Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Isaac Hill » Thu May 11, 2017 12:53 am UTC

I'm not sure if this was a deliberate factor in the timing, but the Comey firing has knocked Sally Yates' testimony from the front page. I've read theories that Trump does outrageous thing X to distract from shitstorm Y, and counter theories that it only looks that way because there's always a shitstorm.

I have mixed feelings about the Comey firing. He does deserve it for his role in raising the profile of the e-mail thing, especialy while saying nothing about the Russia issue. But, he was taking the Russia issue seriously now, and certainly would've been a better person to handle it than whoever Trump appoints to replace him. I guess I'm unhappy that Trump fired him, but happy that he was fired in a very dickish manner.

Thesh wrote:As for this investigation, Spicer literally (literally) hid in the bushes to avoid answering questions on this.
Can you blame him? If I had to answer for the things Trump does, I'd hide in the bushes, too.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu May 11, 2017 12:57 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:I'm not sure if this was a deliberate factor in the timing, but the Comey firing has knocked Sally Yates' testimony from the front page. I've read theories that Trump does outrageous thing X to distract from shitstorm Y, and counter theories that it only looks that way because there's always a shitstorm.

I have mixed feelings about the Comey firing. He does deserve it for his role in raising the profile of the e-mail thing, especialy while saying nothing about the Russia issue. But, he was taking the Russia issue seriously now, and certainly would've been a better person to handle it than whoever Trump appoints to replace him. I guess I'm unhappy that Trump fired him, but happy that he was fired in a very dickish manner.

Thesh wrote:As for this investigation, Spicer literally (literally) hid in the bushes to avoid answering questions on this.
Can you blame him? If I had to answer for the things Trump does, I'd hide in the bushes, too.

I can't believe I'm actually asking this, but this is Spicer we're talking about. Did he hide in the bushes?
PS The Russia issue still hasn't caught fire yet. Most of these investigations take months of slowly grinding away at the issue before the truth comes out. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... -momentum/

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6848
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu May 11, 2017 1:15 am UTC

He hid behind a tall bush, apparently.

I'm also amazed at the language of the letter Trump wrote to fire Comey -- specifically, this bit:
Trump's Letter to Comey wrote:While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
...like, are you serious? Even if Comey did give Trump those reassurances (and I don't think he did), they were almost certainly given privately -- with the presumption that Trump would not proceed to blather about them in public.

Even beyond that, it sounds like something an asshole would write in a public break-up letter: "While I greatly appreciate you telling me on three occasions how amazing I am, this is just not working out."

commodorejohn
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Thu May 11, 2017 2:33 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm also amazed at the language of the letter Trump wrote to fire Comey -- specifically, this bit:
Trump's Letter to Comey wrote:While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.
...like, are you serious? Even if Comey did give Trump those reassurances (and I don't think he did), they were almost certainly given privately -- with the presumption that Trump would not proceed to blather about them in public.

Even beyond that, it sounds like something an asshole would write in a public break-up letter: "While I greatly appreciate you telling me on three occasions how amazing I am, this is just not working out."

The best part? Comey's associates are claiming that's total bupkis. As if it wasn't already obvious from the "LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING YOU ALREADY KNOW FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR VIEWERS AT HOME!!!" phrasing.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu May 11, 2017 3:12 am UTC

Comey should sue for libel.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

jewish_scientist
Posts: 660
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby jewish_scientist » Thu May 11, 2017 12:37 pm UTC

Libel is actual a very difficult crime to prove. My citation is a private conversation with a special agent of the FBI. He did not say why; my guess is that the measurement of damages in a libel case are inherently subjective.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu May 11, 2017 1:19 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Libel is actual a very difficult crime to prove. My citation is a private conversation with a special agent of the FBI. He did not say why; my guess is that the measurement of damages in a libel case are inherently subjective.


In this case I think it would be impossible to prove. How could you ever show that you didn't say something?

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu May 11, 2017 1:28 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:Libel is actual a very difficult crime to prove. My citation is a private conversation with a special agent of the FBI. He did not say why; my guess is that the measurement of damages in a libel case are inherently subjective.


