Too bad their all in duck and cover mode with McConnell ignoring it completing and instead tabling legislation to increase the age to buy tobacco to 21.
This is why Democrats need to start the impeachment process. It’s not about just beating Trump in 2020, it’s also about removing those who have been enabling him for the last 2 years as well.
I have to agree, the political calculations are secondary here. He has to be held accountable. It isn't just about Trump, it's about anyone else who ever steps foot in that office.
@Balrog99 "
Trump was 'popular' enough to be elected President so your argument is meaningless. "
Yeah, no. If mroe people voted against you than for you. You are not "popular" or "representative" of the people by any stretch of the imagination.
I didn't take @Quickblade to be making a serious case that this terminology is some sort of silver bullet, but rather an ironic coincidence given the situation we find ourselves in. It says what it says and Trump was elected the way he was elected, but I think using THAT as the reason why the President should be indicted is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree. There are FAR better arguments in favor of that than what likely amounts to a typo (if an interesting one).
As for his argument about juries, I have heard conservatives argue many times that any grand jury that originates from DC is illegitimate by default because it "doesn't represent America". Translated, it has way too many black people in the potential jury pool. It's the direct cousin of the clear insinuation that people in California and New York aren't "real Americans".
And, because I think it's important to hear, Elizabeth Warren's clear, principled explanation for why she is calling for impeachment proceedings:
I think that does offer a legally acceptable loophole given the terminology (it wouldn't be the first time we used a literal interpretation of a policy), but I'm guessing the original intent was simply to say "we don't want our judgment to take precedence over the results of a democratic election." I think "popularly elected" was originally meant as a synonym for "democratically elected," though the two words do have very different meanings when it comes to presidential elections, since you can be one without also being the other. In terms of the precedents we set, I do think Trump should be removed from office, and I do think this should happen via impeachment proceedings rather than the judgment of the DOJ.
I'm not sure if Democrats should start impeachment proceedings. Based strictly on principle, the answer is yes (we absolutely can't allow the President to try to shut down investigations he finds inconvenient), but in practical terms, impeachment is bound to fail in the Senate since Republican senators would be too loyal to the party or too afraid to vote to remove Trump from office--in which case the question is moot. In political terms, it could go either way: forcing the Senate to vote on the subject would require Republican senators to publicly choose whether to side with Trump or the law, but a failed impeachment attempt could make the Democrats look ineffectual. Would you blame the GOP for stopping it, or would you blame the Democrats for failing to stop the GOP from stopping it?
I think that does offer a legally acceptable loophole given the terminology (it wouldn't be the first time we used a literal interpretation of a policy), but I'm guessing the original intent was simply to say "we don't want our judgment to take precedence over the results of a democratic election." I think "popularly elected" was originally meant as a synonym for "democratically elected," though the two words do have very different meanings when it comes to presidential elections, since you can be one without also being the other. In terms of the precedents we set, I do think Trump should be removed from office, and I do think this should happen via impeachment proceedings rather than the judgment of the DOJ.
I'm not sure if Democrats should start impeachment proceedings. Based strictly on principle, the answer is yes (we absolutely can't allow the President to try to shut down investigations he finds inconvenient), but in practical terms, impeachment is bound to fail in the Senate since Republican senators would be too loyal to the party or too afraid to vote to remove Trump from office--in which case the question is moot. In political terms, it could go either way: forcing the Senate to vote on the subject would require Republican senators to publicly choose whether to side with Trump or the law, but a failed impeachment attempt could make the Democrats look ineffectual. Would you blame the GOP for stopping it, or would you blame the Democrats for failing to stop the GOP from stopping it?
You hold the persons making the decision accountable. If Congress decides not to impeach Trump for any reason, that is on them and they should be held accountable for their actions but the American people would be able to hold the Senate accountable if they did not look at impeachment (or failed to convict him). There are other elected officials who need to do their job and see how much of their statements flip in 20 years just because it is "their guy" being targeted, and those people are awfully quiet at the moment.
They are quiet because it is up to Congress to push the dialog forward.
Tom Nichols is one of the more prominent "never-Trump" Republicans on Twitter, and while I generally don't trust these people after the Bush years, this is a great observation:
One interesting aspect of the Mueller Report is not what's in it, but how Trump's shills have reacted to it. They have taken two positions.
1. The report says exactly the opposite of what it says
2. The media totally screwed up this story.
... The Trump campaign, right up to the top, thought that was awesome. They greeted it with "how can we work this" instead of "call the FBI." They lied, and lied, and lied some more..
And they've lost control of the narrative. They can't control it right now. They had a month to set the table, and it still wasn't enough to blunt the impact.
This reminds me of something from Comey's where iirc he briefed Trump and staff on the election attacks by the Russians and Trump and people's reactions were not "OMG let's do something" it was "how can we spin this".
"After Clapper briefed the team on the intelligence community's findings of Russian election interference, Comey said he was taken aback by what the Trump team didn't ask.
"They were about to lead a country that had been attacked by a foreign adversary, yet they had no questions about what the future Russian threat might be," Comey writes. Instead, he writes, they launched into a strategy session about how to "spin what we'd just told them" for the public."
They launched a messaging strategy session in front of the FBI director instead of wanting to do anything about it.
