U.S. Politics: Moscow on the Potomac

[denstorebog]

25 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I think we can all be reasonably concerned about these kinds of activities, which are based on no evidence whatsoever, and the motives behind them, before the results are in, particularly when they are being initiated and run by people who have been lying about this stuff for a long time.

 

I'm with Gertrude on this one, at least as it is described. As long as it's bipartisan, with actual Democrat stalwarts being on the inside, any attempt at skewing the results and using them to push through actual legislation will be met with opposition and outrage on the same level as health care, and resistance from the courts as well, and could end up just hurting the Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that Trump would go all the way with this if he could. But for an administration that has fucked up so unbelievably hard at every turn and been met with walls of opposition whenever they tried to bend the rules, I'm having a hard time seeing them just distorting over the democratic system on the basis of an unfounded claim. I think this is a mix of Trump lashing out in impotence and the need to be seen as following up on that ridiculous voter fraud claim.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I'm with Gertrude on this one, at least as it is described. As long as it's bipartisan, with actual Democrat stalwarts being on the inside, any attempt at skewing the results and using them to push through actual legislation will be met with opposition and outrage on the same level as health care, and resistance from the courts as well, and could end up just hurting the Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that Trump would go all the way with this if he could. But for an administration that has fucked up so unbelievably hard at every turn and been met with walls of opposition whenever they tried to bend the rules, I'm having a hard time seeing them just distorting over the democratic system on the basis of an unfounded claim. I think this is a mix of Trump lashing out in impotence and the need to be seen as following up on that ridiculous voter fraud claim.

 

There's literally no possible good outcome here.  If the best outcome you can hope for is 'nothing changes', then it's reasonable to raise an eyebrow, at least.

I'm not suggesting losing any sleep over it at this point.......

[HoodedCrow]

I'm just so chill that a mentally unfit crook siphons money off while creating chaos, and threatening people, firing anyone who challenges him, installs sycophants and relatives, makes harassing women and minorities a sport again, menaces allies, and launders money. Hey, it's all good.Ho, hum.

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I'm with Gertrude on this one, at least as it is described. As long as it's bipartisan, with actual Democrat stalwarts being on the inside, any attempt at skewing the results and using them to push through actual legislation will be met with opposition and outrage on the same level as health care, and resistance from the courts as well, and could end up just hurting the Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that Trump would go all the way with this if he could. But for an administration that has fucked up so unbelievably hard at every turn and been met with walls of opposition whenever they tried to bend the rules, I'm having a hard time seeing them just distorting over the democratic system on the basis of an unfounded claim. I think this is a mix of Trump lashing out in impotence and the need to be seen as following up on that ridiculous voter fraud claim.

I don't see it that way.

I think this is the GOP using something they've been pushing in states for years now as a way to butter up Trump's ego while getting what they want - stricter voting laws aimed at repressing minority and poor votes. They know that this is an effective strategy - it was one of the two strategies they suggested after the Romney loss - and this will allow them to make it more easily national, or give them a lot of cover. The NC laws were overthrown by internal documents saying that it was clearly meant to discriminate against minority voters - but this can be used as a means of justification. 

And Trump doesn't have to do anything at the Federal level either; he can simply have this as the impetus for a number of states to pass voter restrictions. 

[ThinkerX]

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see it that way.

I think this is the GOP using something they've been pushing in states for years now as a way to butter up Trump's ego while getting what they want - stricter voting laws aimed at repressing minority and poor votes. They know that this is an effective strategy - it was one of the two strategies they suggested after the Romney loss - and this will allow them to make it more easily national, or give them a lot of cover. The NC laws were overthrown by internal documents saying that it was clearly meant to discriminate against minority voters - but this can be used as a means of justification. 

And Trump doesn't have to do anything at the Federal level either; he can simply have this as the impetus for a number of states to pass voter restrictions. 

Even with ramped up voter suppression, though, the GOP is still in a major demographic bind: their core voters - older white people are literally dropping dead at an accelerating rate.  

Plus, while you hold it in utter disdain, I do see increasing numbers of normally GOP faithful expressing...'reservations' in comments on GOP policy in political articles. Still tiny compared to the majority. But this AHCA thing in particular rang alarm bells in quite a few GOP types.  They continue to push for similar regressive policies elsewhere, then the loss from defections may top the gains from suppression.  That's just my take.

