U.S. Politics: The Ideas of Mueller

[Ice Queen]

47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

http://www.duq.edu/academics/gumberg-library/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution#5

Doesn’t seem to work that way. Here’s this part:

Also on if they'd run again:

So that would be a no. 

However, I think they could appeal that they were not impeached for misbehavior, but for partisan political purposes, and they should win that.

Hey look, I’m lawyering!

Who would they appeal to? 

[Fragile Bird]

According to the NYT, a big issue to the US in the NAFTA talks is banning warning labels on junk food.

Really.

[TrueMetis]

Trump doesn't like to be reminded that he's eating like crap when he eats like crap.

[all swedes are racist]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ab15ea7e4b008c9e5f226aa/amp?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004&ncid=engmodushpmg00000004&__twitter_impression=true

10 dem senators vote against bill to withdraw support for saudi genocide  war in yemen 

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s odd. This really should have been a major news story. It’s also important to keep in mind that the top bracket is $50m or more. That means he could literally be in debt billions of dollars to foreign creditors.

Not really. It's not salacious so the media won't spend more than a few minutes on it, especially with a new scandal every day. And nothing can be proved there. Trump won't release his tax returns and Republicans won't force him. Trump won't divest his conflicts and Republicans won't force him. So who cares who Trump is in debt to? He can be influenced in many different ways that Republicans don't actually care about. And until they care about it, until they do some kind of oversight, it's a story that will last 3 minutes unless it's proven the creditors are Russians and are using the debt to influence him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Not really. It's not salacious so the media won't spend more than a few minutes on it, especially with a new scandal every day. And nothing can be proved there. Trump won't release his tax returns and Republicans won't force him. Trump won't divest his conflicts and Republicans won't force him. So who cares who Trump is in debt to? He can be influenced in many different ways that Republicans don't actually care about. And until they care about it, until they do some kind of oversight, it's a story that will last 3 minutes unless it's proven the creditors are Russians and are using the debt to influence him.

We’re getting into every few hours territory.

Anyways, I think it’s incredibly salacious. He owes people massive amounts of money, leaving him open to being easily blackmailed. That’s a major story on its own, but when you factor in everything else that’s going wrong around this president, it’s downright terrifying. Just imagine if he owes some Russian oligarchs $500m, and his means of paying that off is to be friendly with Russia despite the fact that their attacking our elections. You can create numerous examples with this line of thinking and it leaves our country completely vulnerable to so many hostile individuals.

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Any particular reason you say this? I haven't caught a ton of NYC news or DeBlasio's reaction since Nixon announced, but Nixon and DeBlasio have been political allies for quite awhile, and at least according to some sources I saw, Nixon is being advised by the same team that helped DeBlasio win his first election for NYC mayor. I'm sure she likely talked to him about her plans for quite awhile, and DeBlasio would have ample opportunity to point out every point of Cuomo's many hypocrisies, every enemy who has dirt on him, every bit of Cuomo's two-faced nature that would look terrible being brought out in the press in the midst of an election year.

Hell, he could have hooked her up with all this before she ever announced, stood back to the side with a smile on his face and play innocent when anyone asks him if he wants to see her beat Cuomo.

You know, I think you're right.  I must have mixed up de Blasio with someone else that the one of my (not close) friends on the local Dem committee was telling me about -- and mixed it up with knowing how much the committee here -- and many old-time / school residents here -- are more than disappointed in De Blasio, particularly his views about how our neighborhood needs MORE development, not less -- and we're so over-developed now that often it's like mid-Town and Times Square with the density of traffic of all kinds from pedestrians to bikes, to scooters to cars and trucks.  Gridlock of pedestrians!  Not joking.

[Paladin of Ice]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Um......

Speaking of which, he’s totally going to fire Mueller.

Also:

Signs that he’s crack or didn’t write this? Or both?

Oh yeah, it's only a matter of time. The man is an amoral narcissist, his whole life revolves around getting praise, love, and having everyone say that he or what he does is the biggest and best thing ever. A guy who literally spent years stalking and sending letters and pictures to a magazine because they called his fingers short. The idea that it's anything but a matter of time before he tries to push back at a man who is exposing his corruption and double dealing in public (which leads to lots of other people and organizations talking bad about Trump in public) is pure fantasy.

Quote

Also:

Signs that he’s crack or didn’t write this? Or both

Eh, as much as I hate the Trumpster fire, it's pretty clear the whole thing is quoting Dershowitz, given the quotation marks at the start and end.

We all hate the Trumpkin, but lets not go so far in hating him that we jump to biased conclusions based on either nothing or a misunderstanding. We don't want to turn into the Tea Party, after all.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Eh, as much as I hate the Trumpster fire, it's pretty clear the whole thing is quoting Dershowitz, given the quotation marks at the start and end.

