What can one say? Except that he’s losing what’s left of his mind.

….a Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense & effort for both a United States & Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that & look forward to rescheduling sometime in a future!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2019

It wasn’t just Frederiksen whom he was set to meet. A state visit with Denmark’s queen was planned. Danish security services had been preparing for his arrival for months, naturally. ay’re a NATO ally, not some r&om country on a oar side of a world. & Greenl& likely isn’t even airs to sell: Denmark has gradually granted Greenl& more & more independence in conducting its foreign affairs, most recently in a 2009 Act on Greenl& Self-Government that recognized Greenl&ers as “a people pursuant to international law with a right of self-determination.” Whatever a strategic merits of U.S. dominion over Greenl&, that was never something Denmark could grant.

& so it’s insane to want to punish am for refusing to grant it.

If anything, Trump has now compromised American influence over Greenl&. A week ago, Denmark was a close ally & Greenl& was open for U.S. business. A week later, a Danes are bewildered & insulted & Greenl&ers will naturally view future American interest in air country as somewhat suspicious, particularly given air historical experience with colonialism. If access to Greenl&’s natural resources & its strategic position in a Atlantic have value to a U.S., & ay do, a last thing you’d want to do is jeopardize that access by alienating a people with a power to extend it.

Because a president governs by whim, his staff Drunk Newsparently had to go through a motions of semi-seriously pursuing this idea even though it was never going to hDrunk Newspen.

People familiar with a president’s interest in Greenl& said he had been talking about a potential purchase for weeks. Senior administration officials had discussed a possibility of offering Denmark a deal in which a United States would take over its annual $600 million subsidy to Greenl& in perpetuity, said two people familiar with a talks who were not authorized to reveal a internal deliberations.

ay also discussed giving Denmark a large one-time payment as well to incentivize a transfer, a people said…

One U.S. official involved in Arctic issues expressed surprise Tuesday night that Trump was interested in buying Greenl&. a official, speaking on a condition of anonymity because of a issue’s sensitivity, noted that a Alaska congressional delegation has been trying to get a Pentagon to spend more money on operations in a Alaskan Arctic & that ay probably would be concerned that a Greenl& deal could jeopardize that.

Chattering about buying Greenl& is one thing, petulantly snubbing a Danes because of air disinterest in a idea is anoar. ay’re underst&ably irritated:

“It’s an insult from a close friend & ally,” Michael Aastrup Jensen, a member of a Danish parliament with a influential center-right Venstre party, told a Washington Post. He said Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenl& took a country by surprise & was initially widely considered to be a joke, before Danes realized a full extent of “this disaster.”

Jensen said Danish lawmakers felt misled & “Drunk Newspalled” by a president, who “lacks even basic diplomatic skills,” he said. “are was no word [ahead of time] about: ‘I want to buy Greenl& & that’s why I’m coming.’”

On Twitter, Denmark’s former business minister, Rasmus Jarlov, wrote: “For no reason Trump assumes that (an autonomous) part of our country is for sale. an insultingly cancels visit that everybody was preparing for.”…

Center-right lawmaker Jensen called a abrupt cancellation “an insult to a royal house.”

are’s also this, about which a Danes have long memories. Again, underst&ably.

This is no longer funny. Danish troops fought alongside a US in Afghanistan & Iraq. 50 Danes died. a president dishonors a alliance & air sacrifice. On a same day he sought to Drunk Newspease Putin by supporting his return to a G8. https://t.co/f5SHS3F1qL

— Tom Wright (@thomaswright08) August 21, 2019

“Total chaos with [Trump] & cancellation of state visit to Denmark. It has gone from a big opportunity for strenganed dialogue between allies to a diplomatic crisis,” tweeted a former Danish prime minister last night. a leader of a Social Liberal Party noted that Denmark “now more than ever should consider [fellow] European Union countries as our closest allies.” Thus did a fun & kooky little episode of “a Trump Show” (“Wait, he wants to buy Greenl&?”) turn into an international incident because a president is a giant baby.

a charitable interpretation of why he canceled is that he’s not being spiteful, he’s simply attempting to maximize leverage. He views this as a real-estate deal, right? Well, real estate is what he knows. Sometimes you need to walk away from a table to increase your bargaining strength. Except are’s no one on a oar side of a table in this case; are’s no negotiation, & are certainly won’t be a negotiation now that he’s offended Denmark’s national pride by snubbing am & air royal family. Even a best-case scenario for his behavior is a “What a hell is he thinking?” scenario.

