Acosta's "attitude" towards Trump is NOT the issue. The issue is his official spokeswoman flat-out accused him of assaulting the woman who tried to take his microphone. And all due respect to @Grond0, but even the phrase "watch for yourself and decide" is playing into their alternative reality. The only conclusion one can come to after watching that video is that what Sarah Sanders said was a flat-out lie because that is what the objective reality is as sure as the sun rises in the East. It isn't up to the opinion of the individual viewer, it's a stone-cold fact that he didn't do what she said he did. If someone just decided their opinion was that 2+2=5, no would respect that, we'd just say they were wrong. No one who isn't hallucinating on drugs can possibly conclude Acosta "put his hands" on that woman. As he asks his question, and she tries to rip the microphone from his hand, he even politely says "pardon me, ma'am." She grabbed him.
Also, let's once again stop to gaze in absolute wonder at the fact that the leader of a political movement that is founded on the idea that the left is too sensitive has the thinnest skin in the known-world, to the point where if he is asked any critical question he becomes an infantile crybaby that would make any toddler blush in embarrassment. And he has distorted the reality of such a large part of the public that now even videotape isn't sufficient evidence to prove whether something did or did not happen. The issue itself may seem trivial, but the warped reality it represents is the real danger.
@jjstraka34 given I said in my earlier post the reason for banning was a lie, my view was clear. However, I disagree that asking people to decide for themselves is playing into an alternate reality. Even though I don't have a political stance, I do have an obvious anti-Trump stance and people might take that into account when assessing the reliability of my statements about him - and the same will apply to you.
I think the only way to get around such pre-conceptions about bias is to present evidence. I agree with you that it's not really possible to look at that video and conclude the reporter was in some way abusing the intern. If others also agree, then that confirms Sanders is lying about why the reporter was banned. I suspect I have less tolerance for lying in politics than the average person, but nevertheless I think many people who generally support Trump's policies will not support his continual lies - presenting evidence about those will therefore be helpful in the long term.
@jjstraka34 given I said in my earlier post the reason for banning was a lie, my view was clear. However, I disagree that asking people to decide for themselves is playing into an alternate reality. Even though I don't have a political stance, I do have an obvious anti-Trump stance and people might take that into account when assessing the reliability of my statements about him - and the same will apply to you.
I think the only way to get around such pre-conceptions about bias is to present evidence. I agree with you that it's not really possible to look at that video and conclude the reporter was in some way abusing the intern. If others also agree, then that confirms Sanders is lying about why the reporter was banned. I suspect I have less tolerance for lying in politics than the average person, but nevertheless I think many people who generally support Trump's policies will not support his continual lies - presenting evidence about those will therefore be helpful in the long term.
I know where you stand of course, I am simply mystified how anyone could look at that video and come to any other conclusion.
@jjstraka34 given I said in my earlier post the reason for banning was a lie, my view was clear. However, I disagree that asking people to decide for themselves is playing into an alternate reality. Even though I don't have a political stance, I do have an obvious anti-Trump stance and people might take that into account when assessing the reliability of my statements about him - and the same will apply to you.
I think the only way to get around such pre-conceptions about bias is to present evidence. I agree with you that it's not really possible to look at that video and conclude the reporter was in some way abusing the intern. If others also agree, then that confirms Sanders is lying about why the reporter was banned. I suspect I have less tolerance for lying in politics than the average person, but nevertheless I think many people who generally support Trump's policies will not support his continual lies - presenting evidence about those will therefore be helpful in the long term.
I know where you stand of course, I am simply mystified how anyone could look at that video and come to any other conclusion.
Indeed, but it is important to look at the original evidence. If you didn't have prior experience of this administration you would find it hard to credit that they would try and back up a blatant lie by releasing a doctored video in 'support' of their allegation. Given that prior experience though, I suppose doing that is really not much of a surprise - this article has a link to Sanders' Twitter feed with the dodgy video.