We all hate the Trumpkin, but lets not go so far in hating him that we jump to biased conclusions based on either nothing or a misunderstanding. We don't want to turn into the Tea Party, after all.

LOL. That’s what I get for not actually reading the second part of the tweet…

[Fragile Bird]

I have to admit, I got thoroughly sick of listening to Dershowitz on CNN. I believe they had a falling out.

[Kalbear]

Generic ballot is back to a <7% boost for dems. 

[Fragile Bird]

Good grief. Sessions has ordered prosecutors to go for the death penalty whenever possible in drug cases.

Watch out, death squads could be next.

[Paladin of Ice]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Generic ballot is back to a <7% boost for dems. 

Specific polls are favoring Democrats so far in a number of Senate races. With the standard caveats about poll unreliability, sample size, (in this case ranging from about 550 to 1,050 per state focused on) how long it is until election day, and the margin of error, a new Public Policy Poll focused on Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Tennessee found that health care was getting significant focus, with the majority of people wanting to improve it and opposing Republican plans, and in all cases Democratic Senate candidates are leading Republicans.

Quote

ARIZONA: In a hypothetical US Senate election matchup, voters prefer Democrat Kyrsten Sinema over Republican Martha McSally 46-41.

PENNSYLVANIA: In a hypothetical US Senate election matchup, voters prefer Democrat Bob Casey over Republican Lou Barletta 54-36.

NEVADA: In a hypothetical US Senate election matchup, voters prefer Democrat Jacky Rosen over Republican Dean Heller 44-39.

TENNESSEE: In a hypothetical US Senate election matchup, voters prefer Democrat Phil Bredesen over Republican Marsha Blackburn 46-41.

WISCONSIN: In hypothetical US Senate election matchups, voters prefer Democrat Tammy Baldwin over Republican Leah Vukmir 51-39 and Republican Kevin Nicholson 51-38.

Now, with the margin of errors listed, some of these are close enough to swing the other way in the best case scenario for Republicans. (For example, the Tennessee margin of error is 3.3%, so taking 3.3% away from Bredesen and giving an extra 3.3% to Blackburn would let Blackburn squeak out a victory, assuming the other 13% of the population not showing up in the poll vote 3rd party, stay home, etc.) There's also the X-factor of people who say they're undecided but are being coy, or who say they will vote 3rd party and don't come election day.

But for Rust Belt, purple, and red states, those aren't bad numbers for Democrats to start with. And some of these candidates, (particularly Blackburn in TN) have the potential of blowing up in the face of the Republican party, ala Roy Moore, Todd Akin, and Christine O'Donnell. (McDaniels in Louisiana, although not mentioned here, is another candidate with such potential.)

So there are early signs to back up confident feelings. Hopefully Democrats push hard for all of these instead of coming into the fight half convinced that they've lost already or are bound to lose anywhere that isn't "safely Blue".

[Kalbear]

They're not bad, but they're not Dems retake the House numbers. And if that doesn't happen, Mueller gets fired, probably the day after the election. 

[IamMe90]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're not bad, but they're not Dems retake the House numbers. And if that doesn't happen, Mueller gets fired, probably the day after the election. 

I honestly don't know that Trump will have the restraint to wait the 8 months until after the midterms to fire Mueller. He will likely do it in an irrational fit of vindictive emotion and not in any strategic manner. Everything about his tweets and other actions taken recently within the DOJ suggest that he will not wait that long. This ironically may actually galvanize the base in the midterms and allow for Mueller's reappointment or Trump's impeachment if that galvanization has a significant enough impact on the midterm results. Only time will tell, though...

[Jace, Extat]

34 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Good grief. Sessions has ordered prosecutors to go for the death penalty whenever possible in drug cases.

Watch out, death squads could be next.

It's getting real.

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're not bad, but they're not Dems retake the House numbers. And if that doesn't happen, Mueller gets fired, probably the day after the election. 

Calm down broskie. We're okay, remember that the R wave in 2010 only looked like a +6 on the generic ballot and they picked up 63 seats. Just because the Gerrymander was designed to theoretically beat a +10 wave from a radically different Republican party does not mean that it would literally take a +11 wave.

Every election is subject to local pressures and suburbs have been the R's best tool for maintaining power because of the presence of College Whites, but the Subs are bailing.

They don't like Trump, we've seen it. It's real. Partially because we're as a society beginning to realize that there is no 'middle class' anymore and these people were willing to sell their values for promises of capitol, but that big 'ole tax cut didn't really help nobody.

If the Suburbs bail like they've been bailing for over a year, that's an apocalypse for Mitch. That doesn't just put the Senate in play this year, it makes people like me start to think about a Supermajority in 2020.