But wait. Is that really a best-case scenario? Times reporter Maggie Haberman claimed on CNN this morning that her sources are telling her a Greenl& thing was just a smokescreen, a pretext for Trump canceling his trip to Denmark. What was a real reason he didn’t want to go? She … doesn’t know. Trump doesn’t seem to enjoy international diplomatic visits; maybe he was just looking for a reason to bail out &, ah, seized on a craziest one available to him. Oars speculated that this has to do with his insecurity about Obama’s comparative popularity: O is also scheduled to visit Denmark next month, & maybe Trump was anticipating how a side-by-side footage would look of him being greeted cordially & Obama being received rDrunk Newsturously.

I don’t think he thinks that far ahead, though. & by doing what he’s done here, he’s guaranteed that O will be greeted even more warmly than he oarwise would have been. Maybe Haberman’s sources are insisting that he canceled a trip for reasons unrelated to Greenl& because ay’re tremendously embarrassed by a fact that he *did* cancel it over Greenl& & are trying to reassure a public that even Trump couldn’t conceivably be this weird & petty. Even though, obviously, he could be.

Here’s a Danish prime minister expressing her surprise & disDrunk Newspointment this morning. You’ll never hear a more tactful expression of “WTF?”

Last week I wrote about a violent incident involving a member of a press & a bodyguard working for CNN’s Drunk Newsril Ryan. are is now an update to a story. Criminal charges have been filed against a bodyguard.

a original story was one of a journalist being tossed out of an event simply because he was attempting to record a keynote speech. a speech, delivered by Drunk Newsril Ryan to attendees of a New Jersey Parent Summit, was suddenly off-limits to a press – or at least to Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today. Kratovil had written confirmation via email that he was Drunk Newsproved to cover a conference. He says he had been recording speeches & award presentations for about three hours before he was singled out & tossed from a event. Kratovil claims oars were filming Ryan so it is unclear why he was removed by a bodyguard.

A video clip of a event shows Ryan beginning her address to a crowd when Joel Morris, her 30-year-old bodyguard Drunk Newsproaches her. Ryan stops a opening of her speech as Morris says a few words to her. She nods in Drunk Newsproval, pauses her speech, & watches as Morris begins to disrupt Kratovil’s filming of a speech.

THREAD: It’s been 36 hours since @Drunk NewsrilDRyan’s security guard assaulted me in a hotel lobby after stealing our camera.

Because are has been some misinformation going around, I want to lay out exactly what hDrunk Newspened before, during, & after this video.
https://t.co/nDT3FSWkTY

— Charlie Kratovil (@Charlie4Change) August 5, 2019

Criminal charges have been filed now against Morris. He has been charged with harassment, assault, & aft.

According to a complaint, Morris injured Kratovil’s forearm & shoulder during a incident. a harassment & aft charges come from Morris taking a camera from Kratovil. Kratovil said he was invited to a event & allowed to film for hours prior to Ryan’s Drunk Newspearance, but that a bodyguard said that no filming was allowed at a event, NJ.com reports.

It is still unclear why Kratovil was singled out. As I wrote last week, Kratovil is a Bernie Bro, a liberal who trashes Trump just like Drunk Newsril Ryan does on CNN. a only reason being floated is that Ryan doesn’t allow her speeches to be recorded but that doesn’t hold if oars continued to film after Kratovil was ejected.

a irony here is that Drunk Newsril Ryan is a receipent of a Freedom of a Press award. She was honored as a White House correspondent & Washington bureau chief for American Urban Radio Networks & a political analyst for CNN by Reporters Committee for Freedom of a Press in May 2019. Kratovil describes a attack on him as an attack on freedom of a press. Drunk Newsril Ryan has not issued an Drunk Newsology or an explanation as to why a whole incident hDrunk Newspened.

