US Politics: Loyalty Oaths for Everyone!

[Shryke]

And here's a good reason why the Senate was cautious on this shit:

https://www.axios.com/rising-white-house-fear-nunes-memo-is-a-dud-1517518110-483bac89-a164-4aa9-8841-97f6d3329005.html

Quote

 

Inside the Trump administration, sources who've been briefed on the Nunes memo expect it will be underwhelming and not the “slam dunk” document it's been hyped up to be.

What we're hearing: There is much more skepticism inside the administration than has been previously reported about the value of releasing the memo, according to sources familiar with the administration discussions.

Be smart: Trump still wants to release the memo. But there are a number of people in the White House who are fairly underwhelmed, and there's internal anxiety about whether it's worth angering the FBI director and intelligence community by releasing this information.

What’s next: Trump will almost certainly approve the memo’s release. The internal debate, now, is more around whether to make further changes to the memo — redactions to protect sources and methods — on the advice of the Intelligence Community.

 

Basically, like we all expected, the Nunes memo is a load of bullshit and the Trump people are finally starting to realise that and getting a bit nervous about it.

[Shryke]

7 minutes ago, Yukle said:

For all of the outrage, I think that Trump is going to get away with it.

His tax returns, which would absolutely incriminate him, will never be released. The FBI's investigation will either be cut off before completion or released with so much noise from the right-wing propaganda that the Republicans will literally not do a thing about it. They may even vote to prevent further action, and to hand more power to their glorious leader.

As pessimistic as it sounds, I am so grateful not to be an American right now. Your republic is dead. Trump is your first dictator.

The shrill chorus and chants against Obama's sanity and mental fitness allow Republicans to say that those saying it to Trump are crying wolf - which is exactly what they did to Obama, so it seems plausible.

Trump will never be indicted. He is a criminal, he is protected from prosecution from every branch of government and the current gerrymandered map in the House and the difficult Senate map means that no matter how big the swing to the Dems is, the fight is over.

The best the Dems can hope for is to ignore the house race altogether and instead focus every last shred of resources into the Senate. Then, at least, they can block every one of Trump's stooge appointments.

Mueller can just drop a ton of meticulously researched evidence onto the desk of the NY AG and there's no pardoning there for him.

[Inigima]

53 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The Senate hates the House in general and the Republicans in the Senate have zero reason to play interference for Nunes. They don't give a shit about him.

Everything Nunes has done for like a year now has been a desperate, increasingly slipshod and comical attempt to cover his own ass because while on the transition team he done dipped his balls in a soup of illegal activity. He's flailing about now trying to cover it up. The White House is on board because it's their asses to, up to a point.

The Senate though? They don't give a shit about Nunes's bullshit.

It still blows my mind that a member of Trump's transition team was allowed to head the House investigation into it.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Mueller can just drop a ton of meticulously researched evidence onto the desk of the NY AG and there's no pardoning there for him.

That's the secret sauce in all this. Don't matter for a fucking second if every R on earth says NO COLLUSION when the NY AG starts asking the D.C. police to apprehend a man they have a warrant out on.

3 minutes ago, Inigima said:

It still blows my mind that a member of Trump's transition team was allowed to head the House investigation into it.

While being 'recused'.

[S John]

16 minutes ago, Yukle said:

For all of the outrage, I think that Trump is going to get away with it.

His tax returns, which would absolutely incriminate him, will never be released. The FBI's investigation will either be cut off before completion or released with so much noise from the right-wing propaganda that the Republicans will literally not do a thing about it. They may even vote to prevent further action, and to hand more power to their glorious leader.

As pessimistic as it sounds, I am so grateful not to be an American right now. Your republic is dead. Trump is your first dictator.

The shrill chorus and chants against Obama's sanity and mental fitness allow Republicans to say that those saying it to Trump are crying wolf - which is exactly what they did to Obama, so it seems plausible.

Trump will never be indicted. He is a criminal, he is protected from prosecution from every branch of government and the current gerrymandered map in the House and the difficult Senate map means that no matter how big the swing to the Dems is, the fight is over.

The best the Dems can hope for is to ignore the house race altogether and instead focus every last shred of resources into the Senate. Then, at least, they can block every one of Trump's stooge appointments.

I don't know about death of the republic and all that, but I do think that anyone expecting the Mueller investigation to lead to an end to the Trump administration before 2020 is likely setting themselves up for a major disappointment.  I think the best hope is that the facts are clear and damaging enough that Trump is stomped in his reelection bid.  Of course, that is assuming that the Democrat's don't run a complete turd and that Republican voters actually care.  Neither of those things are guaranteed. 

In the short term I think the Democrats need to concentrate on the 2018 election and try to do a better job of controlling the messaging.  Positive things about Dem candidates, not anti-Trump all the time.  Trump so thoroughly dominates the media cycle that I do fear he could win again in 2020 if the Dem's can't do a better job of tearing the focus away from him from time to time and on to their own platform and ideas.  

[S John]

9 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

That's the secret sauce in all this. Don't matter for a fucking second if every R on earth says NO COLLUSION when the NY AG starts asking the D.C. police to apprehend a man they have a warrant out on.