Tom Nichols is one of the more prominent "never-Trump" Republicans on Twitter, and while I generally don't trust these people after the Bush years, this is a great observation:
One interesting aspect of the Mueller Report is not what's in it, but how Trump's shills have reacted to it. They have taken two positions.
1. The report says exactly the opposite of what it says
2. The media totally screwed up this story.
... The Trump campaign, right up to the top, thought that was awesome. They greeted it with "how can we work this" instead of "call the FBI." They lied, and lied, and lied some more..
And they've lost control of the narrative. They can't control it right now. They had a month to set the table, and it still wasn't enough to blunt the impact.
This reminds me of something from Comey's where iirc he briefed Trump and staff on the election attacks by the Russians and Trump and people's reactions were not "OMG let's do something" it was "how can we spin this".
"After Clapper briefed the team on the intelligence community's findings of Russian election interference, Comey said he was taken aback by what the Trump team didn't ask.
"They were about to lead a country that had been attacked by a foreign adversary, yet they had no questions about what the future Russian threat might be," Comey writes. Instead, he writes, they launched into a strategy session about how to "spin what we'd just told them" for the public."
They launched a messaging strategy session in front of the FBI director instead of wanting to do anything about it.
Aside from the obstruction and those already charged, it may not have been a CRIMINAL betrayal, but it was absolutely a betrayal, and against everything that taking the oath of office means. On every level, they sided with personal gain over the well-being of the most fundamental aspect of democracy. They not only didn't care, they thought it was a wonderful opportunity. And to see this being excused 100% by the party who has been harping on patriotism and national security for as long as I've been alive is something that can never be excused or forgiven.
They flat-out do not care about what happened because the result was that liberals lost. And as we see from the attacks on voting rights on a near constant basis all across the country, the modern GOP quite literally does not believe our votes matter or that we are even citizens worthy of having that right protected. What is my #1 reason for despising the Republican Party?? It's because they have shown me time and time again they don't believe my opinion and rights are even worthy of being acknowledged, much less protected. Whether it's a Supreme Court seat, Russian interference on behalf of THEIR candidate or supporting the President when he decides to bypass Congress, or making every effort under the sun to make sure it is as hard to vote as possible, they are engaging whenever possible in the nullification of what people like me vote for. Their ideas have been bankrupt for well over a decade with the public. And they have instead turned to non-stop rat-fucking to continue to push them and stay in power.
Who's going to arrest him for one thing? The FBI's power is derived from the Executive branch and thus, the people through their duly elected representative, the President. Federal authority exceeds State and Local authority so the police and sheriffs are out. Who delivers this justice?
No, it is not. The FBI's power is derived from the legislative branch. Literally in the Constitution. I don't know why people think the President gives the authority to the various federal agencies. A few days ago someone on Yahoo said the exact same thing.
Congress has the sole authority to create, regulate, and abolish the various federal agencies. The purpose of the executive branch is to EXECUTE the laws of the United States, which Congress creates. Those agencies are thus created and staffed to help Congress indirectly by carrying out the law. They report to the Department heads, who in turn report to the President, who in turn reports to Congress via the occasional State of the Union address. But their AUTHORITY, is enshrined in the federal law that created them.
Article 1, Section 8, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The federal agencies are created by federal law, and their power is derived from federal law.
Article 2, Section 2 provides that Congress, ultimately, has the authority for filling up inferior officers or can delegate it as they wish, and of course, the President nominates and the senate confirms appointments. Section 4 provides for impeachment.
Congress makes and abolishes agencies. Congress is the final word on the hiring and firing of all the staff of the agencies.
Also, keep in mind that technically it's treason to defy the President.
Really? We're going there now? Really? There's a WHOLE PILE of federal and international law that says it is not. (But admittedly, you better have your ducks in a row if you ARE going to defy the president.)
Edit-P.S. It would not be the FBI who would have the authority to arrest the president in the event of a lawful warrant. It would be the U.S. Marshals Service.
@WarChiefZeke when Barr produced his summary, you made the same argument. At that time I suggested we should wait to see what the report said rather than accepting the report exonerated Trump. We've now seen the report and I think your argument can now clearly be seen to be misleading. It's true that the report says there was no criminal conspiracy. However, it also says definitively that the Trump Campaign were knowingly making use of information they knew to have been obtained illegally by a foreign government. That may not rise to the level of conspiracy, but that type of link seems to me pretty troubling.
I mean, this is what you have to be reduced to at this point to continue clinging to any piece of this narrative- highlighting perfectly acceptable actions with as much sinister overtones as you can possibly make it have. Literally nothing is wrong with highlighting the immoral and illegal things your opponent does, regardless of the source, once the information is public knowledge. Truth is almost never an immoral thing to use to your advantage, in my opinion, and if you think other politicians wouldn't use facts in the public domain to their advantage, I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara.
In other shocking revelations, members of the Trump campaign are also alleged to breathe air, and drink water. This is total vindication of years of hyperventilating and conspiracy mongering and false headlines and accusations of treason.