I used the word 'adapting' not 'imitating'. I never said they were the same, nor implied it.
I'm not going to argue semantics. You said it was "adapted" from an existing "framework" (The House of Commons is somewhat similar, but the House of Lords is totally and completely different), and you specifically compared the two.
All the while, that does nothing to refute the assertion that the Senate was proposed (mostly) by someone who owned slaves, was representing a slave owning state, and which very directly benefited states that supported slavery. A refutation that seemed (to me) to be the purpose of your post when you said that the "senate being some sinister slave state plot is hilarious".
It was also states like Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and New Hampshire that were worried about being ignored, not only the slave states. The slave states were some of the largest and most powerful back then (Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas).
300+ protests Nationwide. Needless to say, bigger crowds than Trump has ever drawn.
*shrug* So what? The protests won't change anything and they aren't even really necessary--the Democrats will control the House in January. Even if Whitaker fires Mueller today the House will simply re-hire him independently and restart things at that time--problem solved.
I am not saying "don't protest", only that these particular protests are irrelevant. If Trump is as stubborn as suggested and he feels that he is above the law, do you seriously think some protests against him are going to worry him?
On a somewhat related note...I wonder how many times the House will impeach Trump? Technically, there is no limit to the number of times someone may be impeached but after four or five times won't people start to think "enough is enough"? Every minute spent impeaching Trump is a minute not being spent protecting the ACA, establishing DACA into law, and so on. Still, a symbolic victory is a symbolic victory and I suppose that for some people that will have to suffice.
I am not saying "don't protest", only that these particular protests are irrelevant. If Trump is as stubborn as suggested and he feels that he is above the law, do you seriously think some protests against him are going to worry him?
Well, it does seem he is mostly worried about everybody liking him so perhaps...
I wouldn't say that protesting is irrelevant just because the Democrats in the House will restart the investigation anyway. First off, the people sending a signal of what the political culture should be matters. Secondly, the larger the public pressure the likely for some Republicans to defect and take the matter seriously.
Kavanaugh's FBI investigation was intentionally limited by the White House. It was reported and Director Wray testified about the limited scope at the direction of the White House.
No interviews were done with the accuser or the two people that were allegedly there for example. They didn't even interview anyone about the third victim. They basically worked backwards from the conclusion they wanted. They weren't allowed to investigate areas that might have turned up evidence.
Trump installed Whitaker to do the same thing with the Russia probe. He was brought on to end the probe ASAP.
He will have Mueller issue a report on areas that Trump didn't commit crimes. Anything that doesn't support that narrative will be removed from the report that goes first to Whitaker. Anything criminal will be removed or classified. Trump is obviously in this too deep to allow a fair investigation.
Then Trump will declare himself totally innocent based on that sham report. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart et al then go on about how Trump was treated so unfairly and he was totally innocent.
This is the playbook. We the people can't let him get away with this alternative reality. What can we do? First things first....
Civil rights movement, ending Vietnam, women's sufferage.
These things all happened when asses got off the couch into the streets.
It's go time again.
Those were actual things which were serious and had no foreseeable end in sight. There is a built-in time frame here--the Democrats control the House in January, as I already noted. Sessions being fired is irrelevant; Mueller being fired is also now irrelevant because the problem will be solved through proper channels soon enough. This is a molehill, not a mountain. That being said, if you really feel like taking to the streets then don't let me dissuade you.
edit/add: two Kavanaugh accusers have since come out and recanted their stories as being pure fabrication. It is time to let that issue go given that those false accusers, who had no proof, have set back *real* victims of assault by a decade. That will be all I have to say on that subject.
I thought that the Mueller investigation would be able to finally set this issue to rest on the grounds that it was a truly independent investigation, unaffected by political pressures. I am not so sure anymore--Whitaker is in a prime position to sabotage it, and it is absolutely no coincidence that Trump has appointed a man who has criticized the investigation just hours after the Democratic party achieved a majority in the House.
