US Politics: What Price Loyalty?

[James Arryn]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, my gut tells me it’s more likely that he cleans house and fires Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller and makes up some excuses to justify it. And Congressional Republicans will ***** and moan about it and ultimately do nothing.

Attacking Syria will happen immediately afterwards to muddy the headlines. It’s what he does. Trump grabs more headlines in a month than some Presidents would get in a term in office. It’s hard to keep up with everything even for political junkies. How do you think it goes for the average person?

This is my impression, and i’m actually kind of amazed no one is really pointing out the concurrent escalations. I’d like to think it’s just so understood that it’s not worth highlighting, but then the discussions of each as isolated within their own equilibriums seems to contradict any connection.

[Fez]

Sounds like Republican Senators are starting to get serious about a Mueller protection bill (another sign, this bill is new, Tillis and Graham had separate bipartisan bills that they weren't doing much with; they've combined them into a single unified bill); the issue is still whether McConnell will allow a floor vote though. Also an issue is whether the House would ever vote for it. And finally an issue is that even if Congress has the votes to pass it, do they have the votes for the almost certain Trump veto?

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

This is my impression, and i’m actually kind of amazed no one is really pointing out the concurrent escalations. I’d like to think it’s just so understood that it’s not worth highlighting, but then the discussions of each as isolated within their own equilibriums seems to contradict any connection.

But the timeline of both the Syria escalation and the current Mueller flareup are not coming from Trump.  Mueller raided Cohen's office on Monday, which everyone knew would send Trump into a rage, and the Syrian conflict is escalating because of the use of chemical weapons, which Trump previously said he wouldn't tolerate.

I'm sure Trump is happy to take advantage of a distraction to shield himself from criticism in obstructing the Mueller probe, but I don't think this is some Machiavellian timing. 

[LongRider]

 

2 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Trump is not stupid is as stupid does, he is just stupid.

Stupider.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sounds like Republican Senators are starting to get serious about a Mueller protection bill (another sign, this bill is new, Tillis and Graham had separate bipartisan bills that they weren't doing much with; they've combined them into a single unified bill); the issue is still whether McConnell will allow a floor vote though. Also an issue is whether the House would ever vote for it. And finally an issue is that even if Congress has the votes to pass it, do they have the votes for the almost certain Trump veto?

All those steps means there's almost no chance this become law.  But every step of the way adds legitimacy to the case that the Mueller is doing a good job and should not be fired.  Unfortunately, increasing the PR cost for Trump of firing Mueller may be the best we can hope for at this point. 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, LongRider said:

 

Stupider.

Stupidest

[Mlle. Zabzie]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sounds like Republican Senators are starting to get serious about a Mueller protection bill (another sign, this bill is new, Tillis and Graham had separate bipartisan bills that they weren't doing much with; they've combined them into a single unified bill); the issue is still whether McConnell will allow a floor vote though. Also an issue is whether the House would ever vote for it. And finally an issue is that even if Congress has the votes to pass it, do they have the votes for the almost certain Trump veto?

If it did pass, and there was a veto, I do think you might could see an override because Congress might want to show that it is an effective branch of.....oh hell it's not getting out of committee anyhow.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Sorry, Paul Ryan, tax cuts are for working Americans only.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Stupidest

And Tom Hanks would never play him, no f'n way. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But the timeline of both the Syria escalation and the current Mueller flareup are not coming from Trump.  Mueller raided Cohen's office on Monday, which everyone knew would send Trump into a rage, and the Syrian conflict is escalating because of the use of chemical weapons, which Trump previously said he wouldn't tolerate.

I'm sure Trump is happy to take advantage of a distraction to shield himself from criticism in obstructing the Mueller probe, but I don't think this is some Machiavellian timing. 

Me neither. I think he’s going to stumble into it, but if attacking Syria wasn’t on the table than he’d find something else to distract the public with.  

8 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

If it did pass, and there was a veto, I do think you might could see an override because Congress might want to show that it is an effective branch of.....oh hell it's not getting out of committee anyhow.

It will get out of committee, but that’s it. It will die amidst the sound and fury of the Senate. McConnell might bring it to the floor, but it will probably get filibustered. If it manages to pass in the Senate, it will absolutely die in the House. And even if by some miracle it passes the House, it will never have enough support to be veto proof.

This is all a show.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Me neither. I think he’s going to stumble into it, but if attacking Syria wasn’t on the table than he’d find something else to distract the public with.  