 

Also, this voting commission...There be a fair chance it could bite back hard at its creators, when questions about PAC money and voting machines and whatnot gets raised. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

I'm just so chill that a mentally unfit crook siphons money off while creating chaos, and threatening people, firing anyone who challenges him, installs sycophants and relatives, makes harassing women and minorities a sport again, menaces allies, and launders money. Hey, it's all good.Ho, hum.

It's like a fucking comic book or something. 

[Martell Spy]

The Path of Most Resistance
The promise—and perils—of the fight against Trump.

https://newrepublic.com/article/142425/path-resistance-promise-perils-democrats-fight-against-trump

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

 

BALLS OF STEEL.

[Fragile Bird]

So...the NYT is reporting Trump demanded loyalty from Comey at this infamous dinner where Comey supposedly told Trump he wanted to keep his job.

In case you haven't seen it, there is a hilarious and dark 'interpretation' of the meaning behind the words of Comey's letter of goodbye to the FBI going around on Facebook, from Mary Sue: https://www.themarysue.com/comey-goodbye-letter/

And I just saw your post, ME, , this ties in with the idea of loyalty.

[Xray the Enforcer]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

 

There's literally no possible good outcome here.  If the best outcome you can hope for is 'nothing changes', then it's reasonable to raise an eyebrow, at least.

Agreed fully, although I'd probably go a bit further than a raised eyebrow, because that just means they wasted a ton of money haring after something everyone with any sense (on both sides of the aisle) knows is bullshit. And I suspect that we will not get a best-case scenario. Not even close. 

[Fragile Bird]

Does anyone think the Deputy AG has any credibility left?

[Kalbear]

37 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Does anyone think the Deputy AG has any credibility left?

Yes, though a lot depends on his actions in the next few days. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, though a lot depends on his actions in the next few days. 

Actually, strike that. I've been reading Lawfare and have now totally changed my mind. He has zero credibility at this point, and writing a two-page memo in 14 days or less with no real citations or discussions is not acceptable. 

Lawfare has a LOT of great articles on the legality, means, and dangers of the Comey firing - and I'd recommend all of them. Their point about how Comey represented a truly independent voice of prosecution (as both conservatives and liberals were pissed at him) is a good one. But this one stood out - the problems not with the firing, but the How of firing. 

Quote

The problem overall may be that Mr. Trump cannot help but see the legal process as he did when a businessman for so many years. He was a client, a deponent, a defendant and a plaintiff. The law and legal system were factors in the business environment; they were component parts of the machinery with he had to be familiar in order to successfully pursue his private goals. His view of the law is, it seems, coldly practical: only the results appear to count. As a candidate, he could denounce Comey for not bringing charges, then cheer him for reopening the inquiry only days before the election, indifferent until yesterday to the issues of process and norms. As a candidate, and as President, he could assail courts in harshly personal terms for failing to deliver him the goods.

 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see it that way.

I think this is the GOP using something they've been pushing in states for years now as a way to butter up Trump's ego while getting what they want - stricter voting laws aimed at repressing minority and poor votes. They know that this is an effective strategy - it was one of the two strategies they suggested after the Romney loss - and this will allow them to make it more easily national, or give them a lot of cover. The NC laws were overthrown by internal documents saying that it was clearly meant to discriminate against minority voters - but this can be used as a means of justification. 

And Trump doesn't have to do anything at the Federal level either; he can simply have this as the impetus for a number of states to pass voter restrictions. 

Damn.  After reading this thread I've arrived at almost entirely agreeing with Kal.  Thanks board.  In fact, I'm appreciative I didn't have to type up something analogous to that second graph.  This is weird.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, maarsen said:

I would not bet on any ex-wrestler being President.  Where I work we have a few developmentally delayed people working here and apart from 13 year old boys, they are the only wrestling fans around if you are counting on their votes. 

I know this isn't entirely serious, but it reads really weirdly just the same. I know a lot of smart people who are fans of wrestling, but even if that weren't true, and even as a joke, suggesting that wrestling fans are all adolescent boys or developmentally disabled is pretty insulting to all of those groups.

It's also wildly off. A former pro wrestler would be no worse a candidate than Trump. Famous, used to speaking on camera, physically imposing, if you can combine all that with some basic level of intelligence, they'd do well.

10 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I mean, I know I am being optimistic and naive to a degree, but I have still not lost all hope that there is a small bit of integrity left to our lawmakers and that flat out lying is something that cannot be maintained. I trust that actual facts will win out in the end, or at least not hoodwink as many people as they want it to.

Based on the record of the last two years, that faith is looking shaky. Remember, the Republicans don't need this commission to produce a report citing carefully evidenced examples. They just need it to lend credibility to their existing hype on the issue. It can do that even with an equivocal report that can be cherry-picked.

[Inigima]

This is wildly speculative, but a Post column asks if the Russians might have used their bizarre photo op to plant a listening device in the Oval Office:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/11/heres-how-the-russians-might-have-snuck-a-recording-device-into-the-oval-office/

Did they? Who knows, but I wouldn't put it past the original superspies, and I hardly consider the Trump administration competent enough to stop it.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

This is wildly speculative, but a Post column asks if the Russians might have used their bizarre photo op to plant a listening device in the Oval Office:

Trump certainly aided this (if it happened) by being secretive and leaving the US press out.  There are all kinds of  nuances to this transparency thing.

[OldGimletEye]

Mr. Orange Swamp Thing, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it…………...

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/11/15622900/trump-economist-interview

Quote

As America continues to ponder whether President Donald Trump is obstructing justice by firing his FBI director in order to stymie an ongoing inquiry into his team’s various bizarre links to the Russian government, the Economist delivered an interview with the chief executive that reminds us of the original and most basic horror of the Trump administration: The president of the United States has no idea what he’s talking about.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-explains-economics-to-the-economist-hilarity-ensues.html

Quote

Donald Trump has now spent enough time listening to Republican economic advisers that he can give an interview to The Economist in which he attempts to regurgitate the ideas that have been fed him. At various points in the interview, Trump tries and fails to think of the word “reciprocity.” (“We need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals,” he asserts.) Asked to flesh out his vision for a fair NAFTA in more detail, he can only come up with synonyms for “big”:

 

[Fragile Bird]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, though a lot depends on his actions in the next few days. 

Lol, I was surprised by your [first] answer but I was just going to bed so didn't respond. Actually, I was just going to bed and so didn't list all the things I found troubling with what Rosenstein apparently did. I also wondered what other lawyers thought about it.

Back when the firing was announced, I posted the fact the WH claimed the new DAG stepped into his job and immediately, independently, turned his mind to firing Comey, popping up in the WH on Tuesday and making his recommendation, which was immediately accepted by Sessions and Trump and a termination letter was sent out. That story boggled the mind, and of course, rapidly proved to be bullshit.

However, what does appear to be true was that on Monday he was asked to to come up with a reason to fire Comey, and that's where things get even worse for me. The content of the so-called analysis of why Comey should be fired didn't sound like it had any substance to it, certainly not even as much as a third year law student cramming an essay overnight would jam in or the product of a junior lawyer asked to the same task would contain.

Instead, his good name and reputation, on display at his confirmation hearing, was thrown at the media and the public as if merely the fact there was bipartisan approval of his appointment was enough to justify Comey's termination.

The WaPo or the NYT reported he threatened to resign (which he denied last night) if the matter wasn't clarified, and so Trump came out and did his interview, declaring he had decided to fire Comey a long time ago and whatever Rosenstein came up with wouldn't mean anything either way.

I don't see how Rosenstein can stay in his job. Part of his job is having the director of the FBI report to him. How does the new director report to this guy with a straight face? How do you shake off what now appears to be the true story, that he was either a willing stooge or an unwitting stooge for Trump? Do you say, ok it was a rough start, but I'll show everyone going forward that I'm my own man, look I made them admit it wasn't me who did that? Do you say to yourself I have to stay to make sure the Russia investigation doesn't get buried? Does anyone think the Russia investigation is safe under this guy? Now?

[LongRider]

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

(“We need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals,” he asserts.)

"reciprocality" imaginary word meaning the locality of the reciprocating along the lines of commerce and bullshit.  Introduced into the language by an Orange Shitgibbon, soon to be picked up by the R's in the US Congress because they are basically, well, dumb fucks.