If we find out that Whitaker is indeed trying to protect Trump from the investigation, the Democrats may well have no choice but to continue the investigation themselves. If Trump is willing to use presidential power to crack down on federal investigations into his own activities, we cannot rely on federal authorities to be able to handle these issues independently.
The Mueller probe alone will not be enough to settle the issue if it is being obstructed.
If we find out that Whitaker is indeed trying to protect Trump from the investigation, the Democrats may well have no choice but to continue the investigation themselves. If Trump is willing to use presidential power to crack down on federal investigations into his own activities, we cannot rely on federal authorities to be able to handle these issues independently.
Exactly. There won't be anything Trump can do about a House-launched investigation, which will most likely be conducted by the FBI, and the FBI, as an organization, is definitely no friend of Trump's. As noted--problem already solved.
Now that I think about it, Trump's motives for installing Whitaker are even more obvious in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings. His administration successfully shielded Kavanaugh from scrutiny during an FBI investigation by putting Kavanaugh allies in charge of the investigation and deliberately limiting its scope. That episode taught Trump that he can halt an investigation if he puts his friends in charge.
Sure enough, weeks later, he's trying to do the exact same thing to the Mueller probe.
I think I'll make a prediction: Whitaker is going to take concrete action to
1. Stop the investigation from delivering findings on certain issues 2. Classify all or part of the FBI's findings or delay its release 3. Remove certain people from the investigation who do not speak out in defense of Trump 4. Force the FBI to report on unrelated allegations of which Trump is innocent, switching focus away from any findings that implicate Trump 5. Change the text of the FBI's findings
I think I'll make a prediction: Whitaker is going to take concrete action to
1. Stop the investigation from delivering findings on certain issues 2. Classify all or part of the FBI's findings or delay its release 3. Remove certain people from the investigation who do not speak out in defense of Trump 4. Force the FBI to report on unrelated allegations of which Trump is innocent, switching focus away from any findings that implicate Trump 5. Change the text of the FBI's findings
AND/OR
6. Completely shut down the investigation.
My money's on #6 and I'm going all in! Anybody dare to call?
Of course he will. And then when Democrats start it up again, all he has to do is scream "partisan witch hunt". He wants to change the playing field from Mueller to the Democratic House, which he can ostensibly more credibly accuse of being biased against him.
It's not even clear that installing Whitaker instead of having Rosenstein take over is even LEGAL. Rosenstein is the next in line, and Whitaker has not been confirmed by the Senate. He fires Sessions, and then installs his own loyalist in the Justice Department to take the reigns in a lame duck session less than 24 hours after the election?? Are you kidding me??
Everyone in this forum who is of the conservative or even centrist mindset knows goddamn well if Hillary Clinton had ever done something even remotely like this if she was in office that they would be calling for her head and impeachment. Flat-out, without question, that is what would be happening right now. The pass Trump gets time after time after time just because his innate corruption is so accepted at this point is honestly getting kind of pathetic.
It's becoming clear to me as time goes on that Nixon was simply born in the wrong century. If he was President today, he would have gotten away with EVERYTHING.
This was probably planned a long time in advance. Doing it after the election just meant that it couldn't affect the chances of the GOP retain control of Congress. The political damage is minimized if you do it after people have already cast their vote.
I think I'll make a prediction: Whitaker is going to take concrete action to
1. Stop the investigation from delivering findings on certain issues 2. Classify all or part of the FBI's findings or delay its release 3. Remove certain people from the investigation who do not speak out in defense of Trump 4. Force the FBI to report on unrelated allegations of which Trump is innocent, switching focus away from any findings that implicate Trump 5. Change the text of the FBI's findings
AND/OR
6. Completely shut down the investigation.
This is the plan. It's in motion. If the House opens an investigation in two months Trump will cry about open borders Democrats partisan witch hunt and continue to obstruct. He will pardon witnesses as needed because 'partisan witch hunt' and use his judges and loyalists to do the rest.
