US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Which doesn't make sense because it's another moment of confirmed collision with Russia.

It also doesnt make sense because Sessions had already offered to resign and Trump rejected that offer. There is no need to force him out, he serves at the pleasure of the President - you just tell him to quit

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, Mexal said:

Which doesn't make sense because it's another moment of confirmed collision with Russia.

Well, remember this is the same guy that thought firing Comey would take the pressure off the Russia investigation. If you take a simplified perspective it might make sense. The idea being, I replace Sessions with something good believe me some lackey, who will take over and stonewall the Russia investigation. Problem solved. That this is not how things (are supposed to) work, is a different story. But it's basically the Comey firing logic at work. Since firing did not solve the issue, maybe they are trying this time a more indirect approach by forcing Sessions out. Of course a rational actor would expect, that Sessions will not go down quietly, but will try pull Trump down with him, when he gets thrown under the bus.

8 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

It also doesnt make sense because Sessions had already offered to resign and Trump rejected that offer. There is no need to force him out, he serves at the pleasure of the President - you just tell him to quit

I thought he wanted to hang on, and continue as AG. At least that's how I understood Dobby.

9 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

The next U.S. Politics thread title needs to be "Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the fandango?"

Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me.

Well, as much as I love Freddie, I there are other titles to choose.

"Politics US of A real Dickens in the White House: Junior's Twist Tales of the Russian Orphans." (Ok, probably a bit too convuluted (so typically me)).

Or the war of JeSession.Or some other lazy pun on secession.

[Jaxom 1974]

16 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Just saw a brief clip of Spicey's greatest hits. Seeing it all it is incredible he lasted as long as he did.

"This is the largest crowd for an inauguration in history, period."

Really jumped the shark out of the gate.

No. He jumped a series of sharks lined up like school busses for a motorcycle stunt while riding another shark.  

12 hours ago, Mexal said:

Which doesn't make sense because it's another moment of confirmed collision with Russia.

It doesn't make a lick of sense, but that's how this guy rolls.  If he wants to get rid of Sessions to  be able to get rid of Mueller, this is what 45 would do methinks.

[Mexal]

https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/status/887518739494842368

[Fragile Bird]

12 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

The next U.S. Politics thread title needs to be "Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the fandango?"

If I get a chance, yup!

I played with all kinds of stuff for this thread, a lot on the "is there a there there yet' theme, but I went with the in his own words idea because I was just blown away by DTJR's stunning emails. Maybe not a popular title, but what might be the significant breakthrough, in retrospect, down the road...

[LongRider]

Very interesting.....

Quote

WASHINGTON — A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted?

The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

 

[Mexal]

That's interesting. I wonder if Mueller is going to get an opportunity to test that memo.

also, Trump Admin is trying really really hard to make ACA fail, between the propaganda on HHS or removing assistance for people signing up.

 

[LongRider]

16 minutes ago, Mexal said:

also, Trump Admin is trying really really hard to make ACA fail, between the propaganda on HHS or removing assistance for people signing up.

This is so assholeish in so many ways.  Plus, it's costing Americans jobs!   Some job Prez he is.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Triskan said:

At this point is there any chance that Trump doesn't fire Mueller?  It seems like Trump knows that firing Mueller would send shockwaves through the system, but compared to allowing the investigation to continue it would seem that firing Mueller is the least bad choice.  We are on the threshold of the constitutional crisis.  

I guess it depends on what it is he has done. It seems pretty obvious to me at this point that whatever that is, Mueller is going to uncover it, as Trump's campaign has shown itself to be ham handed and amateurish. Is whatever they did clearly a crime? If so, you might as well fire him. If it's more gray than that, he's probably better off sitting on his hands as Congress is not going to call him out on the carpet for anything less than a clear cut criminal offense. 

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't call him out even if it were a clear cut criminal offense.  

I think what Trump does with Mueller is an indication of what our future looks like.  The man has made attacks on American industry, the justice department, the media.  He's implied he did something wrong when he suggested he would have never hired Sessions if he knew Sessions would recuse himself from this investigation and thus not be able to provide protection.  Conservatives do not care.  In fact, they care so little that they will twist every goal post into crazy pieces just to come up with a reason for why they shouldn't care.  

If he fires Mueller, there can be no doubt that Trump never plans to willingly step aside even if he's voted out of office.  He is following every step in the emerging authoritarian's handbook.  

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Triskan said:

At this point is there any chance that Trump doesn't fire Mueller?  It seems like Trump knows that firing Mueller would send shockwaves through the system, but compared to allowing the investigation to continue it would seem that firing Mueller is the least bad choice.  We are on the threshold of the constitutional crisis.  

I would be surprised if he doesn't fire Mueller. His public comments seem to be setting it up. The issue will be Rosenstein. Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rosenstein (or new AG) and Rosenstein said he'd only do it for cause which currently there is none. So Trump will have to fire Rosenstein and get the new Deputy AG to fire Mueller and there will be political backlash as this will be the 4th person he has fired who was investigating him and this one is highly respected on both sides of the isle.