It will get out of committee, but that’s it. It will die amidst the sound and fury of the Senate. McConnell might bring it to the floor, but it will probably get filibustered. If it manages to pass in the Senate, it will absolutely die in the House. And even if by some miracle it passes the House, it will never have enough support to be veto proof.

This is all a show.

I know   I actually think it might get through the Senate, because the Senate is weird and I think you could put together cloture.  My comment was that Congress continues its steady abandonment of power to the Executive Branch.  I don't see anything stopping that impulse.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yeah, but like I said earlier this is actually kind of good for us. The further down the rabbit hole they go the more they alienate people with basic critical thinking skills. We got lucky that the Right is too stupid to consolidate their power, and the tighter they squeeze the base the more fringe R's they lose.

Except Trump is right there demonstrating the exact issue with this kind of thinking.

Cause the problem is that no matter how bad the other side is, eventually you will lose an election. And if the other party has gone bug-fucking insane by then, well, you get the present situation.

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

If it did pass, and there was a veto, I do think you might could see an override because Congress might want to show that it is an effective branch of.....oh hell it's not getting out of committee anyhow.

It's not getting out of House committee, but Senate chairs don't bring bills to mark-up unless they're going to report them to the floor. The issue that McConnell controls the schedule and can just never bring it up for a vote unless he wants to.

Also, even if Trump was totally innocent and had no plans to fire Mueller whatsoever, he (and almost any President) would still veto this bill because of the perceived threat to executive privilege. And I can't remember the last time Congress seriously pushed back against executive privilege claims.

ETA: One thing I will say with absolutely certainty though is that the bill isn't getting filibustered. If McConnell brings it to the floor it'll definitely have 60+ votes and if he doesn't bring it, it's not because of a potential filibuster it's because he doesn't want to cross Trump.

[Shryke]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Me neither. I think he’s going to stumble into it, but if attacking Syria wasn’t on the table than he’d find something else to distract the public with.  

I think this is a serious mistake in understanding how Trump thinks. Trump does not distract. Trump doesn't think that way, nor plan that strategically. Trump wants attention. Always. But he doesn't try to get attention one way to divert from another thing.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

It's not getting out of House committee, but Senate chairs don't bring bills to mark-up unless they're going to report them to the floor. The issue that McConnell controls the schedule and can just never bring it up for a vote unless he wants to.

Also, even if Trump was totally innocent and had no plans to fire Mueller whatsoever, he (and almost any President) would still veto this bill because of the perceived threat to executive privilege. And I can't remember the last time Congress seriously pushed back against executive privilege claims.

ETA: One thing I will say with absolutely certainty though is that the bill isn't getting filibustered. If McConnell brings it to the floor it'll definitely have 60+ votes and if he doesn't bring it, it's not because of a potential filibuster it's because he doesn't want to cross Trump.

I don't know that Trump has the power to fire Mueller personally.  I am in the he has to go through Sessions and Rosenstein first camp.  So I'm not sure what the bill would really do at the end of the day, depending on how it is worded.  

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Except Trump is right there demonstrating the exact issue with this kind of thinking.

Cause the problem is that no matter how bad the other side is, eventually you will lose an election. And if the other party has gone bug-fucking insane by then, well, you get the present situation.

Donald isn't the disease, and he's not the symptom either.

He's the cause of death.

[Fez]

18 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I don't know that Trump has the power to fire Mueller personally.  I am in the he has to go through Sessions and Rosenstein first camp.  So I'm not sure what the bill would really do at the end of the day, depending on how it is worded.  

I don't believe any proposed legislative text has been released yet, but it sounds like it would set-up an expedited 10-day judicial review process that would allow Mueller to challenge any firing and empower the court to reverse the firing if it determines the firing was not for good cause (I assume through a permanent injunction, but am not clear on that).

I'm actually a bit hazy on the constitutional merits of such a law, but I guess because its an FBI investigation there's no good way to transition him to being an Independent Counsel, a la Ken Starr, instead.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Mass murderers cannot be permitted to inflict their madness on innocents.

Pity we're just as complicit in mass murder of civilians in Yemen, then. 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Better than indulging tyranny.

That's really easy to say when you're not the person getting bombed in order to 'fight tyranny'. 

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

And I can't remember the last time Congress seriously pushed back against executive privilege claims.

The War Powers Act.  Which they've never really enforced.

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm actually a bit hazy on the constitutional merits of such a law, but I guess because its an FBI investigation there's no good way to transition him to being an Independent Counsel, a la Ken Starr, instead.

The Independent Counsel, as established by the 1978 EGA, lapsed in 1999.