That sort of link is also what virtually all of the discussion in this thread has been about - there's been almost no suggestion that Trump was an agent of Russia. I also think there's been very little of that in the mainstream media (you can of course find anything on wider social media), so it's not at all surprising to me to see people saying that their stance was vindicated. One further note of caution though - in reading through the report I saw no discussion of Trump's private meetings with Putin. I'm not sure if that's because that information was redacted, or because there was no source of information other than Trump (who would not cooperate). At a minimum though we know Putin had compromising information on Trump (that he'd lied about his business dealings), which is not a helpful basis for the US when negotiating international policy.
I imagine that it's true this "crime of the gaps" analysis where everything is treated as sinister without context or reason is dominant, but I think that says a lot to be honest. If nobody is claiming conspiracy any more, then we are all in agreement that the media narrative and the narrative of the democrats was categorically false and misleading on many levels. It's a good start!
By the way, Putin has compromising info on Trump? What's your point? Sounds like you're trying to imply there was some form of blackmail based on nothing.
By the way can you point to a source for this or is it just your own view: "Especially since the legal analysis is enough to conclude it's not going anywhere and their case would likely fail even if they wanted it. So that's that!" My own view from the report is that Mueller felt there was a strong case for obstruction - and I agree with that. Mueller was clearly influenced by the existing policy that Presidents should not be charged while in office, but just as clearly wanted to leave the door open for a prosecution after Trump leaves office. In principle I think that policy is a bad one, but I can understand why someone like Mueller (who is a by-the-book type, who shuns publicity) was unwilling to fight to change that.
No source here, just the conclusions I came to after going over the evidence with a lawyer friend of mine who was interested in the case. To summarize, not only does Trump have legitimate defenses against every accusation but the fact that it invokes unsettled constitutional matters means it would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court on the inevitable appeal, where Trump also has an advantage not just because of political party but because his defense would adhere to their legal philosophy.
So Mueller was not able to conclusively prove in court that there was criminal conspiracy because of the obstruction of justice by the President where he ate meeting notes, tried to fire the investigators, waged a misinformation campaign on Twitter, fired various people to derail the investigation, intimidated witnesses, dangled pardons, and directed witness testimony.
Yep sounds totally cool and totally legal. George Washington and the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Trump's "legitimate defense" against the Comey firing at the time was that he was fired for reasons that didn't have anything to do with the Flynn investigation. We now know with 100% certainty that that was a bald-faced lie. Rosenstein was ORDERED to write that memo. We were told, at the time, that it was HIS idea to fire Comey. It wasn't. Comey was fired because of the Flynn investigation and to put a stop to it.
As for ordering the firing of Mueller, the only "defense" of that that's available to anyone who wants to make it is that they believe the President can do whatever they want to stop an investigation into them or their Administration. And he did so. He ordered it to happen. We now know both of these things. And were told time and again they were "fake news". He then later ordered McGahn to lie about the fact that he HAD ordered it. To say nothing of telling the Deputy National Security Advisor to draft a false memo about Flynn. This is all IN THE REPORT. It's not written in legalize. Anyone can understand it.
It is the absolute epitome of political partisanship and bias (not to mention hypocrisy) to rail against Hillary Clinton for any kind of "pay to play" corruption, and then defend Donald Trump for attempting to abuse his office to insulate himself from a criminal investigation into his presidency, or to defend him for knowingly letting Russia interfere in our elections.
A very interesting exchange in the report is when Trump has a discussion with Chris Christie immediately after Flynn is fired. Trump believes that since he fired Flynn, the situation is over. Christie, a former prosecutor (who I have NO love for whatsoever) tells Trump "no way, we'll still be talking about this in Feb. of 2018". And then he EXPLICITLY warns Trump to not only stay away from the investigation, but to not even mention it at all. He tells Trump there is no way to make an investigation shorter, but LOTS of ways to make it longer. And Trump, who simply cannot help himself and wants instant gratification, does not listen. Since firing Flynn doesn't remove the cloud, he tries to remove the investigation itself. This man's mindset alone is a danger to the country. He was told by staunch allies to leave it the f**k alone and he simply would not listen. Trump wanted everything to disappear with a wave of his hand, and he NEVER stopped trying to make that happen.
For more insight, Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel is going practically page by page through this thing and is linking her Twitter threads on it on this page for easy viewing. And the sheer volume of just how bad this is for Trump quickly becomes apparent. This woman knows exactly what she is looking at and what she is talking about, even when it comes to the redacted parts:
@WarChiefZeke when Barr produced his summary, you made the same argument. At that time I suggested we should wait to see what the report said rather than accepting the report exonerated Trump. We've now seen the report and I think your argument can now clearly be seen to be misleading. It's true that the report says there was no criminal conspiracy. However, it also says definitively that the Trump Campaign were knowingly making use of information they knew to have been obtained illegally by a foreign government. That may not rise to the level of conspiracy, but that type of link seems to me pretty troubling.
I mean, this is what you have to be reduced to at this point to continue clinging to any piece of this narrative- highlighting perfectly acceptable actions with as much sinister overtones as you can possibly make it have. Literally nothing is wrong with highlighting the immoral and illegal things your opponent does, regardless of the source, once the information is public knowledge. Truth is almost never an immoral thing to use to your advantage, in my opinion, and if you think other politicians wouldn't use facts in the public domain to their advantage, I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara.
