U.S. Politics: Courting Trump

[Mexal]

With Flynn resigning and more or less confirming his connections with Russia, I bring this back up.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Mmn... fair enough. It will be emoluments though, of the two. I was reading earlier how hard it would be to go after him with Logan (but a lot of it was over my head, so I could be wrong)

Logan is tough mostly because of the incredible lack of precedent - it hasn't been used in 200 years. However, it fits really well with this specific case, and there is an incredible amount of evidence to suggest it would apply. We have a transcript of the actual conversation, we have timing of Russian events, we have Donald's favorable tweet afterwards - it is at least worth investigating. 

If we had a department of justice that was interested in investigating these sorts of things, or an FBI that wanted to, or an ethics department that wanted to.

The emoluments one might stick more not because it has more evidence, but because it's an Army probe that is going to happen regardless of whatever bullshit Sessions/Chaffetz/Trump try to pull. That, and they fucking hate Flynn because he was such a douchecanoe. 

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Flynn's not really an old soldier boy, however. One of the reasons he was fired in 2014 was because he was incredibly disloyal and acting fairly shady all over the place. Obama got tired of the backtalk and bullshit. And he went from working for Obama to...being interviewed and regularly appearing on RT and having dinner with Putin. 

I had CNN on all night, and with the Washington Post story breaking a couple of hours ago (which I mentioned a page or two ago) there has been much discussion about how Flynn could survive such revelations. One Republican was already spinning a story that Flynn was fired by Obama because he tried to warn him about "this new group called ISIS" and Obama ignored him and then fired him. Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon, I forget which, pooh poohed that off immediately,.

[Mexal]

In other news, House Freedom Caucus refuses to repeal Obamacare unless there is a full defunding of Medicaid expansion. Republicans don't have enough Senate votes to do that.

 

[Fragile Bird]

And in other news, that North Dakota bill that would allow people to run over protesters blocking a road did not pass tonight.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Hehh. That's some good news. I was genuinely scared of Flynn as NSA. Also, Moby called it. Maybe we should listen to techno.

in more horrifying news, here's an account of Trump finding out what Civil Asset Forfeiture is, and deciding that he likes it. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-exchange-on-asset-forfeiture-is-quite-discomfiting.html

[Horza]

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And in other news, that North Dakota bill that would allow people to run over protesters blocking a road did not pass tonight.

Yeah, I want to congratulate the North Dakota legislature on narrowly not voting for the legalisation of official vehicular manslaughter, you guys really dug deep.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Quote

 

Hehh. That's some good news. I was genuinely scared of Flynn as NSA. Also, Moby called it. Maybe we should listen to techno.

in more horrifying news, here's an account of Trump finding out what Civil Asset Forfeiture is, and deciding that he likes it. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-exchange-on-asset-forfeiture-is-quite-discomfiting.html

 

It's been kind of obvious that his thought process works like this.  It never goes beyond a surface level, one sided analysis

And it really is horrifying.  This is the way kids think and react, not adults and certainly not people responsible for the whole country

[Fez]

I'm pretty surprised Flynn resigned actually. It seems like no one who had the power to actually do anything to him (basically just Trump and Congressional GOP leaders) was calling for his head. There were definitely some in the White House that wanted him gone, but I doubt Bannon or Miller did, so I'm surprised there was enough pressure here. Especially since there's a non-zero chance Flynn turns state evidence and starts talking; assuming there is a bigger story here than just him.

Hopefully the next NSA demands that the NSC return to its standard functioning, and that Bannon and Miller are removed from participating. It does seem like all the names under consideration are more traditional establishment types who aren't likely to stand by the way Flynn did. Even Paeterus; his failings were personal, not policy.

At the very least, I am very relieved that Flynn is gone. He was one of the guys most likely to cause us to see the tail-end risks of a Trump presidency, and not just the generally bad policies and/or incompetence that most of the rest can cause.

[OldGimletEye]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

In other news, House Freedom Caucus refuses to repeal Obamacare unless there is a full defunding of Medicaid expansion. Republicans don't have enough Senate votes to do that.

 

I think people should take a hardline with conservatives. And if the poor little old Republican Party gets caught in the crossfire, oh well.

Quote

The current Republican gambit seems to rely on repealing the 2010 health care law as quickly as possible and then trying to pressure some Democrats in the Senate to support a replacement, potentially by offering a health care alternative in pieces, such as one bill to establish health savings accounts and another bill to allow people to buy insurance plans across state lines.

Health Savings Accounts are terrible for poor people. And, once, again, the whole buy insurance across state lines is a stupid canard the Republican Party just needs to get off of. The Democrats should tell the Republican Party to take it's HSAs and "buy insurance across state lines" bull and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Quote

Which is to say a repeal was already in some degree of trouble, as Republicans struggle to come up with a replacement.

Hard to have a replacement when you never had one. It's truly lovely that the Republican Party has gotten itself in this mess. The thing about trash talk is that eventually someone may call you on it.

[Commodore]

Flynn resigning for misleading Pence is fine, but nothing he did was illegal. It's not improper for him to speak with a Russian ambassador.