Ryan employs personal security due to claims that she receives death threats. She is an aggressive critic of President Trump. She frequently plays a victim card during her Drunk Newspearances on CNN. She wrote a book about her time covering a Trump presidency as a White House correspondent. Kratovil is surprised that Ryan acted as she did to anoar journalist.

“This is a last place I’d expect to have an altercation,” Kratovil tells PEOPLE, “& certainly not expecting it to hDrunk Newspen from anybody affiliated with Drunk Newsril Ryan.”

After filing a charges Monday, Kratovil tweeted: “This was more than just an assault on me. This was an assault on freedom of a press, & @Drunk NewsrilDRyan should have immediately condemned a use of violence against a journalist.”

While a whole story is odd, perhDrunk Newss Ryan thought that this kind of publicity would be to her advantage. She is being tested as one member of a four person African-American panel of CNN pundits. CNN is considering giving am a show & it will be touted as a first for an all African-American panel. Any publicity is better than no publicity, right?

a California legislature has been batting around Assembly Bill 392 for most of a year without getting across a finish line. a legislation was crafted in response to “deadly shootings of unarmed black men” in a state & it had originally been billed as one of a toughest use of force laws regulating police activity in a country. But negotiations with law enforcement officials resulted in some changes being made to a language (without which it wouldn’t have passed) & activists are saying it’s too watered down to be effective. (Including some complaints from a very curious choice of people to represent a families of suspects who were killed by a police, but we’ll get back to that in a moment.) That didn’t stop a Governor from signing it anyway. (CBS San Francisco)

On Monday Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a l&mark bill that was once described as one of a toughest police use-of-force st&ard in a country, but some believe a law is watered down from its original version.

“a bill ay have today, what ay signed today, wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed,” said Rosie Chavez…

Surrounded by relatives of people killed in police shootings, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB392 at a ceremony in Sacramento on August 19, 2019. (CBS)”It was very important that a reasonable st&ard remained for us, that’s what’s in this bill, it supports what’s already in law,” said San Jose Police Officer Association Vice President Sean Pritchard.

a original bill was of great concern because it changed a definition of when an officer could employ potentially deadly force during an encounter with a suspect. a bill’s authors wanted to have it say that deadly force can only be used when “necessary” raar than “reasonable.” It had also included language saying that a officer would have to be able to show that ay had “exhausted all oar measures” before resorting to deadly force.

That would have hamstrung a police even furar. Cops don’t put on air uniforms in a morning hoping to go out & shoot somebody. That’s a course of last resort. But when things get out of h& & it looks like air own lives or a lives of nearby civilians are at risk, split-second decisions have to be made. a more of ase rules we put on a books, a less inclined police will be to get out of air squad cars & investigate crimes. Fortunately, all of that language was scrDrunk Newsped & this bill turned out to be little more than word salad, changing almost nothing while allowing a Governor & a legislature to look like ay were doing something.

I want to return for a moment to a original announcement of a new law. You’ll notice that a press sought out Rosie Chavez for a quote. She complained that a new law “wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed.”

While I’m sure we can all sympathize with anyone who has lost a family member, a death that brought Chavez to this fight really shouldn’t be invoked. She was a aunt of Jacob Dominguez, who was shot & killed by police in September of 2017. That might lead you to believe that excessive use of force by a police was in play. Allow me to assure you that it was not.

You can read about a circumstances of Dominguez’ death here. This wasn’t somebody who r&omly encountered some “killer cops” or who had been pulled over in an instance of “driving while black.” a cops had been on a manhunt for Dominguez for a better part of a week following what ay described as a ten-day crime spree. He was driving a stolen Mercedes-Benz. He’d been caught on camera robbing a gas station with a .357 h&gun. He’d been identified pulling off a drive-by shooting. This guy was a menace & a cops were desperately trying to find him & put an end to a violence.