It's clear we're never going to agree on this one, but I can't help pointing out some things. If there's nothing wrong with pointing out immoral and illegal things then you shouldn't object to me highlighting what it says in the Mueller report. I agree that speaking the truth should normally be the objective - which is why it's so troubling to me to see the Mueller report confirm that Trump lied over and over and over again (and is still doing so now). It's the same mindset as Kavanaugh - irrespective of their other qualities I don't think someone whose default position is to lie is worthy of a major public office.
That sort of link is also what virtually all of the discussion in this thread has been about - there's been almost no suggestion that Trump was an agent of Russia. I also think there's been very little of that in the mainstream media (you can of course find anything on wider social media), so it's not at all surprising to me to see people saying that their stance was vindicated. One further note of caution though - in reading through the report I saw no discussion of Trump's private meetings with Putin. I'm not sure if that's because that information was redacted, or because there was no source of information other than Trump (who would not cooperate). At a minimum though we know Putin had compromising information on Trump (that he'd lied about his business dealings), which is not a helpful basis for the US when negotiating international policy.
By the way, Putin has compromising info on Trump? What's your point? Sounds like you're trying to imply there was some form of blackmail based on nothing.
If you think it's nothing that a foreign head of state can prove that the US president has been consistently lying to his own government and public, this is another thing we're not going to agree about. I'm not suggesting there was blackmail, but am suggesting this put Trump in a poor negotiating position. Without any need for blackmail, or any sort of explicit threats or orders, it makes much more sense why Trump tried to change US policy on Russia.
By the way can you point to a source for this or is it just your own view: "Especially since the legal analysis is enough to conclude it's not going anywhere and their case would likely fail even if they wanted it. So that's that!" My own view from the report is that Mueller felt there was a strong case for obstruction - and I agree with that. Mueller was clearly influenced by the existing policy that Presidents should not be charged while in office, but just as clearly wanted to leave the door open for a prosecution after Trump leaves office. In principle I think that policy is a bad one, but I can understand why someone like Mueller (who is a by-the-book type, who shuns publicity) was unwilling to fight to change that.
No source here, just the conclusions I came to after going over the evidence with a lawyer friend of mine who was interested in the case. To summarize, not only does Trump have legitimate defenses against every accusation but the fact that it invokes unsettled constitutional matters means it would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court on the inevitable appeal, where Trump also has an advantage not just because of political party but because his defense would adhere to their legal philosophy.
I agree there's a chance the Supreme Court would back Trump on this one, but I think it would be the appropriate thing to do, even if it was clear that would be the case. However, I don't in fact think that is clear. I've made the point before that Trump has regularly attacked all organs of government, including the judiciary, for daring to suggest his actions have not been appropriate. SCOTUS must be nervous about anything that would appear to confirm the President's view that he is more important than the judiciary and the legislative branches. Put that alongside the general desire of the courts to ensure no-one is above the law and I think the chances are actually pretty good that SCOTUS would allow a prosecution.
The new line from Giuliani this morning is "there is nothing wrong with taking information from Russia". So, you know, bookmark that for future reference the next time anyone in the Republican Party talks about national security or patriotism for the rest of time.
But I'd also like to put a stake in the heart of this idea that "any campaign would do it". Because it's not true. In the heat of the 2000 campaign, a mysterious package was delivered to the Gore camp. It turned out to be video of Bush's debate prep. Now, personally, I HIGHLY suspect this was engineered by Karl Rove as a attempted set-up. But the Gore camp did not bite. Know what they did?? They reported and turned the tape into the FBI.
I've been reading even more about Watergate today at work, and have basically found a nearly exact parallel to where we are at today. It was in the immediate wake of the Supreme Court ruling Nixon had to give up the tapes.
Nixon calls in his lawyer, Fred Buzhardt and tells him they have a problem with the tape from June 23rd, 1972. Buzhardt isn't immediately certain what Nixon means, but it quickly becomes apparent as he listens to the tape. Haldeman has concocted a plan to end the FBI investigation into the break-in by having the CIA tell the FBI to shut it down on the basis of national security. Nixon gives the ok and tells him to proceed. And Buzhardt knows instantly the game is over.
How this is functionally ANY different than Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is beyond my comprehension. In both cases, the President gave the order to shut down a politically damaging law enforcement probe. The only question we need to be asking ourselves now is if we are so far gone as a country that we now believe what Nixon (and now Trump) did was ok. This is the ultimate litmus test of if we are even going to PRETEND to care about the rule of law.
I've been reading even more about Watergate today at work, and have basically found a nearly exact parallel to where we are at today. It was in the immediate wake of the Supreme Court ruling Nixon had to give up the tapes.
Nixon calls in his lawyer, Fred Buzhardt and tells him they have a problem with the tape from June 23rd, 1972. Buzhardt isn't immediately certain what Nixon means, but it quickly becomes apparent as he listens to the tape. Haldeman has concocted a plan to end the FBI investigation into the break-in by having the CIA tell the FBI to shut it down on the basis of national security. Nixon gives the ok and tells him to proceed. And Buzhardt knows instantly the game is over.
How this is functionally ANY different than Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is beyond my comprehension. In both cases, the President gave the order to shut down a politically damaging law enforcement probe. The only question we need to be asking ourselves now is if we are so far gone as a country that we now believe what Nixon (and now Trump) did was ok. This is the ultimate litmus test of if we are even going to PRETEND to care about the rule of law.