In this case I think it would be impossible to prove. How could you ever show that you didn't say something?

Since Trump is the one claiming Comey said something, presumably it would fall to Trump to prove he said it. Not that Trump should record all conversations he has with people, but he shouldn't publicly make potentially damaging claims about someone without being able to prove them.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu May 11, 2017 1:30 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Overall unfair privilege and other assorted dysfunctions are very much zero-sum, and getting them to zero (i.e., removing all the inequalities in the system) is very much the goal.


In a lot of cases they aren't really zero sum. Take police brutality. Right now white people have significant privilege with regards to say getting stopped and/or killed by police. But there's no reason their situation needs to change if police stop brutalizing black people. It's not like there's some fixed level of police brutality that has to go on and thus as black people become less brutalized white people will somehow become more brutalized.



that is again not actually looking at the variable I talked about.

Police brutality is not zero sum. Like you said, there is no reason why the police would have to pressure white people if they ease off black people.

The imbalance in how police treat white people vs black people is absolutely zero sum, by definition. It's a comparison. It's either tilted to one side, or the racial bias is removed and the balance is at zero.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu May 11, 2017 2:00 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wi ... s-in-2018/
Is being anti Trump enough Democrats to run on? Short answer is yes for 2018, long answer is no for 2020.
Do Democrats need white working class voters?
Claire Malone They need a message that appeals to all working-class voters. We touched on this a little bit last chat (I think — they’re starting to blur), but Democrats need a front-and-center message that is hard-core populist economics (or at least rhetorically), appeals to white, black and Latino voters, and puts identity politics on the back burner a little.

That’s the real talk. It’s not that Democrats need to get rid of talking about identity politics — which is what people always read — but it’s an emphasis thing.

perry: The PPRI study suggests that it’s not that Democrats talked about Black Lives Matter too much, but that Trump talked about the problems of illegal immigration just enough.

This is where the Bernie Sanders approach falls apart, to me.

If the issue is not Democrats talking about race too much, but that Republicans have found cultural issues that work or them, that’s a more complicated issue. How do Democrats appeal to white-working class people worried about cultural issues/the growing diversity of the country, etc?
That is what PPRI was highlighting.

There's other interesting Campaign tips like, cable journalists are terrible and need to push back against 'mainstream media'. I agree that Democrats aren't inclined to conspiracy theories right now, but being out of power has a way of changing your thinking towards paranoia.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: Trump presidency

Postby orthogon » Thu May 11, 2017 2:12 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Chen wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:Libel is actual a very difficult crime to prove. My citation is a private conversation with a special agent of the FBI. He did not say why; my guess is that the measurement of damages in a libel case are inherently subjective.


In this case I think it would be impossible to prove. How could you ever show that you didn't say something?

Since Trump is the one claiming Comey said something, presumably it would fall to Trump to prove he said it. Not that Trump should record all conversations he has with people, but he shouldn't publicly make potentially damaging claims about someone without being able to prove them.

I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading that that's not how it works. When you bring a civil suit against your alleged libeler, that makes you the plaintiff and the burden of proof is on you, not the defendant. It's a peculiarity of the nature of libel that the alleged libel might itself have been an accusation of wrongdoing. So, although it feels that the "innocent until proven guilty" principle should apply to the initially accused party, that accusation took place outside the judicial system and the principle doesn't apply. You're the one making the accusation in court and you have to prove it.

(The thing I read was probably talking about English law)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Aiwendil
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Aiwendil » Thu May 11, 2017 2:12 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Chen wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:Libel is actual a very difficult crime to prove. My citation is a private conversation with a special agent of the FBI. He did not say why; my guess is that the measurement of damages in a libel case are inherently subjective.


In this case I think it would be impossible to prove. How could you ever show that you didn't say something?

Since Trump is the one claiming Comey said something, presumably it would fall to Trump to prove he said it. Not that Trump should record all conversations he has with people, but he shouldn't publicly make potentially damaging claims about someone without being able to prove them.