I thought that the Mueller investigation would be able to finally set this issue to rest on the grounds that it was a truly independent investigation, unaffected by political pressures. I am not so sure anymore--Whitaker is in a prime position to sabotage it, and it is absolutely no coincidence that Trump has appointed a man who has criticized the investigation just hours after the Democratic party achieved a majority in the House.
The Mueller investigation would have been able to finally set this issue to rest if it was an independent investigation. Trump has obstructed the investigation repeatedly on Twitter and now concretely in real life. We have our answer, he did crimes. He is trying to get away with it. The investigation was not allowed to proceed unobstructed from political interference.
The day after Whitaker is installed multiple sources are reporting that Mueller is writing his final report. Trump had his lawyers craft weasely answers to Muellers questions. Trump didn't even have to explain himself (not that he'd tell the truth) in person like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton did in front of Congress. Whitaker demanded the final report ASAP. It will be buried and further leads will be closed. Criminals will get away with it. This can't be.
"Congressman Castro's highly charged, partisan remarks were irresponsible and a clear indication that he can no longer look into the Russia situation with any degree of partiality," Whitaker said. "If Representative Castro and his colleagues are going to throw stones from a glass house when it comes to Member recusal, then for the integrity of our system of government and justice, he should do the right thing and step aside immediately."
Apparently the same can be said of Whitaker himself.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: US Supreme Court judge fractures ribs in fall ... Tests showed that she had fractured three ribs on her left side and she has been admitted for observation and treatment. ...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: US Supreme Court judge fractures ribs in fall ... Tests showed that she had fractured three ribs on her left side and she has been admitted for observation and treatment. ...
sad news, hope she recovers well
We should plaster DC in bubble-wrap. If she doesn't make it for two more years......
Those were actual things which were serious and had no foreseeable end in sight. There is a built-in time frame here--the Democrats control the House in January, as I already noted. Sessions being fired is irrelevant; Mueller being fired is also now irrelevant because the problem will be solved through proper channels soon enough. This is a molehill, not a mountain. That being said, if you really feel like taking to the streets then don't let me dissuade you.
There no way to know when this will end. If the Public rolls over and collectively shrugs at the news of Trump being allowed to police his own conspiracy investigation, then Democrats won't have any political reason to investigate him.
It's cause and effect. The more determined people are to see change, the faster it comes and the more effective it is. History teaches us this. See: Revolutionary War, slavery protests, women's suffrage, Vietnam, Watergate, etc.
Actually - watergate is useful here. If no one cared about it, Nixon wouldn't have been pressured into resigning. The Saturday Night Massacre would have ended the investigation. Instead, the public put political pressure on their representatives to ensure a new special council was installed.
Edit - side note - the Democrats controlled the house at the time then too. The parallels are beyond striking.
It's not even clear that installing Whitaker instead of having Rosenstein take over is even LEGAL. Rosenstein is the next in line, and Whitaker has not been confirmed by the Senate. He fires Sessions, and then installs his own loyalist in the Justice Department to take the reigns in a lame duck session less than 24 hours after the election?? Are you kidding me??
Yes, it is legal. A person may be appointed to an office and then be discharging the functions of that office while the Senate meets to confirm or reject. Clearly, this Senate would vote to confirm so the energy being spent worrying over Whitaker needs to be saved for later--arguing against Whitaker is a lost cause. Besides, as I have already stated two or three times now, there won't by anything Trump can do about a House-launched investigation in January. Impeachment hearings will probably commence in February, maybe March.
No one will be getting away with anything, unless Trump starts issuing pardons; there isn't anything anyone can do about those. The really fun thing to watch would be if Trump uses the 25th Amendment to side-step a pardon for himself: 1) have himself declared medically unfit to fulfill the duties of his office, 2) have Pence step in to become POTUS, 3) Pence pardons Trump, then 4) Trump, after a weekend "resting and recuperating", has himself declared fit to resume the duties of the office of POTUS. That won't happen, of course, but it would be a wild ride.