Yeah I don't get the guliani line, so he's saying it's okay that the Russians committed cyber espionage and hacked our democracy and helped get Trump elected which has lead to this disgrace of his Presidency and the loss of vital protections we've all suffered and tripling of the national debt due to the tax cuts for the rich?
The more I think about this the more insane it is that this is even a discussion. For Christ's sake, there were prominent Congressional and Senate Republicans talking about impeaching Hillary before the election had even taken place. What the hell kind of precedent is this setting?? Ignoring this means that a President can do whatever they want with no restrictions whatsoever. You think Trump stops at this if he's allowed to get away with it?? But I'll tell you when we'll do something about it. We'll do something about it nearly instantaneously the MOMENT a Democratic President is ever found to have ordered the end of an investigation into their Administration. If that ever happens, you won't even be able to finish typing the word impeachment before it commences. Which is as it should be.
But as usual, we aren't remotely playing by the same set of rules. As I have said, what is in the Mueller report is orders of magnitude more than they had on Clinton for obstruction, and is comparable in scope to what Nixon did. The only thing we are missing is the whole tape controversy, and instead this time we have attempts to create falsified documents. The other difference is that the people working for Trump just happened to know what happened to the people who blindly followed Nixon in Watergate and the people around Trump, craven as they are for even working for the man, put their foot down and said "screw this, I'm not going to jail for this asshole". Which is, honestly, pissing Trump off more than anything. It doesn't just reveal him to be engaged in impeachable obstruction and abuse of power. It also reveals to him to be completely impotent and ineffectual at doing so.
Which is of course, like everything else Trump does, being used as a ready-made excuse for why he can't be held accountable for it. Don Jr. can't be held accountable because he was too stupid to understand the law he was breaking. Trump himself attempted nearly a dozen times to shut down or obstruct the investigation, but he shouldn't be held accountable because he wasn't successful at doing so. Fine. Let's see that same logic apply at every other goddamn level of the justice system. I'm open to letting Trump off the hook completely if the stupidity and ineffectual defense is open to every single person standing before a judge and jury in this country. So who's on board?? Anyone??.......no, I didn't think so.
@jjstraka34: What was this about attempting to falsify documents? I thought Trump only ordered his people to lie to the press.
This is actually one of the most damning parts of Volume 2 (though to be perfectly frank, even just scanning through the report looking for this section I ran into about 4 or 5 others that were just as bad or worse):
9. The President Attempts to Have K.T. McFarland Create a Witness Statement Denying that he Directed Flynn’s Discussions with Kislyak
On February 22, 2017, Priebus and Bannon told McFarland that the President wanted her to resign as Deputy National Security Advisor, but they suggested to her that the Administration could make her the ambassador to Singapore. The next day, the President asked Priebus to have McFarland draft an internal email that would confirm that the President did not direct Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador about sanctions. Priebus said he told the President he would only direct McFarland to write such a letter if she were comfortable with it. Priebus called McFarland into his office to convey the President’s request that she memorialize in writing that the President did not direct Flynn to talk to Kislyak. McFarland told Priebus she did not know whether the President had directed Flynn to talk to Kislyak about sanctions, and she declined to say yes or no to the request. Priebus understood that McFarland was not comfortable with the President’s request, and he recommended that she talk to attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office.
McFarland then reached out to Eisenberg. McFarland told him that she had been fired from her job as Deputy National Security Advisor and offered the ambassadorship in Singapore but that the President and Priebus wanted a letter from her denying that the President directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. Eisenberg advised McFarland not to write the requested letter. As documented by McFarland in a contemporaneous “Memorandum for the Record” that she wrote because she was concerned by the President’s request: “Eisenberg ... thought the requested email and letter would be a bad idea – from my side because the email would be awkward. Why would I be emailing Priebus to make a statement for the record? But it would also be a bad idea for the President because it looked as if my ambassadorial appointment was in some way a quid pro quo." Later that evening, Priebus stopped by McFarland’s office and told her not to write the email and to forget he even mentioned it.
In short, Trump asks his Chief of Staff to tell KT McFarland to write an email that essentially leaves a "paper trail" distancing him from Flynn, and they will reward her with the position of Ambassador to Singapore in exchange. Another order clearly given, another order not followed because the people involved have alarm bells ringing in their ears saying "this is could be seen as criminal". Again, another attempt stopped not because of their intent (which was to obstruct and deceive in regards to the truth about Flynn) but because the request was so insane that people in the White House Counsel's Office were telling her in no uncertain terms DO NOT write that email.
Again, if people take the time to actually read the obstruction part of this report, this type of shit is ALL OVER the place. And it really does help put it into context even beyond the media reports summarizing it. Trump was engaged in a full-scale cover-up and abuse of power from the moment Flynn's lies to the FBI and Pence were made known to him. It never stopped after that point, and only escalated. Which we have ALWAYS known, but seeing it all in sequential order in one place is just so, so damning. It's a portrait of absolute corruption that can't be denied. Any one of these things on their own can MAYBE be excused. The the systematic requests and orders for them time after time after time in regards to this investigation is simply too much to ignore. I defy anyone to read Volume 2 in it's entirety and tell me this man should still be in office.