No, the burden of proof is on the side claiming that a crime took place. There is still presumption of innocence, even for someone as ridiculously non-innocent as Trump.

Mutex
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu May 11, 2017 2:17 pm UTC

Does that mean I can publicly allege someone cheated on their partner, and they'd have to prove they didn't cheat on their partner to be able to press libel charges against me?

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Thu May 11, 2017 2:52 pm UTC

Aiwendil wrote:No, the burden of proof is on the side claiming that a crime took place. There is still presumption of innocence, even for someone as ridiculously non-innocent as Trump.
In a civil suit, neither side is claiming that a crime took place.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu May 11, 2017 3:03 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Since Trump is the one claiming Comey said something, presumably it would fall to Trump to prove he said it. Not that Trump should record all conversations he has with people, but he shouldn't publicly make potentially damaging claims about someone without being able to prove them.


Yeah you're correct from what I can see from a quick Wiki search. Trump would have to use an affirmative defense of "its the truth" against a libel charge. Now that said, I think you'd need to show that the statement in question caused the harm to the person's reputation in the first place. Considering the whole firing part probably had a worse impact on their reputation it'd be hard to actually show that one lie (assuming it is one) caused specific harm.

elasto
Posts: 3107
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Thu May 11, 2017 6:13 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Now that said, I think you'd need to show that the statement in question caused the harm to the person's reputation in the first place. Considering the whole firing part probably had a worse impact on their reputation it'd be hard to actually show that one lie (assuming it is one) caused specific harm.

Besides which, being fired by Trump might not harm his reputation one jot. Might in fact achieve the opposite.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6848
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu May 11, 2017 7:46 pm UTC

I made the mistake of watching Fox News in the aftermath of the Comey firing. Specifically, Carl Tucker (I tried Hannity, but I couldn't get past the image of his incredibly punchable face).

Rather than discussing the actual story (a President has just fired the director of the FBI while the director was investigating his campaign), pretty much all the coverage either 1) Ignored the story, or 2) Acted as if the real story was everyone's overreaction to the story. Then, I watched a handful (like, no more than six, I think?) of Republican leaders "criticize" the President's decision. I put the word "criticize" in quotes, there, because their criticisms amounted to the mewling noise kittens make when you take away their bowl of cream. Only, y'know --less adorable.

I don't consider myself very partisan (at best, I'm probably... apolitical?), but Jesus-fucking-Christ, the widespread failure of Republicans to actively oppose the fascist man-baby that's taken control of their party is actively eroding what trifling amount of respect I ever had for Republican politicians. Like, it's getting to the point where I can't even imagine casting a vote for a Republican candidate who agrees with all my political views. I mean, why would any sane, reasonable, thoughtful person want to identify with a party run mostly by ignorant cowards?

I keep waiting for Trump to do something so awful that everyone stops, sighs, and says, "Okay, real-talk, we can't support this nonsense anymore, we're done". It's not happening. At this point, I'm pretty sure Trump could nominate Ivanka for the FBI director position and Fox News would justify it, Republicans would defend it, and Trump's core demographic would buy it.

The Presidency is now a fucking reality TV show. And the most galling part? It's not like this was unexpected. You voted for Donald Trump. How the fuck did you think this was going to play out?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu May 11, 2017 8:04 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I made the mistake of watching Fox News in the aftermath of the Comey firing. Specifically, Carl Tucker (I tried Hannity, but I couldn't get past the image of his incredibly punchable face).

Rather than discussing the actual story (a President has just fired the director of the FBI while the director was investigating his campaign), pretty much all the coverage either 1) Ignored the story, or 2) Acted as if the real story was everyone's overreaction to the story. Then, I watched a handful (like, no more than six, I think?) of Republican leaders "criticize" the President's decision. I put the word "criticize" in quotes, there, because their criticisms amounted to the mewling noise kittens make when you take away their bowl of cream. Only, y'know --less adorable.