If the Public rolls over and collectively shrugs at the news of Trump being allowed to police his own conspiracy investigation, then Democrats won't have any political reason to investigate him.
Payback for Bill Clinton--that is political reason enough for any politician.
We need to do away with lame duck periods altogether, or at the very least limit them to a two-week period where nothing of significance can take place unless an emergency arises. This idea of having people who have been voted out of office remain there for another 2+ months is another absurdity of our system.
One Kavanaugh accuser who never played any part in the investigation or story whatsoever outside of what Chuck Grassley claims she told the Judiciary has apparently come out and "recanted", and again, all the info about this continues to be conveyed directly through Grassley himself. Apparently her name is Munro Leighton. It's fairly telling that her name didn't come up a single time in the pages upon pages about Kavanaugh in this thread. She was never taken seriously by anyone. Likely because no one knew who she was. I had never even heard of her. The claims were always focused on Dr. Ford and the client of Avenatti. And neither of then have backed down an inch in their story. In fact, Avenatti has dared Grassley to take legal action against Swetnick, saying he'd make her available immediately. But we all know how Republicans are with legal threats. They'll make them and then back down like chickenshit cowards because they are afraid of depositions and discovery. At the very least, Avenatti knows how to call their bluffs. Haven't heard a word from Grassley about it since.
Payback for Bill Clinton--that is political reason enough for any politician.
Ha. I'm sure that's part of it.
Clinton was investigated THOROUGHLY. Any claim otherwise is lunacy. And he sure as shit was not allowed to set the terms of the investigation. His testimony was aired non-stop on CNN for days. I remember watching it. In juxtaposition, Trump can't even seem to manage to answer his take-hole test questions, much less actually be grilled by investigators. No comparison whatsoever. Say what you will about him, but once he was caught in the lie about the affair, he stood up and took what was coming. He was impeached and put on trial in the Senate. It will always be the first line in the history of his Presidency. He didn't try to subvert the rule of law itself to get out of it. Did he lie directly to the American public about it?? Of course. He also stood before the same public and admitted and apologized for the lie. Something Trump would never, ever do.
Comments
Also, let's once again stop to gaze in absolute wonder at the fact that the leader of a political movement that is founded on the idea that the left is too sensitive has the thinnest skin in the known-world, to the point where if he is asked any critical question he becomes an infantile crybaby that would make any toddler blush in embarrassment. And he has distorted the reality of such a large part of the public that now even videotape isn't sufficient evidence to prove whether something did or did not happen. The issue itself may seem trivial, but the warped reality it represents is the real danger.
I think the only way to get around such pre-conceptions about bias is to present evidence. I agree with you that it's not really possible to look at that video and conclude the reporter was in some way abusing the intern. If others also agree, then that confirms Sanders is lying about why the reporter was banned. I suspect I have less tolerance for lying in politics than the average person, but nevertheless I think many people who generally support Trump's policies will not support his continual lies - presenting evidence about those will therefore be helpful in the long term.
I am not saying "don't protest", only that these particular protests are irrelevant. If Trump is as stubborn as suggested and he feels that he is above the law, do you seriously think some protests against him are going to worry him?
On a somewhat related note...I wonder how many times the House will impeach Trump? Technically, there is no limit to the number of times someone may be impeached but after four or five times won't people start to think "enough is enough"? Every minute spent impeaching Trump is a minute not being spent protecting the ACA, establishing DACA into law, and so on. Still, a symbolic victory is a symbolic victory and I suppose that for some people that will have to suffice.
These things all happened when asses got off the couch into the streets.
It's go time again.
No interviews were done with the accuser or the two people that were allegedly there for example. They didn't even interview anyone about the third victim. They basically worked backwards from the conclusion they wanted. They weren't allowed to investigate areas that might have turned up evidence.