Edit: A word or two about Flynn....there is a reason this guy's lies kicked this whole thing off. Flynn was not some sideline player in Trump's world. If you speak to any reporter who actually traveled with the Trump campaign in 2016, they will attest to Flynn being at Trump's side nearly 24/7. He was a daily presence. As he would have been in the Oval Office as National Security Adviser, which ranks just below Chief of Staff as far as West Wing positions go. When Obama had his meeting in the days after the election with Trump, despite EVERYTHING Trump had said about his birthplace, he went out of his way to warn Trump about hiring Flynn, and told him it was a horrible idea and not to do it. Obama tried to save Trump from himself at the very beginning, despite having EVERY reason not to from a personal standpoint. And he didn't listen.
Rep. Matt Shea (R) of Washington State has been found to be colluding with violent right-wingers to enact violence upon Democrats.
Washington Democrats have called for the expulsion of the GOP politician from his caucus and other sanctions after the report.
According to The Guardian, the participants, including Shea, discussed in a extremist right wing chat thread their desire to physically attack leftists, showing up at their homes, or where their children go to day care, and conducting background checks on political organizers.
A few crimes do require criminal intent to convict. That was actually a factor in one of the accusations against Clinton. That may or may not relate to ignorantia legis neminem excusat, but dumb mistakes or innocent intentions can mean no charges in some cases.
I think in those discussions it is important to keep in mind the difference between intent and ignorance of the law.
Intent is usually required for a crime to be committed, with the obvious exception of all crimes based on negligence.
Ignorance of the law is almost never a valid defense.
E.g. to commit murder you have to try to kill someone. If you kill someone by accident it is not murder. Even if you have a felony murder law (which I consider to be dubious), then intent is still required for the original crime you wanted to commit. So intent is required.
Not knowing that murder is illegal is not an excuse before the law. Ignorance of the law does not matter.
At least on the internet it often gets confused as lack of intent is often the same as ignorance of the consequences of your action (but not the law).
Legal Eagle's analysis of the Mueller report. In it he discusses the framework and limitations that Mueller was working under and why the report was never going to explicitly state that Trump is guilty. I like the quote he brings up: "The Mueller report could only find the President 'not guilty' or 'not not guilty'." https://youtu.be/f71Rasj_0JY
A few crimes do require criminal intent to convict. That was actually a factor in one of the accusations against Clinton. That may or may not relate to ignorantia legis neminem excusat, but dumb mistakes or innocent intentions can mean no charges in some cases.
I think in those discussions it is important to keep in mind the difference between intent and ignorance of the law.
Intent is usually required for a crime to be committed, with the obvious exception of all crimes based on negligence.
Ignorance of the law is almost never a valid defense.
E.g. to commit murder you have to try to kill someone. If you kill someone by accident it is not murder. Even if you have a felony murder law (which I consider to be dubious), then intent is still required for the original crime you wanted to commit. So intent is required.
Not knowing that murder is illegal is not an excuse before the law. Ignorance of the law does not matter.
At least on the internet it often gets confused as lack of intent is often the same as ignorance of the consequences of your action (but not the law).
I'm not sure the highlighted bit is true. There can be a grey area about whether something is ignorance of the law or a lack of intent, but ignorance can certainly be a factor in murder cases. Consider for instance a situation where a person of limited intelligence has caused a death. It may be accepted by all parties that they intended to commit an illegal action - and, if that results in a death, in many jurisdictions that could be automatically classed as felony murder. However, they would have a strong defense if they were able to demonstrate that they truly were ignorant of the law. In that case the likely outcome would be a conviction for manslaughter rather than murder. For most people this defense is not realistic in murder cases as it's hard to demonstrate that level of ignorance.
Note that there could be a separate defense that the defendant actually lacked the mental capacity to form intent. In the above example though I'm assuming it's accepted that the intent was there for the original crime - that does not invalidate the defense based on ignorance.
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
One of the basic tenets of the United States of America is that there are separate branches of government with the different branches providing checks and balances.
Donald Trump has decided he doesn't want to do that and to cover his own ass he's decided to go full authoritarian (instead of the half measures he'd been doing.)
So he's been on a 24 hour rage filled tweet storm binge watching Fox News. halso apparently ordered the Treasury to deny laws that require the IRS to turn over his tax forms.
He has launched a lawsuit to prevent Congress from seeing his financial documents.
He ordered a former White House staffer to ignore a subpoena on a matter of national security.
Trump is deliberately bringing on a collision with Congress and he might get away with it because Mitch McConnell has been filling the judiciary with far right loonies like Bart Kavanaugh, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and ghost hunters.
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
Jihadists are far right terrorists.
Disagree. I don't think they give a shit about the political spectrum...
Comments
I have to agree, the political calculations are secondary here. He has to be held accountable. It isn't just about Trump, it's about anyone else who ever steps foot in that office.
Trump was 'popular' enough to be elected President so your argument is meaningless. "
Yeah, no. If mroe people voted against you than for you. You are not "popular" or "representative" of the people by any stretch of the imagination.
I didn't take @Quickblade to be making a serious case that this terminology is some sort of silver bullet, but rather an ironic coincidence given the situation we find ourselves in. It says what it says and Trump was elected the way he was elected, but I think using THAT as the reason why the President should be indicted is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree. There are FAR better arguments in favor of that than what likely amounts to a typo (if an interesting one).