I don't consider myself very partisan (at best, I'm probably... apolitical?), but Jesus-fucking-Christ, the widespread failure of the Republican party to actively oppose the fascist man-baby that's taken control of their party is actively eroding what trifling amount of respect I ever had for Republican politicians. Like, it's getting to the point where I can't even imagine casting a vote for a Republican candidate who agrees with all my political views. I mean, why would any sane, reasonable, thoughtful person want to identify with a party run mostly by ignorant cowards?

I keep waiting for Trump to do something so awful that everyone stops, sighs, and says, "Okay, real-talk, we can't support this nonsense anymore, we're done". It's not happening. At this point, I'm pretty sure Trump could nominate Ivanka for the FBI director position and Fox News would justify it, Republicans would defend it, and Trump's core demographic would buy it.

The Presidency is now a fucking reality TV show. And the most galling part? It's not like this was unexpected. You voted for Donald Trump. How the fuck did you think this was going to play out?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ion-meter/
This should give you an idea of how badly others react to Trump. This is around level 4 right now. Democrats, media, some Republicans, and some bureaucracy. If you want to see Republicans run for the hills, you need to throw in the courts or have the public weigh in negatively.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 11, 2017 8:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The Presidency is now a fucking reality TV show. And the most galling part? It's not like this was unexpected. You voted for Donald Trump. How the fuck did you think this was going to play out?


Honestly, it seems to be what a lot of Trump supporters want. I don't see anything here that would make a Trump supporter distrust Trump. Comey was basically universally hated late last year, so he is a reasonably safe target to fire... within the Trump-sphere anyway. A lot of this Comey controversy is seen as "Drain the Swamp" as far as I can tell. Trump supporters are happy about this.

In other news: Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee is clearly "better" at the job than Sean Spicer. However, while I had some degree of trust in Spicer (he would admit mistakes to some degree. And although he was combative, it was clear that he was doing his best to deliver the insane messages from the President honestly)... Sarah Huckabee spits out half-truths and outrageous lies with such calm demeanor that I just don't trust her.

A shame too: based on recent days with Huckabee leading the press conferences, I think Spicer is about to get canned from his job. Its a hard job: to be the messenger of Trump and actually try to offer reasons to the awaiting Press Corps.

In any case, Sarah Huckabee is clearly more comfortable with these lies and half-truths. Spicer was vulnerable there and would get visibly agitated when pressed on the contradictions and general insanity of the President. (Aka: like a normal person should). I mean, I guess Spicer still delivered half-truths and outright lies. But it seemed to me that he was a bit uncomfortable at doing that.

sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-trump-opposition-meter/
This should give you an idea of how badly others react to Trump. This is around level 4 right now. Democrats, media, some Republicans, and some bureaucracy. If you want to see Republicans run for the hills, you need to throw in the courts or have the public weigh in negatively.


IMO, that link seems to overstate opposition to Trump from the Republican side. There's fewer than 5 Republican Senators who regularly "oppose" Trump, and most of the time the quotes go either to Senator Graham or McCain. Freedom Caucus doesn't oppose Trump at all. They're just a sub-bloc of the Republicans.

Historically speaking, bureaucrats pride themselves in being non-partisan and "above the fold". Not that they've succeeded in recent days mind you (ie: Comey became increasingly partisan. And now Rod Rosenstein has his name on the Partisan list), but that's what they try to do. So its unlikely that bureaucrats would play a role in the next election... mostly because they don't want to. Besides, the US President can sign a new executive order, fire bureaucrats, and otherwise get the system working to his liking. The bureaucrats are going to be Pro-President by force.

If anybody disagrees with Trump, they're at risk of being fired. That's the way Trump is running the system now.

----

The only real question is if Progressives can actually catalyze their anger and actually affect an election for once. I don't want to see another repeat of "Occupy Wall Street" (which was followed by a historic landslide towards Republicans getting elected in Congress in 2012). If the liberals are unable to organize and mount an effective campaign in 2018, then its all for naught.