 

I 100% believe there would be civil unrest if the state of New York AG and the DC Metropolitan police brought down Trump.  There's only 3 ways we'll be rid of Trump.  Either his lifelong love for McDonald's takes him out, he loses in 2020, or congress removes him.  Some roundabout way involving state level AG's and city PD's isn't going to fly, imo.  

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Inigima said:

It still blows my mind that a member of Trump's transition team was allowed to head the House investigation into it.

And one of its leaders became attorney general!

In some ways, the Trump coterie is like one of those teen soaps where eventually every character ends up dating everyone else. The list of senior Trumpkins is so small because of 45's paranoia and the toxicity of the operation in general, so a limited pool of numbfucks circulates between jobs.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, S John said:

I don't know about death of the republic and all that, but I do think that anyone expecting the Mueller investigation to lead to an end to the Trump administration before 2020 is likely setting themselves up for a major disappointment.  I think the best hope is that the facts are clear and damaging enough that Trump is stomped in his reelection bid.  Of course, that is assuming that the Democrat's don't run a complete turd and that Republican voters actually care.  Neither of those things are guaranteed. 

My hopes for Mueller are a little higher, but still IMO realistic:

1.  The investigation serves to demonstrate that the institutions in America are capable of pushing back on Trump, and this is obvious even to the most ardent Trumpist and Trump himself.  They can call it the "deep state" if they want, so long as they acknowledge that the President does have real checks on his authority.  This remains an open question - sometimes the Republican Congress, courts and DOJ are doing all they can to indulge Trump's authoritarianism, but there are other times when they've obviously pushed back. 

2. A few more of Trump's associates are charged and face jail time.  Manafort and Flynn is a really good start, but I am really hoping that a year from now that list will include a few more of Kushner, Trump Jr, Sessions, Hicks, Page and the like.

3.  The investigation damages Trump long term and is a problem for Republicans in both the 2018 and 2020 elections. 

None of those are a sure thing, but I don't think it's too much to ask.

14 minutes ago, S John said:

In the short term I think the Democrats need to concentrate on the 2018 election and try to do a better job of controlling the messaging.  Positive things about Dem candidates, not anti-Trump all the time.  Trump so thoroughly dominates the media cycle that I do fear he could win again in 2020 if the Dem's can't do a better job of tearing the focus away from him from time to time and on to their own platform and ideas.  

I gotta disagree here.  The Democrats do need to be positive to some extent, but they don't need to unite around candidates in 2018.  I think that running on a platform of anti-Trump, protect American institutions, protect DREAMers, etc, can work just fine. 

[Maithanet]

16 minutes ago, S John said:

I 100% believe there would be civil unrest if the state of New York AG and the DC Metropolitan police brought down Trump.  There's only 3 ways we'll be rid of Trump.  Either his lifelong love for McDonald's takes him out, he loses in 2020, or congress removes him.  Some roundabout way involving state level AG's and city PD's isn't going to fly, imo.  

Well if that happens, it will have to be after he leaves office.  Which would still be a semi-constitutional crisis, but far less scary than some sort of state vs federal showdown of force that would almost assuredly end in bloodshed.

[Yukle]

39 minutes ago, S John said:

I 100% believe there would be civil unrest if the state of New York AG and the DC Metropolitan police brought down Trump.  There's only 3 ways we'll be rid of Trump.  Either his lifelong love for McDonald's takes him out, he loses in 2020, or congress removes him.  Some roundabout way involving state level AG's and city PD's isn't going to fly, imo.  

 

52 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

That's the secret sauce in all this. Don't matter for a fucking second if every R on earth says NO COLLUSION when the NY AG starts asking the D.C. police to apprehend a man they have a warrant out on.

While being 'recused'.

That'd be an interesting and untested sovereignty clash. Trump could simply never visit New York again, and be protected by his cronies everywhere else.

For all of the "states rights" bullshit that Republicans pretend to care about (along with everything else they pretend to care about), they wouldn't ever respect a state's right to prosecute their beloved Lord Trump.

Knowing him, he could also waltz through Manhattan with armed guards on display, daring the NY state forces to arrest him. If it came to that, he'd shoot at them, and his adoring disciples would salivate.

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, Yukle said:

 

That'd be an interesting and untested sovereignty clash. Trump could simply never visit New York again, and be protected by his cronies everywhere else.

For all of the "states rights" bullshit that Republicans pretend to care about (along with everything else they pretend to care about), they wouldn't ever respect a state's right to prosecute their beloved Lord Trump.

Knowing him, he could also waltz through Manhattan with armed guards on display, daring the NY state forces to arrest him. If it came to that, he'd shoot at them, and his adoring disciples would salivate.

I think you'd be surprised what the people could do if they know they have the backing of their local Gov.

The most likely outcome I think would be Trump never entering the state again, which would be devastating to his brand.

[The Anti-Targ]

49 minutes ago, S John said:

I 100% believe there would be civil unrest if the state of New York AG and the DC Metropolitan police brought down Trump.  There's only 3 ways we'll be rid of Trump.  Either his lifelong love for McDonald's takes him out, he loses in 2020, or congress removes him.  Some roundabout way involving state level AG's and city PD's isn't going to fly, imo.  