Trump installed Whitaker to do the same thing with the Russia probe. He was brought on to end the probe ASAP.
He will have Mueller issue a report on areas that Trump didn't commit crimes. Anything that doesn't support that narrative will be removed from the report that goes first to Whitaker. Anything criminal will be removed or classified. Trump is obviously in this too deep to allow a fair investigation.
Then Trump will declare himself totally innocent based on that sham report. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart et al then go on about how Trump was treated so unfairly and he was totally innocent.
This is the playbook. We the people can't let him get away with this alternative reality. What can we do? First things first....
edit/add: two Kavanaugh accusers have since come out and recanted their stories as being pure fabrication. It is time to let that issue go given that those false accusers, who had no proof, have set back *real* victims of assault by a decade. That will be all I have to say on that subject.
If we find out that Whitaker is indeed trying to protect Trump from the investigation, the Democrats may well have no choice but to continue the investigation themselves. If Trump is willing to use presidential power to crack down on federal investigations into his own activities, we cannot rely on federal authorities to be able to handle these issues independently.
The Mueller probe alone will not be enough to settle the issue if it is being obstructed.
Sure enough, weeks later, he's trying to do the exact same thing to the Mueller probe.
1. Stop the investigation from delivering findings on certain issues
2. Classify all or part of the FBI's findings or delay its release
3. Remove certain people from the investigation who do not speak out in defense of Trump
4. Force the FBI to report on unrelated allegations of which Trump is innocent, switching focus away from any findings that implicate Trump
5. Change the text of the FBI's findings
AND/OR
6. Completely shut down the investigation.
It's not even clear that installing Whitaker instead of having Rosenstein take over is even LEGAL. Rosenstein is the next in line, and Whitaker has not been confirmed by the Senate. He fires Sessions, and then installs his own loyalist in the Justice Department to take the reigns in a lame duck session less than 24 hours after the election?? Are you kidding me??
Everyone in this forum who is of the conservative or even centrist mindset knows goddamn well if Hillary Clinton had ever done something even remotely like this if she was in office that they would be calling for her head and impeachment. Flat-out, without question, that is what would be happening right now. The pass Trump gets time after time after time just because his innate corruption is so accepted at this point is honestly getting kind of pathetic.
It's becoming clear to me as time goes on that Nixon was simply born in the wrong century. If he was President today, he would have gotten away with EVERYTHING.
The day after Whitaker is installed multiple sources are reporting that Mueller is writing his final report. Trump had his lawyers craft weasely answers to Muellers questions. Trump didn't even have to explain himself (not that he'd tell the truth) in person like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton did in front of Congress. Whitaker demanded the final report ASAP. It will be buried and further leads will be closed. Criminals will get away with it. This can't be.
Apparently the same can be said of Whitaker himself.
...
Tests showed that she had fractured three ribs on her left side and she has been admitted for observation and treatment.
...
sad news, hope she recovers well
It's cause and effect. The more determined people are to see change, the faster it comes and the more effective it is. History teaches us this. See: Revolutionary War, slavery protests, women's suffrage, Vietnam, Watergate, etc.
Actually - watergate is useful here. If no one cared about it, Nixon wouldn't have been pressured into resigning. The Saturday Night Massacre would have ended the investigation. Instead, the public put political pressure on their representatives to ensure a new special council was installed.
Edit - side note - the Democrats controlled the house at the time then too. The parallels are beyond striking.
No one will be getting away with anything, unless Trump starts issuing pardons; there isn't anything anyone can do about those. The really fun thing to watch would be if Trump uses the 25th Amendment to side-step a pardon for himself: 1) have himself declared medically unfit to fulfill the duties of his office, 2) have Pence step in to become POTUS, 3) Pence pardons Trump, then 4) Trump, after a weekend "resting and recuperating", has himself declared fit to resume the duties of the office of POTUS. That won't happen, of course, but it would be a wild ride.
Payback for Bill Clinton--that is political reason enough for any politician.