March for Women, March for Science... tons of protests at town-hall meetings... clearly there's some energy here. But the question is if it can be tapped and actually turn into a win.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6848
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu May 11, 2017 11:37 pm UTC

And just in case anyone was wondering if Trump was going to bother standing behind the ridiculously transparent justification erected by his spin-team -- that Comey was fired based on Rosenstein's recommendation -- he took time to clarify that no, he wouldn't. Trump makes it clear that he intended to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein's recommendation.

With just a few words, he has obliterated all the work his people put into trying to polish this turd. His incompetence is so staggering it's bordering on magnificence.

It's like performance art. Performance art with terrifying consequences.

Aiwendil
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Aiwendil » Fri May 12, 2017 1:26 am UTC

K-R wrote:
Aiwendil wrote:No, the burden of proof is on the side claiming that a crime took place. There is still presumption of innocence, even for someone as ridiculously non-innocent as Trump.
In a civil suit, neither side is claiming that a crime took place.


Perhaps I should have said "a breach of the law".

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri May 12, 2017 2:52 am UTC

Well, Trump admitted that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, and it had nothing to do with the recommendation. If Democrats take the Senate, they should be able to impeach him for obstruction of justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’


“I was going to fire Comey,” Trump told Holt. “Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.”
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri May 12, 2017 3:26 am UTC

The House impeaches (brings charges) and the Senate convicts, but yeah.

I'm sure there are very talented people cataloging everything and building their cases, but the rushing from one mini-crisis to the next, getting whiplash from the back and forth conflicting statements from the White House staff, and Trump's own statements make it a hell of a thing to pay attention to and keep together a solid narrative for an average citizen.* The House doesn't need actual crimes to impeach a president, just a dereliction of duty, or whatever they deem to be beyond the pale.

*we could debate forever how intentional all that is
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri May 12, 2017 3:31 am UTC

I knew that, too.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri May 12, 2017 4:08 am UTC

Liri wrote:The House impeaches (brings charges) and the Senate convicts, but yeah.

I'm sure there are very talented people cataloging everything and building their cases, but the rushing from one mini-crisis to the next, getting whiplash from the back and forth conflicting statements from the White House staff, and Trump's own statements make it a hell of a thing to pay attention to and keep together a solid narrative for an average citizen.* The House doesn't need actual crimes to impeach a president, just a dereliction of duty, or whatever they deem to be beyond the pale.

*we could debate forever how intentional all that is

Bipartisan impeachment is hard, think Nixon. He had to do cartoonishly illegal things before he was impeached/preemptive resignation. The partisan impeachment is much easier to start, but it's really hard to get 2/3ds of the Senate to swing Democratic. Remember, even Obama's wave election only got him to 60. Impeachment needs 67.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri May 12, 2017 4:37 am UTC

Just get Trump to testify under oath. Odds are he's going to lie, and then you can re-impeach bringing perjury charges against him over and over until they cave in.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri May 12, 2017 7:38 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Just get Trump to testify under oath. Odds are he's going to lie, and then you can re-impeach bringing perjury charges against him over and over until they cave in.


Why would a Republican majority in two houses shit on their own President?

Hell, for all the noise that McCain and Graham have been making, it makes no inroads towards the general Republican population. There are a fair number of well-respected senior Republicans who have not liked what Trump has been doing, but its clear that the overall Republican Party is too weak and distrusted by its own members to really influence the caucus as a whole.

Realistically, the Democrats are going to have to come into power before there's a chance. And 2018 is statistically against the Democrats IIRC (more Democrats up for reelection than Republicans in the Senate).

With all of the comparisons to Nixon, people seem to be forgetting that Watergate happened on 1972, while Nixon wasn't impeached until 1974. And that was with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate to initiate the process. Especially since Mitch McConnell is blocking the effort to get a special prosecutor, I don't see anything that would cause the greater Republicans to turn against Trump.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri May 12, 2017 7:51 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri May 12, 2017 7:50 am UTC

I was talking about what Democrats would need to convict if they gained control in 2018 without 2/3rds support. Plus, it was a joke.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri May 12, 2017 7:53 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Plus, it was a joke.