Yeah, there's not way Trump gets charged or arrested by any state or city office(r)s while he's sitting president. Is there precedent for this? If the precedent is more than 100 years ago, then it's just not something any arresting authority could really lean on to prevent rioting on the streets. Which would happen in every state, because even blue stats have Trump-washed red necks.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Yeah, there's not way Trump gets charged or arrested by any state or city office(r)s while he's sitting president. Is there precedent for this? If the precedent is more than 100 years ago, then it's just not something any arresting authority could really lean on to prevent rioting on the streets. Which would happen in every state, because even blue stats have Trump-washed red necks.

The Anti-Trumps would take the streets too, remember.

[Prince of the North]

I found this article on Slate to be very interesting (sorry if it's already been linked).  There do seem to be some ways Mueller can get his findings in front of congressional eyeballs regardless of what else happens.  At least, I certainly hope there are.  And I think I have a new favorite phrase: "Bureaucratic Kubuki theater"! 

Quote

One of the biggest open questions about the Russia investigation is what Robert Mueller might do if he were to find legal wrongdoing on the part of the president of the United States. A problem for Mueller, sometimes acknowledged but more often ignored or glossed over, is that he has no independent authority to secure an indictment against a sitting president.

A still more fundamental problem, at least if one hopes that any criminal behavior committed by Trump and uncovered by Mueller might result in the former’s removal from office, is that even a felony conviction would not eject the president. Only impeachment performs that trick. So, if Mueller concludes that Trump did commit a crime and he wants Congress to know about it, he needs a way to present his conclusions to Congress. Unfortunately, he has no independent authority to release the results of an investigation that doesn’t produce an indictment.

...

 

[The Anti-Targ]

11 minutes ago, Yukle said:

 

That'd be an interesting and untested sovereignty clash. Trump could simply never visit New York again, and be protected by his cronies everywhere else.

For all of the "states rights" bullshit that Republicans pretend to care about (along with everything else they pretend to care about), they wouldn't ever respect a state's right to prosecute their beloved Lord Trump.

Knowing him, he could also waltz through Manhattan with armed guards on display, daring the NY state forces to arrest him. If it came to that, he'd shoot at them, and his adoring disciples would salivate.

We already know what Republicans really think about State's rights. Since in its overturn of net neutrality the FCC attempted to close off any and all means by which individual states could implement net neutrality at the state level, it is clear that Republicans are not willing to leave it up to any state to make decisions on things that the Party wants locked down. They left a tiny crack which some states are attempting to use, but I'm sure if those states are successful at putting net neutrality in place the FCC will figure out a way of shutting that down too.

Really, if you are the party of state's rights, why not simply repeal the federal mandate for net neutrality and leave it up to individual states to chart their own internet course? Answer: because the blue states, and probably a decent number of red states, would implement it, and the states that don't do so would end up having to do it, or they would benefit from "herd immunity" because ISPs would realise they couldn't get away with anything in just a handful of states.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

We already know what Republicans really think about State's rights. Since in its overturn of net neutrality the FCC attempted to close off any and all means by which individual states could implement net neutrality at the state level, it is clear that Republicans are not willing to leave it up to any state to make decisions on things that the Party wants locked down. They left a tiny crack which some states are attempting to use, but I'm sure if those states are successful at putting net neutrality in place the FCC will figure out a way of shutting that down too.

Really, if you are the party of state's rights, why not simply repeal the federal mandate for net neutrality and leave it up to individual states to chart their own internet course? Answer: because the blue states, and probably a decent number of red states, would implement it, and the states that don't do so would end up having to do it, or they would benefit from "herd immunity" because ISPs would realise they couldn't get away with anything in just a handful of states.

So what you're saying is that we don't want regulations telling the market what to do, we want regulations telling states what to do so that one part of the market wins?

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Mueller can just drop a ton of meticulously researched evidence onto the desk of the NY AG and there's no pardoning there for him.

Anyone know if a state can indict a President? Seems like they would wait and not risk it being viewed as as a coup. Seems likely Trump will die before a conviction.

If he never goes to NY still major problems for Trump org.

Might get him to plead out. Take his son. Same way they got Flynn.

[Guest]

Gates, aka Manafort's stooge, rumored to be cooperating with Mueller's investigation after 3 of his lawyers filed to remove themselves from his defense team.

[Tywin et al.]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If Mueller's investigation is shutdown, or even if Rosenstein is removed, it becomes the only big story for all outlets this side of Breitbart.  It's not gonna get drowned out by coverage.

Not in the short run, but it could in the long run. For all of his faults, Trump is a master at creating distractions, and if House Republicans give him cover, you never know. I think it would heart him a lot in 2018 and 2020, but he wouldn't get impeached over it. 

[The Anti-Targ]

39 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So what you're saying is that we don't want regulations telling the market what to do, we want regulations telling states what to do so that one part of the market wins?

Indeed, it seems like market's rights Trump state's rights. Which, when you think about it, that really is the ideological pecking order for Republicans. States only get rights if they don't conflict with the interests of the free market.