroll and as far as I'm concerned I'm very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll," Mr. Trump told reporters during his 17-day working vacation in Bedminster, New Jersey. "There's no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we've been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We'll save a lot of money."

Mr. Trump's remarks Thursday were his first comments on the topic, since Putin last month announced the U.S. diplomatic mission in the Kremlin would need to cut its staff by 755 personnel. Putin explained that was tired of waiting to see whether Russia' relationship with the U.S. would improve.

Expelling U.S. diplomats, however, doesn't necessarily remove them from the federal government's payroll -- they just can't stay in Russia.

So, does Trump think that diplomatic employees getting expelled from Russia means the US doesn't have to pay them? Or is Trump kidding? Well, at east he actually said it to reporters rather than Tweeting it (not that it makes more sense coming out of his mouth vs his fingers)

[Schewe]

Then this happened...

'Really quite sad': Diplomats react to Trump thanking Putin for expelling US embassy workers

--
A State Dept. official who is a foreign service officer told ABC News the message from Trump thanking Putin is "really quite sad."

"I'm not even angry, it's just saddening," the official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official cited what they say is the perception among State Dept. employees that Trump does not support the institution or its diplomats abroad and a sense that "he just doesn't get it."

A former U.S. ambassador also noted a pattern in the comments: "For reasons we do not yet know, the President cannot bring himself to criticize Putin."

The comments were swiftly condemned on a bipartisan basis, too -- by foreign policy voices across the political spectrum.

Harvard University professor Nicholas Burns, who was ambassador to NATO and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President George W. Bush, called Trump's comments disrespectful.

Nicholas Burns @RNicholasBurns
As a Foreign Service veteran, I find it lamentable that our great career diplomats are treated with such disrespect by their President
4:15 PM - Aug 10, 2017

Aaron David Miller @aarondmiller2
Having served at State for 25 yrs under R/Ds, Trump's defense of Putin over expelled US diplomats one of most shameful of his presidency
5:09 PM - Aug 10, 2017

Michael McFaul  ✔ @McFaul
Imagine dissing Americans --patriots serving our country under difficult conditions in Russia -to praise Putin. Our president did today.
6:57 PM - Aug 10, 2017

But hey, Trump thinks thanking Putin for saving the US money was a good idea...