Hard to tell sometimes, since that approach was basically what was done to Clinton in the 90s.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri May 12, 2017 11:49 am UTC

sardia wrote:Bipartisan impeachment is hard, think Nixon. He had to do cartoonishly illegal things before he was impeached/preemptive resignation. The partisan impeachment is much easier to start, but it's really hard to get 2/3ds of the Senate to swing Democratic. Remember, even Obama's wave election only got him to 60. Impeachment needs 67.


Not only cartoonishly illegal, but directly caught on tape to boot. Prior to that one tape that basically amounted to admitting he was obstructing justice, Nixon still had some support in the house and senate (I don't know details but presumably enough to at least fight an impeachment).

Realistically now, the thing that will get Trump impeached, if anything, will be the results of the Russia investigation. If they can show he did knowingly act with the Russians in any way, that will get bi-partisan support to impeach him. Granted he's also unpredictable so there might be some all new thing that comes up that ends up being beyond the pale too. But with known issues, the Russia one is the best bet for impeachment.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri May 12, 2017 2:48 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Realistically now, the thing that will get Trump impeached, if anything, will be the results of the Russia investigation. If they can show he did knowingly act with the Russians in any way, that will get bi-partisan support to impeach him. Granted he's also unpredictable so there might be some all new thing that comes up that ends up being beyond the pale too. But with known issues, the Russia one is the best bet for impeachment.


There's a serious chance that Trump was just a dumbass through the election, and didn't directly work with Russia. Honestly, the moves he has been doing demonstrates how cartoonishly inept he is at this whole Politics thing. EDIT: Well, with respect to getting things done in Washington anyway. I guess he's good at drumming up support of his Name / Brand.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri May 12, 2017 3:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri May 12, 2017 2:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Chen wrote:Realistically now, the thing that will get Trump impeached, if anything, will be the results of the Russia investigation. If they can show he did knowingly act with the Russians in any way, that will get bi-partisan support to impeach him. Granted he's also unpredictable so there might be some all new thing that comes up that ends up being beyond the pale too. But with known issues, the Russia one is the best bet for impeachment.


There's a serious chance that Trump was just a dumbass through the election, and didn't directly work with Russia. Honestly, the moves he has been doing demonstrates how cartoonishly inept he is at this whole Politics thing.

You might be able to get him a la Bill Clinton impeachment. They investigated him for something that didn't pan out, but Clinton ended up lying which got him impeached for Monica Lewinsky. Trump is doing that right now, covering up what may be nothing​. The Republicans are defending him and preventing​ things from getting worse so it's still very unlikely.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri May 12, 2017 3:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Chen wrote:Realistically now, the thing that will get Trump impeached, if anything, will be the results of the Russia investigation. If they can show he did knowingly act with the Russians in any way, that will get bi-partisan support to impeach him. Granted he's also unpredictable so there might be some all new thing that comes up that ends up being beyond the pale too. But with known issues, the Russia one is the best bet for impeachment.


There's a serious chance that Trump was just a dumbass through the election, and didn't directly work with Russia. Honestly, the moves he has been doing demonstrates how cartoonishly inept he is at this whole Politics thing.

You might be able to get him a la Bill Clinton impeachment. They investigated him for something that didn't pan out, but Clinton ended up lying which got him impeached for Monica Lewinsky. Trump is doing that right now, covering up what may be nothing​. The Republicans are defending him and preventing​ things from getting worse so it's still very unlikely.


But Impeachment doesn't mean jack diddly shit. It only matters if the Senate moves to remove Trump from Office. Democrats didn't really care that Clinton was "only" impeached, Republicans won't care if Trump is "only" impeached.

---------

All in all, a huge number of Trump supporters voted him in to cause controversy in Washington. So they're seeing this whole event as a huge success on Trump's part. Trump isn't going to be losing any of his core supporters as far as I can tell. If the goal is to remove Trump from office, it will likely be done in 2020 if Democrats can field a strong-enough candidate to beat him to the White House.