What's disgusting is intel chiefs using resources to spy on political opponents and then leaking to the press. This is Clapper/Brennan/Yates' doing, and they seem to have zero fear of prosecution. Clapper was the one who lied to Congress about NSA surveillance and suffered no consequences. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Who could have ever predicted that Flynn would be forced to resign?:

15 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

True. If it were to happen I'd expect Flynn to step down rather than Trump admitting any type of mistake.

Now it remains to be seen if there's evidence that Flynn and/or Trump's campaign was in talks with the Russians during the campaign and to what degree was the Trump Administration aware of Flynn's actions. It's quite possible that several more heads will role before it's all said and done.

[Fragile Bird]

5 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Flynn resigning for misleading Pence is fine, but nothing he did was illegal. It's not improper for him to speak with a Russian ambassador.

What's disgusting is intel chiefs using resources to spy on political opponents and then leaking to the press. This is Clapper/Brennan/Yates' doing, and they seem to have zero fear of prosecution. Clapper was the one who lied to Congress about NSA surveillance and suffered no consequences. 

 

Uh, actually they were monitoring the Russians. That's their job.

As for leaking it to the press, where was your outrage during the election when the FBI was not just a leak but the frigging crack in the Oroville dam?

And don't you think the leaks happened because there is concern the administration was going to do nothing about it? The White House knew for 3 weeks, and nothing happened.

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/freedom-caucus-obamacare-repeal-position_us_58a269fae4b094a129ee4e32?vkasgqsblz6ywrk9

Quote

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus 

Just one thing I wanted to note. Conservatives are all about "freedom". Yes they are. That's like their whole reason for existing, isn't it? And then from polling data we read;

Agree that Trump should be able to overturn judicial decisions he disagrees with:

Very Conservative (Agree): 57%

Somewhat Conservative(Agree) 42%

Moderate(Agree) 17%

Somewhat Liberal(Agree) 12%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html

[Commodore]

the only mechanism for checking the ostensibly co-equal judicial branch (SCOTUS) is impeachment; an impractical and unwieldy tool

or perhaps FDR-style court packing, but again, not ideal

[Fragile Bird]

So, wise ones, are there any circumstances under which an election could be re-run? It's never happened, I know, but what if it turns out the election was influenced by the Russians and the candidate was being blackmailed by them? Do you reward the Republicans for choosing a Manchurian candidate and let them continue to govern? Isn't the whole election tainted?

Yes, yes, I know I am way ahead of myself, but hey, this has been an extraordinary election.

It would be hilarious if the candidate who connected so well with the working class was a Russian dupe. Or at least ironic.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Commodore said:

the only mechanism for checking the ostensibly co-equal judicial branch (SCOTUS) is impeachment; an impractical and unwieldy tool

or perhaps FDR-style court packing, but again, not ideal

Well, nice try to demonstrate how much conservatives really love "freedom", and that their motivations are just about protecting "freedom".

But it seems to me that allowing a president to simply overrule the courts would reduce the judicial branch to a subordinate arm of government. Doesn't seem very constitutional conservativishy to me.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

So, wise ones, are there any circumstances under which an election could be re-run? It's never happened, I know, but what if it turns out the election was influenced by the Russians and the candidate was being blackmailed by them? Do you reward the Republicans for choosing a Manchurian candidate and let them continue to govern? Isn't the whole election tainted?

Yes, yes, I know I am way ahead of myself, but hey, this has been an extraordinary election.

It would be hilarious if the candidate who connected so well with the working class was a Russian dupe. Or at least ironic.

Isn't the election already tainted according to Trump himself?  

I think the election should be rerun, but only because the conservative scumbags in office need to go. I'd even go so far to suggest that anyone who voted for Trump be not allowed to vote again since they make such poor choices.  Of course, that's not legal. 

Is there even a mechanism to rerun the presidential election?  

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

So, wise ones, are there any circumstances under which an election could be re-run?

Nope.

At absolute maximum, Trump and Pence could be impeached (they won't be, of course), and Paul Ryan becomes President.

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Nope.

At absolute maximum, Trump and Pence could be impeached (they won't be, of course), and Paul Ryan becomes President.

I could see Trump being impeached, but only if he doesn't hold up his end of the bargain that Republicans think they have with him (even though Trump has never explicitly promised to pursue any of their agenda). If the conservative legislative agenda completely stalls out, he starts pushing bills that actually undermine that agenda, he could end up in real trouble.

And the first possible seeds of that are already starting to show up. Trump has been pretty clear he wants a tax reform bill that comes from within the White House, not one written initially by Congress. That future bill could pretty easily look very similar to a Ryan-written bill, in which case, no problem for Republicans. But it sounds like that bill is going to be written by Gary Cohn (he's also the one apparently working on an ACA replacement bill). Cohn's a Goldman Sachs guy, but he's also a long-time Democrat, and there's no telling what kind of bills he'll come up with.

Republicans also haven't accounted for Bannon at all yet. So far, he's been mostly involved with foreign policy and immigration; but he's Trump's advisor on everything. And Bannon has never aligned with standard conservative positions on economic policy; though its also not clear how strongly he feels about it.