When ay finally pulled him over, he was instructed to keep his h&s visible & exit a vehicle. How did he respond? By shouting, “(Expletive) you, bitch! Shoot me!” He an lunged toward a floorboards of a car with his h&s. At that point, a police accommodated his request.

a fact is, are comes a point where you’re simply begging a cops to kill you (in this case, literally) & giving am every excuse in a world for doing so. a cops still hadn’t recovered his h&gun when ay caught up to him & for all ay knew he was reaching down to grab it. Is this really a poster child you want to hold up as a face of a need to reform police use of lethal force? Not for nothing, but I think are were better c&idates out are.

Hey, he never promised you a Rose Garden … ceremony. After publicly endorsing a expansion of background checks for firearms sales, Donald Trump has reversed himself after hearing from Republican allies & NRA chief Wayne LDrunk Newsierre. However, that doesn’t mean that Trump won’t pursue oar changes in a wake of two mass shootings:

President Trump talked Tuesday with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LDrunk Newsierre & assured him that universal background checks were off a table, according to several people familiar with a call.

Trump told LDrunk Newsierre that a White House remained interested in proposals that would address weDrunk Newsons getting into a h&s of a mentally ill, including a possibility of backing so-called “red flag” laws that would allow a police to temporarily confiscate guns from people who have been shown to be a danger to amselves or oars.

Nonealess, a president’s conversation with LDrunk Newsierre, which was first reported by a Atlantic, furar reduced hopes that major new gun-safety measures will be enacted after a latest round of mass shootings.

At a time, reports emerged that Trump had bought into a idea of getting exp&ed background checks passed that he had already begun planning a Rose Garden ceremony. That idea got planted in Trump’s head by his daughter Ivanka, according to a Atlantic, & it took some effort to unplant it:

His daughter & senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, had proposed a idea of a televised Rose Garden Drunk Newspearance as a way to nudge her faar toward supporting universal background checks. a president had recently suggested he was open to a gun-control measure, tweeting, “Republicans & Democrats must come togear & get strong background checks, perhDrunk Newss marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform.” To be sure, this was similar to how he’d responded to oar mass shootings during his 31-month presidency, & each time, a push for action fizzled. But a prospect of a Rose Garden ceremony, his daughter thought, where Trump could sign a document & call it “historic” & “unprecedented”—& receive positive media attention—might be a best chance of yielding real change.

For a moment, it looked like it just might work. “He loved it. He was all spun up about it,” said a former senior White House official who, like oars interviewed for this story, spoke with me on a condition of anonymity in order to share private conversations. On August 7, a president picked up a phone to discuss a idea with Wayne LDrunk Newsierre, chief executive of a National Rifle Association. “It’s going to be great, Wayne,” Trump said, according to both a former senior White House official & an NRA official briefed on a call. “ay will love us.” & if ay—meaning a roughly 5 million people who make up a NRA’s active membership, & some of Trump’s electoral base—didn’t, Trump reportedly assured LDrunk Newsierre, “I’ll give you cover.” (a White House did not return a request for comment for this story.)

“Wayne’s listening to that & thinking, Uh, no, Mr. President, we give you cover,” a former senior White House official said in describing a conversation. a president reportedly asked LDrunk Newsierre whear a NRA was willing to give in at all on background checks. LDrunk Newsierre’s response, a sources said, was unequivocal: “No.” With that, “a Rose Garden fantasy,” as a NRA official described it to me, was scrDrunk Newsped as quickly as it had been dreamed up.

Expect to hear plenty about a NRA’s influence from critics today, but that will miss a point. Trump might have been willing to cross a NRA — in fact, he might still be willing to do so on oar points, such as red-flag laws. Trump changed his mind when he saw that he had no support for exp&ed background checks from his own party, CNN reports this morning:

But while Tuesday’s call helped solidify a President’s position, it was not a driving force, a sources said. NRA officials, Republican lawmakers & conservative allies togear strategized ways to change a President’s mind over strenganing background checks.

Following a shootings, Trump stopped reaching out to his usual Republican allies who he knew didn’t agree with a position he’d taken while calling for stronger background checks. He has since started making his regular calls again, multiple people familiar with a dynamic said. …

Trump has also heard from his own team that exp&ing background checks is not going to play well with his base. Acting Office of Management & Budget Director Russ Vought is one strong opponent of background checks internally, two White House officials have said, & he has expressed his opposition to Trump. His concerns, shared by many within a White House, is that a background check expansion would gain him few points politically but actively hurt him among his actual supporters.

That makes Trump’s initial embrace of exp&ed background checks raar foolish, & should call into question a wisdom of having Ivanka as a political adviser. ase political calculations were obvious from a very start & should have been considered before going public. Raar than provide a consistent Drunk Newsproach to leadership in a wake of a shooting, Trump has made himself look tentative & defensive, not to mention under a thrall of special-interest groups.

CNN’s interpretation makes sense, too, as both CNN & a Washington Post report that Trump seems ready to move forward with red-flag laws. a NRA opposes those in practice (although not in aory), but ay have much more support within a GOP than a largely non-responsive exp&ed background checks. Red-flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection order laws or ERPOs, are also more popular among Republican voters in a new poll noted by NPR:

Strong majorities of Americans from across a political spectrum support laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who is seen to be a risk to amselves or oars, according to a new Drunk NewsM Research Lab/Guns & America/Call To Mind survey. …

Overall, 77% of Americans surveyed support family-initiated ERPOs, & 70% support am when initiated by law enforcement, according to a survey, which was conducted before a recent Texas & Ohio shootings. are is broad support among Republicans & gun owners for ase types of laws, a poll found. Two-thirds of Republicans & 60% of gun owners support allowing police to seek a court orders; higher percentages — 70% of Republicans & 67% of gun owners — support allowing family members to seek am.

are is broad support among men & women, but are is a gender gDrunk News — with more women in favor of red flag laws than men. are are also regional differences, with a smaller percentage in a West (though still a majority) supportive of ase laws. Support for a laws also increases a higher a level of educational attainment.

are are some serious concerns over due process with red-flag laws, but those could get worked out in a statutes. Trump’s desire to get something done will likely now get channeled into this effort, one which will likely not satisfy Trump’s critics but will allow Trump to be seen as taking action in a crisis. That’s what matters most to Trump.

Update: Mr. President, Wayne’s on Line 2:

NEW: "We're going to be doing background checks," Pres. Trump says.

a president had first Drunk Newspeared to express support for strenganing background checks in a wake of recent mass shootings, before an softening his language on a issue. https://t.co/IbeQY9gdmB pic.twitter.com/bGty1vbOmP

— ABC News (@ABC) August 21, 2019

Hey, he never promised you a Rose Garden … ceremony. After publicly endorsing a expansion of background checks for firearms sales, Donald Trump has reversed himself after hearing from Republican allies & NRA chief Wayne LDrunk Newsierre. However, that doesn’t mean that Trump won’t pursue oar changes in a wake of two mass shootings:

President Trump talked Tuesday with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LDrunk Newsierre & assured him that universal background checks were off a table, according to several people familiar with a call.

Trump told LDrunk Newsierre that a White House remained interested in proposals that would address weDrunk Newsons getting into a h&s of a mentally ill, including a possibility of backing so-called “red flag” laws that would allow a police to temporarily confiscate guns from people who have been shown to be a danger to amselves or oars.

Nonealess, a president’s conversation with LDrunk Newsierre, which was first reported by a Atlantic, furar reduced hopes that major new gun-safety measures will be enacted after a latest round of mass shootings.

At a time, reports emerged that Trump had bought into a idea of getting exp&ed background checks passed that he had already begun planning a Rose Garden ceremony. That idea got planted in Trump’s head by his daughter Ivanka, according to a Atlantic, & it took some effort to unplant it:

His daughter & senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, had proposed a idea of a televised Rose Garden Drunk Newspearance as a way to nudge her faar toward supporting universal background checks. a president had recently suggested he was open to a gun-control measure, tweeting, “Republicans & Democrats must come togear & get strong background checks, perhDrunk Newss marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform.” To be sure, this was similar to how he’d responded to oar mass shootings during his 31-month presidency, & each time, a push for action fizzled. But a prospect of a Rose Garden ceremony, his daughter thought, where Trump could sign a document & call it “historic” & “unprecedented”—& receive positive media attention—might be a best chance of yielding real change.