As for his argument about juries, I have heard conservatives argue many times that any grand jury that originates from DC is illegitimate by default because it "doesn't represent America". Translated, it has way too many black people in the potential jury pool. It's the direct cousin of the clear insinuation that people in California and New York aren't "real Americans".
And, because I think it's important to hear, Elizabeth Warren's clear, principled explanation for why she is calling for impeachment proceedings:
I'm not sure if Democrats should start impeachment proceedings. Based strictly on principle, the answer is yes (we absolutely can't allow the President to try to shut down investigations he finds inconvenient), but in practical terms, impeachment is bound to fail in the Senate since Republican senators would be too loyal to the party or too afraid to vote to remove Trump from office--in which case the question is moot. In political terms, it could go either way: forcing the Senate to vote on the subject would require Republican senators to publicly choose whether to side with Trump or the law, but a failed impeachment attempt could make the Democrats look ineffectual. Would you blame the GOP for stopping it, or would you blame the Democrats for failing to stop the GOP from stopping it?
You hold the persons making the decision accountable. If Congress decides not to impeach Trump for any reason, that is on them and they should be held accountable for their actions but the American people would be able to hold the Senate accountable if they did not look at impeachment (or failed to convict him). There are other elected officials who need to do their job and see how much of their statements flip in 20 years just because it is "their guy" being targeted, and those people are awfully quiet at the moment.
They are quiet because it is up to Congress to push the dialog forward.
This reminds me of something from Comey's where iirc he briefed Trump and staff on the election attacks by the Russians and Trump and people's reactions were not "OMG let's do something" it was "how can we spin this".
"After Clapper briefed the team on the intelligence community's findings of Russian election interference, Comey said he was taken aback by what the Trump team didn't ask.
"They were about to lead a country that had been attacked by a foreign adversary, yet they had no questions about what the future Russian threat might be," Comey writes. Instead, he writes, they launched into a strategy session about how to "spin what we'd just told them" for the public."
They launched a messaging strategy session in front of the FBI director instead of wanting to do anything about it.
Aside from the obstruction and those already charged, it may not have been a CRIMINAL betrayal, but it was absolutely a betrayal, and against everything that taking the oath of office means. On every level, they sided with personal gain over the well-being of the most fundamental aspect of democracy. They not only didn't care, they thought it was a wonderful opportunity. And to see this being excused 100% by the party who has been harping on patriotism and national security for as long as I've been alive is something that can never be excused or forgiven.
They flat-out do not care about what happened because the result was that liberals lost. And as we see from the attacks on voting rights on a near constant basis all across the country, the modern GOP quite literally does not believe our votes matter or that we are even citizens worthy of having that right protected. What is my #1 reason for despising the Republican Party?? It's because they have shown me time and time again they don't believe my opinion and rights are even worthy of being acknowledged, much less protected. Whether it's a Supreme Court seat, Russian interference on behalf of THEIR candidate or supporting the President when he decides to bypass Congress, or making every effort under the sun to make sure it is as hard to vote as possible, they are engaging whenever possible in the nullification of what people like me vote for. Their ideas have been bankrupt for well over a decade with the public. And they have instead turned to non-stop rat-fucking to continue to push them and stay in power.
No, it is not. The FBI's power is derived from the legislative branch. Literally in the Constitution. I don't know why people think the President gives the authority to the various federal agencies. A few days ago someone on Yahoo said the exact same thing.
Congress has the sole authority to create, regulate, and abolish the various federal agencies. The purpose of the executive branch is to EXECUTE the laws of the United States, which Congress creates. Those agencies are thus created and staffed to help Congress indirectly by carrying out the law. They report to the Department heads, who in turn report to the President, who in turn reports to Congress via the occasional State of the Union address. But their AUTHORITY, is enshrined in the federal law that created them.
Article 1, Section 8, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The federal agencies are created by federal law, and their power is derived from federal law.
Article 2, Section 2 provides that Congress, ultimately, has the authority for filling up inferior officers or can delegate it as they wish, and of course, the President nominates and the senate confirms appointments. Section 4 provides for impeachment.
Congress makes and abolishes agencies. Congress is the final word on the hiring and firing of all the staff of the agencies.
Really? We're going there now? Really? There's a WHOLE PILE of federal and international law that says it is not. (But admittedly, you better have your ducks in a row if you ARE going to defy the president.)
Edit-P.S. It would not be the FBI who would have the authority to arrest the president in the event of a lawful warrant. It would be the U.S. Marshals Service.
I mean, this is what you have to be reduced to at this point to continue clinging to any piece of this narrative- highlighting perfectly acceptable actions with as much sinister overtones as you can possibly make it have. Literally nothing is wrong with highlighting the immoral and illegal things your opponent does, regardless of the source, once the information is public knowledge. Truth is almost never an immoral thing to use to your advantage, in my opinion, and if you think other politicians wouldn't use facts in the public domain to their advantage, I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara.
In other shocking revelations, members of the Trump campaign are also alleged to breathe air, and drink water. This is total vindication of years of hyperventilating and conspiracy mongering and false headlines and accusations of treason.