I know you got shade right now man. I feel you, but nobody is being overconfident or negligent this time. There's hope.

[The Anti-Targ]

27 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

I honestly don't know that Trump will have the restraint to wait the 8 months until after the midterms to fire Mueller. He will likely do it in an irrational fit of vindictive emotion and not in any strategic manner. Everything about his tweets and other actions taken recently within the DOJ suggest that he will not wait that long. This ironically may actually galvanize the base in the midterms and allow for Mueller's reappointment or Trump's impeachment if that galvanization has a significant enough impact on the midterm results. Only time will tell, though...

I thought POTUS could not fire Mueller, or do you just mean Trump will force AG Duterte to fire him?

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I thought POTUS could not fire Mueller, or do you just mean Trump will force AG Duterte to fire him?

He can order the AG to fire him. In this case it would actually be Rosenstein, since Sessions has recused himself, but he can always fire Sessions and appoint someone who agrees Mueller should be fired.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

Calm down broskie. We're okay, remember that the R wave in 2010 only looked like a +6 on the generic ballot and they picked up 63 seats. Just because the Gerrymander was designed to theoretically beat a +10 wave from a radically different Republican party does not mean that it would literally take a +11 wave.

That's because there were plenty of seats that were questionable, plus it was a midterm election. 

And it basically does, literally, mean it would take a +11 wave. 

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

If the Suburbs bail like they've been bailing for over a year, that's an apocalypse for Mitch. That doesn't just put the Senate in play this year, it makes people like me start to think about a Supermajority in 2020.

I know you got shade right now man. I feel you, but nobody is being overconfident or negligent this time. There's hope.

My hope is that there are a lot of very, very winnable governor races in the US for Democrats, with a lot of weak incumbent Republicans and reasonably strong challengers.

But hope based on a +7 ballot right now? Pfft, sorry. Republicans fall in line. That's what they do. That's what they'll keep doing. 

25 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

I honestly don't know that Trump will have the restraint to wait the 8 months until after the midterms to fire Mueller. He will likely do it in an irrational fit of vindictive emotion and not in any strategic manner. Everything about his tweets and other actions taken recently within the DOJ suggest that he will not wait that long. This ironically may actually galvanize the base in the midterms and allow for Mueller's reappointment or Trump's impeachment if that galvanization has a significant enough impact on the midterm results. Only time will tell, though...

The problem with firing Mueller is that it requires a lot of moving parts. I absolutely believe that if he could, he'd make a hasty decision - but it's difficult to do all of these things 'quickly':

• Fire Rosenstein
• Hire someone or appoint someone who will commit to firing Mueller
• Get them approved by the Senate (if a new appointment)
• Actually fire Mueller

All of this requires a lot of signoff from other agencies and people. It's not nearly as hasty as what he can do with, say, Tillerson. 

[Paladin of Ice]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're not bad, but they're not Dems retake the House numbers. And if that doesn't happen, Mueller gets fired, probably the day after the election. 

Fair enough, although the numbers may not need to be quite as overwhelming as we've thought, between the difference in enthusiasm among the parties and Democrats waking up to the fact that they need to 1) actually run candidates in every race possible, and 2) make sure these are more than token candidates.

While I doubt it'll happen, I'd rather have the Senate, if only to block Federalist Society judges and demand cabinet heads who will actually be responsible heads of their divisions, instead of Trump yes-men or ideologues actively looking to undermine their departments. The House will have less power over events until 2020, and the Freedom Caucus and frequent primary elections will do more to keep house Republicans toeing the party line.

Lastly, unless Mueller's investigation drives Trump to a nervous breakdown that gets him ejected from office, I think the main benefit from it won't be against Trump directly, but for covering the Republican party in scandal and exposing a lot of corruption. Unless Trump openly announces collusion with the Russians or does something else so appalling it makes the Russia investigation moot, (like launching nukes at an ally, or outing himself as a Nazi and turning the White House into an SS themed palace) Republican lawmakers aren't going to do shit, regardless of what Mueller finds. Even if come 2019, Democrats have enough of a majority in the House to vote to impeach, and if they win every single senate seat up for grabs this year, they'll still need 10 or 11 Republicans senators to vote with them to convict Trump. Find me 10 or 11 Republican Senators who will do that, especially since some of Trump's harshest critics are retiring before that will come to pass.

Now don't get me wrong, we need the Mueller investigation to continue. We need to have a reckoning over what's going on in our country. But the only way Mueller is going to take Trump down is if Trump helps Mueller out by being really stupid or really insane. If Trump doesn't doom himself, Republicans will hang onto him at least as long as November 2020, regardless of what Mueller turns up, or how solid the evidence is.