Until then, Trump basically has free reign to fuck over traditions, Washington DC's Ethics and everything. Just as his supporters want him to do. Because as long as Trump has the support of his rather large core group of supporters (over 30% of the population), the other Republicans don't have political motivation to go against him. So I'm not seeing how Trump gets to 67 votes against him in the Senate, with 52 Republican Senators sitting at the table.

I mean, I'm pissed about this whole event and stuff. But apparently, my opinion doesn't matter. Trump's approval rating has held steady throughout his entire term so far. There's basically nothing I see him doing that could make him lose his supporters.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri May 12, 2017 3:10 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Realistically now, the thing that will get Trump impeached, if anything, will be the results of the Russia investigation. If they can show he did knowingly act with the Russians in any way, that will get bi-partisan support to impeach him. Granted he's also unpredictable so there might be some all new thing that comes up that ends up being beyond the pale too. But with known issues, the Russia one is the best bet for impeachment.


It seems highly unlikely at this point.

Even if the FBI finds evidence that someone on the Trump campaign was in contact with the Russians, they would have to show clear evidence that it was collusion. It's not enough to show that they had contact with Russians - it's not even enough to show that they knew Russia was up to something - they have to show actual collaboration. Either that they asked Russia to do the things, or that Russia offered and they accepted. If all they find is that Russia said "Hey, we have dirt on Hillary Clinton!" and someone on team Trump says "Hey, be a shame if that leaked..." that isn't necessarily going to be enough to make a criminal case. If they find out that members of the Trump campaign were lying about contact with Russia, that might result in criminal charges related to the lying - but that's a different matter.

And frankly, even if they do have enough to build a case, the chances of any of it being linked to Trump personally are practically nil. The man is a jackass, but he's not actually stupid. At most, some member of team Trump takes the fall, and Trump expresses outrage and disappointment while at the same time ensuring everybody that he, of course, had no knowledge of this terrible thing. The fall guy will get fired, maybe face criminal charges, but the result with either be a slap on the wrist or a pardon once people aren't paying attention anymore.

Trump isn't going to be impeached because someone on his team - again, completely behind his back and without his knowledge, and he's really upset about it! - colluded with Russia. It'd do some serious damage to his already terrible approval numbers, and it'd do some serious damage to his ability to get anything done - but impeachment? No... not unless there is some really damning and indisputable proof that he was involved.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri May 12, 2017 3:27 pm UTC

And to continue with the Nixon comparisons... http://nypost.com/2017/05/12/trump-hint ... eview=true

Also, obstruction of justice much?
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri May 12, 2017 3:31 pm UTC

cphite wrote:It seems highly unlikely at this point.

Even if the FBI finds evidence that someone on the Trump campaign was in contact with the Russians, they would have to show clear evidence that it was collusion. It's not enough to show that they had contact with Russians - it's not even enough to show that they knew Russia was up to something - they have to show actual collaboration. Either that they asked Russia to do the things, or that Russia offered and they accepted. If all they find is that Russia said "Hey, we have dirt on Hillary Clinton!" and someone on team Trump says "Hey, be a shame if that leaked..." that isn't necessarily going to be enough to make a criminal case. If they find out that members of the Trump campaign were lying about contact with Russia, that might result in criminal charges related to the lying - but that's a different matter.

And frankly, even if they do have enough to build a case, the chances of any of it being linked to Trump personally are practically nil. The man is a jackass, but he's not actually stupid. At most, some member of team Trump takes the fall, and Trump expresses outrage and disappointment while at the same time ensuring everybody that he, of course, had no knowledge of this terrible thing. The fall guy will get fired, maybe face criminal charges, but the result with either be a slap on the wrist or a pardon once people aren't paying attention anymore.

Trump isn't going to be impeached because someone on his team - again, completely behind his back and without his knowledge, and he's really upset about it! - colluded with Russia. It'd do some serious damage to his already terrible approval numbers, and it'd do some serious damage to his ability to get anything done - but impeachment? No... not unless there is some really damning and indisputable proof that he was involved.


