U.S. Politics: Moscow on the Potomac

[Darryk]

It's actually quite impressive, the way he consistently manages to top himself in terms of reaching new depths of incompetence.

[Swordfish]

I'd impeach him just on the grounds that he's allowing the opening the door for the intelligence community to make some pretty unprecedented moves in terms of undermining a sitting president, and creating a situation in which a lot of people are ok with that.  

Pretty hard to put that particular genie back in the bottle.

[Kalbear]

Per Buzzfeed (take that as you will) Israeli sources have also confirmed that it is Israel.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Per Buzzfeed (take that as you will) Israeli sources have also confirmed that it is Israel.

There Israeli no way to be certain whether or not this true. 

[Kalbear]

Fortunately, 3 administrative officials admit that chances are good Trump isn't that dangerous - because he isn't smart enough or curious enough to even give a shit.

 

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Per Buzzfeed (take that as you will) Israeli sources have also confirmed that it is Israel.

Per the link at the end:

Quote

Speaking to BuzzFeed News via a military base in northern Israel, he said Israeli intelligence officers were "boiling mad and demanding answers" as to whether Israel's military would continue its current intelligence-sharing agreement with the US.

But yeah, the leaky leakers that leaked that Trump bragged about his intelligence briefings and revealed this information are the problem.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

There Israeli no way to be certain whether or not this true. 

What you did there, I sieze it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Fortunately, 3 administrative officials admit that chances are good Trump isn't that dangerous - because he isn't smart enough or curious enough to even give a shit.

 

How does that not make him dangerous? That's DANGEROUS AS FUCK.

[Fez]

Steve Knight (CA-25) is calling for a special prosecutor to take over the FBI investigation. I believe he is the second House Republican to make that statement.

Not much of anything yet, but could be a sign that elected Republican support for Trump is finally, slowly starting to crack.

[Week]

24 minutes ago, Fez said:

Steve Knight (CA-25) is calling for a special prosecutor to take over the FBI investigation. I believe he is the second House Republican to make that statement.

Not much of anything yet, but could be a sign that elected Republican support for Trump is finally, slowly starting to crack.

This article was pretty convincing that a Special Prosecutor would not be the right way to go -- I almost wonder if Repubs are hip to that and would agree because it would be less likely to be successful.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-special-prosecutor-is-not-the-answer/526662/

Quote

Of all the types of independent investigation that have been suggested, a special prosecutor is the most likely to disappear down rabbit holes—the least likely answer the questions that needed to be answered.

A select committee of Congress or an independent commission of nonpartisan experts established by Congress can ask the broad question: What happened?

A select committee or an independent commission can organize its inquiry according to priority, leaving the secondary and tertiary issues to the historians. A select committee or an independent commission is not barred from looking at events in earlier years statutes of limitations.

A select committee or an independent commission seeks truth.

 

[Maithanet]

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not much of anything yet, but could be a sign that elected Republican support for Trump is finally, slowly starting to crack.

It seems pretty obvious that Republicans are not going to bail on Trump in any numbers until his polls go down further, particularly with Republicans.  Well, 538's tracking on Trump polling is showing Trump at his lowest popularity ever, with a net rating of -14.2%.  That is actually lower than any previous president at any point in his first year.  Now, that is not specific to Republican voters, he is still in the 80s (at least) among that group.  But at this point his approval rating can't really get much lower with Independents (20s) and Democrats (single digits).  So any further erosion of his polling numbers from their current level is going to start coming from Republicans.  If he gets below 35%, watch out, the floodgates could open.

Likewise if the Democrats win one or more of the special elections in the next month, it would indicate that standing by Trump could have consequences even in relatively safe seats.  Conversely, if the Republicans sweep the special elections, it would indicate that Republican gerrymandering is sufficient to weather the Trumpstorm.  If that's the case, expect even less Congressional oversight of future Trump outrages.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Weird uproar.

If Obama sat with the premier of China, and decided to share with him some piece of intelligence based on a quid pro quo motive, or to build rapport, or as a negotiating tactic, or for whatever other reason, I would not consider it a big deal. If it is legally Obama's right to do so, there is no story.

The same applies here.

Trump need not even defend it. He should just say, I did it because I decided to do it. End of story.

If he was not legally entitled to do it, well, then he would be in a lot of shit. As it turns out, it is part of his power as president to make decisions like that. Either campaign to restrict the powers of the president, or failing that, live it with folks.

[Zorral]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/they-were-warned

 

Quote

We now have a report that the allied intelligence service whose intelligence President Trump shared with Sergei Lavrov was an Israeli intelligence agency. My best guess was Jordan. Shows what I know.

The link in the quote above goes to the NY Times -- so pay wall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It seems pretty obvious that Republicans are not going to bail on Trump in any numbers until his polls go down further, particularly with Republicans.  Well, 538's tracking on Trump polling is showing Trump at his lowest popularity ever, with a net rating of -14.2%.  That is actually lower than any previous president at any point in his first year.  Now, that is not specific to Republican voters, he is still in the 80s (at least) among that group.  But at this point his approval rating can't really get much lower with Independents (20s) and Democrats (single digits).  So any further erosion of his polling numbers from their current level is going to start coming from Republicans.  If he gets below 35%, watch out, the floodgates could open.

Likewise if the Democrats win one or more of the special elections in the next month, it would indicate that standing by Trump could have consequences even in relatively safe seats.  Conversely, if the Republicans sweep the special elections, it would indicate that Republican gerrymandering is sufficient to weather the Trumpstorm.  If that's the case, expect even less Congressional oversight of future Trump outrages.

Generally, I agree. But Steve Knight is one of those 23 House Republicans in a district that Clinton won; so he is particularly vulnerable to Trump's near rock-bottom approval among independents. The rest of those 23 are the ones to watch first; plus the usual spanner-in-the-works folks like Justin Amash. The numbers probably do need to go down more though.

I don't agree that Democrats need to win any of the special elections though, simply because of how red all those districts are. Republicans can do math, at least when it comes to their electoral chances, and if those races are extremely close they'll know what it means for all the less red ones. And even Democrats sweep the races that won't be the tipping point either I don't think.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Weird uproar.

If Obama sat with the premier of China, and decided to share with him some piece of intelligence based on a quid pro quo motive, or to build rapport, or as a negotiating tactic, or for whatever other reason, I would not consider it a big deal. If it is legally Obama's right to do so, there is no story.

The same applies here.

Trump need not even defend it. He should just say, I did it because I decided to do it. End of story.

If he was not legally entitled to do it, well, then he would be in a lot of shit. As it turns out, it is part of his power as president to make decisions like that. Either campaign to restrict the powers of the president, or failing that, live it with folks.

Once again, just because the President has the right to do something does not mean he is immune from criticism when he does so.  This disclosure could lead to allies not sharing intelligence with us, which is a HUGE deal.  Effective intelligence sharing is an essential part of the war on terror. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't agree that Democrats need to win any of the special elections though, simply because of how red all those districts are. Republicans can do math, at least when it comes to their electoral chances, and if those races are extremely close they'll know what it means for all the less red ones. And even Democrats sweep the races that won't be the tipping point either I don't think.

It's an indicator.  If Ossoff wins a seat that Price won by 29 points just 8 months ago, that is a strong indication that Republicans in Congress have a Trump problem, and something needs to change. 

Likewise, a LOT of things have gone wrong for the Trump administration between November and now.  There's little reason to think that Democrats are going to get any more motivated than they already are.  If, in the face of that, Republicans are able to win all their gerrymandered seats, it would indicate that for all the fury and "enthusiasm" from the Democrats, that gerrymandering is enough to protect the House, and that they should stay the course. 

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

It's an indicator.  If Ossoff wins a seat that Price won by 29 points just 8 months ago, that is a strong indication that Republicans in Congress have a Trump problem, and something needs to change. 

Likewise, a LOT of things have gone wrong for the Trump administration between November and now.  There's little reason to think that Democrats are going to get any more motivated than they already are.  If, in the face of that, Republicans are able to win all their gerrymandered seats, it would indicate that for all the fury and "enthusiasm" from the Democrats, that gerrymandering is enough to protect the House, and that they should stay the course. 

Ossoff should win, and it'll be disappointing if he doesn't. But there are more than enough seats less red than it for Democrats to win the House without it. Also, a wave doesn't happen just because one party is fired up, the other party has to be depressed as well; and its not clear Republicans are at the point they were in 2006 just yet.

And because of Quist's tax problems becoming an issue in the Montana race, that race no longer can give a clear indication of anything if he loses. Though if he wins, that would be quite a thing.

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Weird uproar.

If Obama sat with the premier of China, and decided to share with him some piece of intelligence based on a quid pro quo motive, or to build rapport, or as a negotiating tactic, or for whatever other reason, I would not consider it a big deal. If it is legally Obama's right to do so, there is no story.

The same applies here.

If Obama shared Israeli intel that the Israelis explicitly said 'do not share' and shared it with one of Israel's specific threatening countries - Russia, who is Iran's ally - a Republican House would be rushing to write the articles of impeachment.

19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Trump need not even defend it. He should just say, I did it because I decided to do it. End of story.

Him deciding to burn a senior bit of intel on ISIS is probably not a great choice.

19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If he was not legally entitled to do it, well, then he would be in a lot of shit. As it turns out, it is part of his power as president to make decisions like that. Either campaign to restrict the powers of the president, or failing that, live it with folks.

He also has the legal rights to publish on twitter the nuclear launch codes. Or to declassify every single CIA operative that exists right now and send that information to whomever he chooses. Those are all completely legal things that POTUS can do. Are you cool with them?

[Free Northman Reborn]

27 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Once again, just because the President has the right to do something does not mean he is immune from criticism when he does so.  This disclosure could lead to allies not sharing intelligence with us, which is a HUGE deal.  Effective intelligence sharing is an essential part of the war on terror. 

Oh sure. Anyone has the right to criticize, that goes without saying. Free speech and all that. Demands for impeachment or similar drastic overreactions, however, just come across as silly though.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Oh sure. Anyone has the right to criticize, that goes without saying. Free speech and all that. Demands for impeachment or similar drastic overreactions, however, just come across as silly, though

If allies such as Israel start withholding valuable intelligence from us because they're afraid President Trump will expose their sources, Americans will die as a result.  That deserves some forceful criticism, don't you think?  Or perhaps I'm just overreacting and coming across as silly.