[Fez]

Interesting. At least five of the six people on that call have opposed the senate repeal efforts to varying degrees (I don't know where Gov. McMaster stands on it), and Gov. Edwards is a Democrat. Cassidy was working pretty close with Collins on an alternate bill a few months ago, and Collins wants to have a bipartisan bill. If Cassidy is getting close with Graham and McCain, this could be the start of a new 'Gang of X' to produce something bipartisan.

Though we're still several steps away from that.

Manchin has been trying to jumpstart that as well, focusing on senators who were former governors (the idea being they're more practical) and he's said there's been some interest, but he's acknowledged that nothing can get done until after the senate finally holds a repeal vote (and assuming it fails).

ETA: Also, Congressional Republicans aren't totally subservient to Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/congress-sanctions-russia.html

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders have reached an agreement on sweeping sanctions legislation to punish Russia for its election-meddling and aggression toward its neighbors, they said Saturday, defying the White House’s argument that President Trump needs flexibility to adjust the sanctions to fit his diplomatic initiatives with Moscow.

The new legislation sharply limits the president’s ability to suspend or terminate the sanctions. At a moment when investigations into the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian officials have cast a shadow over his presidency, Mr. Trump could soon face a bleak decision: veto the bill — and fuel accusations that he is doing the bidding of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — or sign legislation imposing sanctions his administration abhors.

 

If he fires Mueller, the dam might break. They might also fold completely, but its not a foregone conclusion.

[Larry of the Lawn]

30 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Right, so it would have to be a "massacre" sequence of stuff like NIxon.  So it's all going to come down to whether enough Republicans in the Senate will switch sides? 

I am still in disbelief that we are this close to the United States becoming an autocracy.  How naive we were.

This meme from last summer seems more appropriate every day.https://onsizzle.com/i/donald-trump-twitter-2016-trump-wont-win-2017-president-trump-15150

[Inigima]

1 hour ago, Triskan said:

Right, so it would have to be a "massacre" sequence of stuff like NIxon.  So it's all going to come down to whether enough Republicans in the Senate will switch sides? 

I am still in disbelief that we are this close to the United States becoming an autocracy.  How naive we were.

Speak for yourself. Some of us have been sounding the alarm bell for months.

[Mexal]

41 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Speak for yourself. Some of us have been sounding the alarm bell for months.

Exactly. I don't think many people were naive on his board at all. The country as a whole? Yea but they don't even give a fuck now so...

[Red Tiger]

4 hours ago, Triskan said:

Right, so it would have to be a "massacre" sequence of stuff like NIxon.  So it's all going to come down to whether enough Republicans in the Senate will switch sides? 

I am still in disbelief that we are this close to the United States becoming an autocracy.  How naive we were.

Eeeehm

[Inigima]

They should have realized. "Norms don't actually matter" was the defining characteristic of the Obama era.

[all swedes are racist]

everyone talking about john mccain possibly retiring this term.... i hear he has a "two more" in him,,,

[ThinkerX]

Not sure if this constitutes hope or not.  To me, it seems partly relevant and partly not.  Lowering prescription drug costs?  Fine. AARP votes.  Education needs addressed.  But to me, 'infrastructure' primarily comes down to 'roads and bridges,' with internet expansion secondary. (Public transportation is also something that needs eyeballed.) The $15 an hour living wage needs to be thought through a bit better, given the areas where dramatic minimum wage increases have been imposed.  Still....

:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-had-‘the-art-of-the-deal’-now-democrats-say-their-economic-agenda-is-‘a-better-deal’/ar-AAoC4nt?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Completely sapped of power in Washington, top leaders of the Democratic Party now believe that the best way to fight a president who penned “The Art of the Deal” is with an economic agenda that they plan to call “A Better Deal.” ...

Democratic leaders shared few details to preserve suspense around the plan, which is scheduled to be unveiled Monday at an event in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, where the party hopes to defeat incumbent Rep. Barbara Comstock (R). But some lawmakers, aides and outside advocates consulted on the new agenda said that it is expected to focus on new proposals to fund job-training programs, renegotiate trade deals and address soaring prescription-drug costs, as well as other issues. It is also expected to endorse long-held Democratic principles, including “a living wage” of $15 per hour and already unveiled spending plans for infrastructure that would expand broadband Internet access into rural counties.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 22/07/2017 at 1:44 AM, Fez said:

It is. If Trump finds a way to pardon himself, he is admitting that he committed impeachable offenses. Republicans likely still wouldn't impeach him, but I think that alone would be enough evidence for Democrats to impeach if they take the House in 2018 (of course, with the 2/3rds requirement for the Senate to convict, it still wouldn't have a practical effect until Republicans get on board).

Surely it's not just that, but they are possibly prosecutable after he leaves office. If he can be charged for crimes when he leaves office then the last thing he wants to do is end 4 or 8 years as president and then wind up in prison for crimes committed before January 2017.