I agree with pretty much all of this. My point was more the only feasible path towards him getting impeached would be if he directly came up in the investigation about Russia. I also kinda doubt he did directly do anything. Hell I'm not sure his team would actually bring him in on it if THEY did do something.

Ironically, as sardia mentioned, he may be getting himself into MORE trouble trying to get this investigation thing stopped, presuming he's not actually guilty of anything. If he didn't have any direct involvement or knowledge of it, it's probably better for him to stop doing anything about this and just scapegoat the eventually guilty party (if there even is one). Of course if he really IS guilty of some collusion there, I guess it makes sense to keep trying to stymie the investigation.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Fri May 12, 2017 4:04 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:And to continue with the Nixon comparisons... http://nypost.com/2017/05/12/trump-hint ... eview=true

Also, obstruction of justice much?

"Trump asked Comey for his loyalty at the dinner. Comey reportedly replied that he would offer his honesty."

If true, that line sounds like it's strait out of a movie. The honest ones never seem to live long in those films though...
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri May 12, 2017 4:40 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
cphite wrote:It seems highly unlikely at this point.

Even if the FBI finds evidence that someone on the Trump campaign was in contact with the Russians, they would have to show clear evidence that it was collusion. It's not enough to show that they had contact with Russians - it's not even enough to show that they knew Russia was up to something - they have to show actual collaboration. Either that they asked Russia to do the things, or that Russia offered and they accepted. If all they find is that Russia said "Hey, we have dirt on Hillary Clinton!" and someone on team Trump says "Hey, be a shame if that leaked..." that isn't necessarily going to be enough to make a criminal case. If they find out that members of the Trump campaign were lying about contact with Russia, that might result in criminal charges related to the lying - but that's a different matter.

And frankly, even if they do have enough to build a case, the chances of any of it being linked to Trump personally are practically nil. The man is a jackass, but he's not actually stupid. At most, some member of team Trump takes the fall, and Trump expresses outrage and disappointment while at the same time ensuring everybody that he, of course, had no knowledge of this terrible thing. The fall guy will get fired, maybe face criminal charges, but the result with either be a slap on the wrist or a pardon once people aren't paying attention anymore.

Trump isn't going to be impeached because someone on his team - again, completely behind his back and without his knowledge, and he's really upset about it! - colluded with Russia. It'd do some serious damage to his already terrible approval numbers, and it'd do some serious damage to his ability to get anything done - but impeachment? No... not unless there is some really damning and indisputable proof that he was involved.


I agree with pretty much all of this. My point was more the only feasible path towards him getting impeached would be if he directly came up in the investigation about Russia. I also kinda doubt he did directly do anything. Hell I'm not sure his team would actually bring him in on it if THEY did do something.

Ironically, as sardia mentioned, he may be getting himself into MORE trouble trying to get this investigation thing stopped, presuming he's not actually guilty of anything. If he didn't have any direct involvement or knowledge of it, it's probably better for him to stop doing anything about this and just scapegoat the eventually guilty party (if there even is one). Of course if he really IS guilty of some collusion there, I guess it makes sense to keep trying to stymie the investigation.


It's also entirely possible that he really did fire Comey because he thinks Comey was doing a lousy job, and that he's just too politically clueless to understand why the timing looks awful.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6848
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri May 12, 2017 4:46 pm UTC

It seems very likely that he fired Comey because he didn't like the attention Comey was getting (he called him a "showboater"), blamed him for the Russian investigation, and was angry over Comey dismissing the wiretap claim.

In all likelihood, Trump fired Comey because he's a petty, shortsighted dumbass. That's it; there's not much else to it.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Koa » Fri May 12, 2017 4:47 pm UTC

NYT reported that Comey requested additional resources for the investigation days before being fired, but in the open senate hearing McCabe clearly stated more than once that they had adequate resources. So for me it mostly comes down to what Trump said in the interview that he asked Comey if he was under investigation. It would be a funny ad hoc lie in order to explain the petty message slipped to the public in the letter.
Last edited by Koa on Fri May 12, 2017 5:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests