Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,701 posts in this topic

"Oh, dear," indeed.

Quote

I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.

 

The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.

 
 

Depending on how you count, roughly a dozen separate instances of obstruction of justice are contained in the Mueller report. The president dangled pardons in front of witnesses to encourage them to lie to the special counsel, and directly ordered people to lie to throw the special counsel off the scent.

 

This elaborate pattern of obstruction may have successfully impeded the Mueller investigation from uncovering a conspiracy to commit more serious crimes. At a minimum, there’s enough here to get the impeachment process started. In impeachment proceedings, the House serves as a sort of grand jury and the Senate conducts the trial. There is enough in the Mueller report to commence the Constitution’s version of a grand-jury investigation in the form of impeachment proceedings.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

Yeah, if you can't trust a site called magapill.com, who can you trust, amirite?

 

Good God, did I post a clip from something ridiculous as Magapill? Sillime!

 

Oh double dear:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html

 

New Yawk Times of all rags!!!

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j2, change the record. You're starting to sound like Hinge and Bracket.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019, 8:59:38, AlexTr said:

Even if impeachment hearings don't begin, think about how this line of questioning during every debate is going to affect Trump's standing. Oh, and trust me, this will be a question IN EVERY SINGLE DEBATE. (I've already talked with a showrunner at CNN; she says the questions are already being prepped.)

 

Let's see what Mueller says in his testimony.   I wonder if one of the Republicans will ask why the SC did not interview Julian Assange or examine the infamous mail server rather than relying on Crowdstrike's assessment.   

 

My advice is that you should seek out some sort of substance abuse or gambling addiction like treatment.    You still haven't broken the cycle of getting all excited about the next bombshell only to find that it does not really amount to much.   

 

So  CNN is working for the Democratic party?   Shocking.   :lol:   CNN still has not figured out their Trump is anti-fragile.   When they fire hostile questions at him, he benefits.   

 

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.   

 

Good luck.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, balticus said:

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. 

I've never read a more succinct summary of your threadshitting.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

U.S. President Donald Trump met with Twitter Inc Chief Executive Jack Dorsey on Tuesday and spent a significant time questioning him about why he had lost some Twitter followers, a person briefed on the matter said.

The meeting, which was organized by the White House last week, came hours after Trump again attacked the social media company over his allegations it is biased against conservatives.

"Great meeting this afternoon at the @WhiteHouse with @Jack from @Twitter. Lots of subjects discussed regarding their platform, and the world of social media in general. Look forward to keeping an open dialogue!" Trump tweeted, posting a photo of Dorsey and others with him in the Oval Office.

Dorsey, who had not previously met with Trump, replied in a tweet: "Thank you for the time. Twitter is here to serve the entire public conversation, and we intend to make it healthier and more civil. Thanks for the discussion about that."

The source, who was briefed on the meeting that included Twitter’s general counsel and public policy chief, said Dorsey explained in response to Trump’s concerns about losing followers that the company was working to remove fraudulent and spam accounts and that many famous people, including Dorsey himself, had lost followers as a result.

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump suggested Twitter was biased against him, without providing evidence. He wrote on Twitter that the company does not "treat me well as a Republican. Very discriminatory."

Trump has been upset about losing followers. Trump lost 204,000, or 0.4 percent, of his 53.4 million followers in July, according to social media data firm Keyhole, when Twitter started its purge of suspicious accounts after it and other social media services were used in misinformation campaigns attempting to influence voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential race and other elections.

In October, Trump wrote that "Twitter has removed many people from my account and, more importantly, they have seemingly done something that makes it much harder to join - they have stifled growth to a point where it is obvious to all. A few weeks ago it was a Rocket Ship, now it is a Blimp! Total Bias?"

Shares in Twitter jumped 13 percent on Tuesday after it reported quarterly revenue above analyst estimates, which executives said was the result of weeding out spam and abusive posts and targeting ads better.

Trump has one of the most-followed accounts on Twitter. But the president and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly criticized the company and its social media competitors for what they have called bias against conservatives, something Twitter denies.

Democratic U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono said earlier this month: "We cannot allow the Republican party to harass tech companies into weakening content moderation policies that already fail to remove hateful, dangerous and misleading content."

Carlos Monje, Twitter’s public policy director, said at a Senate hearing earlier this month the site "does not use political viewpoints, perspectives or party affiliation to make any decisions, whether related to automatically ranking content on our service or how we develop or enforce our rules."

 

 

Trump said "blimp". Shades of London....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@balticus You just cannot get it done without the gratuitous ad hominem, can you. That in and of itself should tell you that your position is founded on weak (or absence of) facts. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

Is fullofshiticus at it again?

 

😂😂😂

 

That's a quality insult.   Impressed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

@balticus You just cannot get it done without the gratuitous ad hominem, can you. That in and of itself should tell you that your position is founded on weak (or absence of) facts. 

 

I seriously think you have problems.  

 

Which part of waiting for the Mueller testimony do you find objectionable?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexTr said:

@balticus You just cannot get it done without the gratuitous ad hominem, can you. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest Trump supporters.

 

 


 

Quote

 

...It’s been more than 20 years since the Oklahoma City bombing, an attack carried out by Timothy McVeigh that left 168 dead. McVeigh sympathized with armed right-wing militia groups, which at the time, were surging in membership. But armed militias have long been active on the fringes of American society and continue to rise today. Special correspondent P.J. Tobia reports.

For Hill and his group, the 2008 election was their defining moment, the one that signaled the U.S. was on the wrong track. They believed Obama wanted to restrict gun rights and forever alter their way of life.

Yvette DeMaria said she and her husband were looking for “like minds” and found the Georgia Security Force through Facebook and a pastor friend who had traveled to Gatlinburg, Tennessee, with the militia to help out after fires in the Smoky Mountains devastated the region. That act of charity had moved her.

Even before Obama was elected, the DeMarias felt the country was heading down the wrong path, with the military and law enforcement no longer cherished or revered. Yvette DeMaria said she believes protesters have been allowed to get out of control after police shootings.

Political correctness has run amok, she said, with politicians and the courts carving out constitutional protections that strayed far from the intent of the nation’s forefathers. She laments, for example, the legalization of same-sex marriage and the transgender bathroom issue, believing they amount to a war on her Christian faith.

“We cannot be silent anymore. We have voices. We need to rise up. We need to speak up. We need to find like minds,” Yvette DeMaria said. “We’re going to church every Sunday — but Monday through Saturday, what are we doing?”

She and her husband found their mission and some like-minded people in the militia, which is part of the Three Percenters movement. It derives its name from the belief that just 3 percent of the colonists rose up to fight the British. They have vowed to resist any government that infringes on the U.S. Constitution.

While focused on training, the militia is also social.

In the woods, they use hand signals and walkie-talkies to alert the others to where and how many enemies are lurking, They then navigate obstacles made of firehoses, logs and scraps of wood, metal and string to eliminate the threats.

The first two runs are “dry fire” exercises; the guns aren’t loaded. The last exercise of the day involves live rounds in their weapons — from AR-15s to handguns. After the targets are riddled with holes, the militia members gather around a fire at a campsite a short walk away to enjoy music and a barbecue.

For Hill, a paralegal by day, the Trump election was a defining moment to be celebrated.

“We’re being called Trump militia. It’s something I’m probably going to wear as a badge now,” Hill said. “I feel a connection to President Trump.”


 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trump flagrantly lies to reporters while explaining why he doesn't plan to comply with subpoenas from Congress: "I have been the most transparent president and administration in the history of our country by far." His tax returns couldn't be immediately reached for comment.

 

 

Comedy gold :lol::lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another day in the Trump administration.

 

Quote

The White House has signaled that it will assert executive privilege to block McGahn and others from testifying.

But Trump allowed McGahn to speak to special counsel Robert Muellerand permitted the release of the special counsel’s redacted report without asserting executive privilege, a decision that could make it hard to justify the new argument in court.

“It’s unlikely that the White House would prevail in blocking any testimony of Don McGahn on the basis of executive privilege,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who is a frequent contributor to The Hill.

“The problem for the White House is that the areas that Congress is most interested in were covered in detail by the special counsel,” Turley added.

Trump on Wednesday signaled he will take a hard line on all of the Democratic probes, vowing to reporters that he would fight “all the subpoenas” and saying he would take any effort to impeach him to the Supreme Court.


Which anyone with knowledge of the process knows will not pass muster with any SCOTUS.
 

Quote

Legally, the text of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the House of Representatives possesses the "sole" power to impeach and the Senate possesses the "sole power to try all impeachments." When Judge Walter Nixon tried to appeal his impeachment and conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the procedures that the Senate followed were defective, the Rehnquist Court unanimously rejected that effort.

 

The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers.

 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist even speculated about the problem of judicial review of a presidential impeachment.

 

We agree with the Court of Appeals that opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos." . . . This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.

 

The modern Court does not often seem inclined to invoke the political question doctrine, but here at least the justices were willing to admit that the Constitution had committed this question into the hands of the legislature, not the judiciary.

 

Perhaps there are circumstances that might tempt the justices to assert judicial supremacy over impeachments as well. After all, the Court is fond of reminding us that it is emphatically a judicial task to say what the law is, and what if Congress seemed to be riding roughshod over the Constitution in how it used the impeachment power? Imagine a Congress willing to impeach a president on grounds that no reasonable person could think constitutes an impeachable offense. Donald Trump apparently prefers to eat his steaks well-done with ketchup. To be sure, this is a grievous offense, but presumably no one thinks it is a high crime or misdemeanor. Imagine further that two-thirds of the Senate is willing convict such a president with no semblance of a trial. "Convict first, go through due process second," declares the Senate majority leader. The Court might well think that such a Congress has badly abused its constitutional powers and is not even making a pretense of adhering to a good-faith interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe a Court confronted with such a runaway Congress would be tempted to ride to the president's rescue and discover the limits to the political question doctrine.

 

But that's when politics comes into play. A Congress willing to impeach and remove a sitting president on the pretext that he routinely dishonors his steaks could hardly be trusted to sit idly by while the justices attempted to reinstall that president in the White House. If a Court were to attempt to intervene in such a scenario, the justices might well find themselves next on the chopping block. The justices might at this point recall the words of Chief Justice Salmon Chase when the Court was asked to order the president not to enforce the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi after the Civil War.

 

Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case could this court interfere, in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?

 

"These questions answer themselves," Chase observed. Indeed. Sorry, Mr. President, you are on your own on this one.


 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now