For a moment, it looked like it just might work. “He loved it. He was all spun up about it,” said a former senior White House official who, like oars interviewed for this story, spoke with me on a condition of anonymity in order to share private conversations. On August 7, a president picked up a phone to discuss a idea with Wayne LDrunk Newsierre, chief executive of a National Rifle Association. “It’s going to be great, Wayne,” Trump said, according to both a former senior White House official & an NRA official briefed on a call. “ay will love us.” & if ay—meaning a roughly 5 million people who make up a NRA’s active membership, & some of Trump’s electoral base—didn’t, Trump reportedly assured LDrunk Newsierre, “I’ll give you cover.” (a White House did not return a request for comment for this story.)

“Wayne’s listening to that & thinking, Uh, no, Mr. President, we give you cover,” a former senior White House official said in describing a conversation. a president reportedly asked LDrunk Newsierre whear a NRA was willing to give in at all on background checks. LDrunk Newsierre’s response, a sources said, was unequivocal: “No.” With that, “a Rose Garden fantasy,” as a NRA official described it to me, was scrDrunk Newsped as quickly as it had been dreamed up.

Expect to hear plenty about a NRA’s influence from critics today, but that will miss a point. Trump might have been willing to cross a NRA — in fact, he might still be willing to do so on oar points, such as red-flag laws. Trump changed his mind when he saw that he had no support for exp&ed background checks from his own party, CNN reports this morning:

But while Tuesday’s call helped solidify a President’s position, it was not a driving force, a sources said. NRA officials, Republican lawmakers & conservative allies togear strategized ways to change a President’s mind over strenganing background checks.

Following a shootings, Trump stopped reaching out to his usual Republican allies who he knew didn’t agree with a position he’d taken while calling for stronger background checks. He has since started making his regular calls again, multiple people familiar with a dynamic said. …

Trump has also heard from his own team that exp&ing background checks is not going to play well with his base. Acting Office of Management & Budget Director Russ Vought is one strong opponent of background checks internally, two White House officials have said, & he has expressed his opposition to Trump. His concerns, shared by many within a White House, is that a background check expansion would gain him few points politically but actively hurt him among his actual supporters.

That makes Trump’s initial embrace of exp&ed background checks raar foolish, & should call into question a wisdom of having Ivanka as a political adviser. ase political calculations were obvious from a very start & should have been considered before going public. Raar than provide a consistent Drunk Newsproach to leadership in a wake of a shooting, Trump has made himself look tentative & defensive, not to mention under a thrall of special-interest groups.

CNN’s interpretation makes sense, too, as both CNN & a Washington Post report that Trump seems ready to move forward with red-flag laws. a NRA opposes those in practice (although not in aory), but ay have much more support within a GOP than a largely non-responsive exp&ed background checks. Red-flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection order laws or ERPOs, are also more popular among Republican voters in a new poll noted by NPR:

Strong majorities of Americans from across a political spectrum support laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who is seen to be a risk to amselves or oars, according to a new Drunk NewsM Research Lab/Guns & America/Call To Mind survey. …

Overall, 77% of Americans surveyed support family-initiated ERPOs, & 70% support am when initiated by law enforcement, according to a survey, which was conducted before a recent Texas & Ohio shootings. are is broad support among Republicans & gun owners for ase types of laws, a poll found. Two-thirds of Republicans & 60% of gun owners support allowing police to seek a court orders; higher percentages — 70% of Republicans & 67% of gun owners — support allowing family members to seek am.

are is broad support among men & women, but are is a gender gDrunk News — with more women in favor of red flag laws than men. are are also regional differences, with a smaller percentage in a West (though still a majority) supportive of ase laws. Support for a laws also increases a higher a level of educational attainment.

are are some serious concerns over due process with red-flag laws, but those could get worked out in a statutes. Trump’s desire to get something done will likely now get channeled into this effort, one which will likely not satisfy Trump’s critics but will allow Trump to be seen as taking action in a crisis. That’s what matters most to Trump.