I imagine that it's true this "crime of the gaps" analysis where everything is treated as sinister without context or reason is dominant, but I think that says a lot to be honest. If nobody is claiming conspiracy any more, then we are all in agreement that the media narrative and the narrative of the democrats was categorically false and misleading on many levels. It's a good start!
By the way, Putin has compromising info on Trump? What's your point? Sounds like you're trying to imply there was some form of blackmail based on nothing.
No source here, just the conclusions I came to after going over the evidence with a lawyer friend of mine who was interested in the case. To summarize, not only does Trump have legitimate defenses against every accusation but the fact that it invokes unsettled constitutional matters means it would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court on the inevitable appeal, where Trump also has an advantage not just because of political party but because his defense would adhere to their legal philosophy.
Yep sounds totally cool and totally legal. George Washington and the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
As for ordering the firing of Mueller, the only "defense" of that that's available to anyone who wants to make it is that they believe the President can do whatever they want to stop an investigation into them or their Administration. And he did so. He ordered it to happen. We now know both of these things. And were told time and again they were "fake news". He then later ordered McGahn to lie about the fact that he HAD ordered it. To say nothing of telling the Deputy National Security Advisor to draft a false memo about Flynn. This is all IN THE REPORT. It's not written in legalize. Anyone can understand it.
For more insight, Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel is going practically page by page through this thing and is linking her Twitter threads on it on this page for easy viewing. And the sheer volume of just how bad this is for Trump quickly becomes apparent. This woman knows exactly what she is looking at and what she is talking about, even when it comes to the redacted parts:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/20/working-twitter-threads-on-the-mueller-report/
It's clear we're never going to agree on this one, but I can't help pointing out some things. If there's nothing wrong with pointing out immoral and illegal things then you shouldn't object to me highlighting what it says in the Mueller report. I agree that speaking the truth should normally be the objective - which is why it's so troubling to me to see the Mueller report confirm that Trump lied over and over and over again (and is still doing so now). It's the same mindset as Kavanaugh - irrespective of their other qualities I don't think someone whose default position is to lie is worthy of a major public office.
If you think it's nothing that a foreign head of state can prove that the US president has been consistently lying to his own government and public, this is another thing we're not going to agree about. I'm not suggesting there was blackmail, but am suggesting this put Trump in a poor negotiating position. Without any need for blackmail, or any sort of explicit threats or orders, it makes much more sense why Trump tried to change US policy on Russia.
I agree there's a chance the Supreme Court would back Trump on this one, but I think it would be the appropriate thing to do, even if it was clear that would be the case. However, I don't in fact think that is clear. I've made the point before that Trump has regularly attacked all organs of government, including the judiciary, for daring to suggest his actions have not been appropriate. SCOTUS must be nervous about anything that would appear to confirm the President's view that he is more important than the judiciary and the legislative branches. Put that alongside the general desire of the courts to ensure no-one is above the law and I think the chances are actually pretty good that SCOTUS would allow a prosecution.
But I'd also like to put a stake in the heart of this idea that "any campaign would do it". Because it's not true. In the heat of the 2000 campaign, a mysterious package was delivered to the Gore camp. It turned out to be video of Bush's debate prep. Now, personally, I HIGHLY suspect this was engineered by Karl Rove as a attempted set-up. But the Gore camp did not bite. Know what they did?? They reported and turned the tape into the FBI.
Nixon calls in his lawyer, Fred Buzhardt and tells him they have a problem with the tape from June 23rd, 1972. Buzhardt isn't immediately certain what Nixon means, but it quickly becomes apparent as he listens to the tape. Haldeman has concocted a plan to end the FBI investigation into the break-in by having the CIA tell the FBI to shut it down on the basis of national security. Nixon gives the ok and tells him to proceed. And Buzhardt knows instantly the game is over.
How this is functionally ANY different than Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is beyond my comprehension. In both cases, the President gave the order to shut down a politically damaging law enforcement probe. The only question we need to be asking ourselves now is if we are so far gone as a country that we now believe what Nixon (and now Trump) did was ok. This is the ultimate litmus test of if we are even going to PRETEND to care about the rule of law.
Looks like somebody did something again...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/asia/sri-lanka-explosions/index.html
Yeah I don't get the guliani line, so he's saying it's okay that the Russians committed cyber espionage and hacked our democracy and helped get Trump elected which has lead to this disgrace of his Presidency and the loss of vital protections we've all suffered and tripling of the national debt due to the tax cuts for the rich?
But as usual, we aren't remotely playing by the same set of rules. As I have said, what is in the Mueller report is orders of magnitude more than they had on Clinton for obstruction, and is comparable in scope to what Nixon did. The only thing we are missing is the whole tape controversy, and instead this time we have attempts to create falsified documents. The other difference is that the people working for Trump just happened to know what happened to the people who blindly followed Nixon in Watergate and the people around Trump, craven as they are for even working for the man, put their foot down and said "screw this, I'm not going to jail for this asshole". Which is, honestly, pissing Trump off more than anything. It doesn't just reveal him to be engaged in impeachable obstruction and abuse of power. It also reveals to him to be completely impotent and ineffectual at doing so.
Which is of course, like everything else Trump does, being used as a ready-made excuse for why he can't be held accountable for it. Don Jr. can't be held accountable because he was too stupid to understand the law he was breaking. Trump himself attempted nearly a dozen times to shut down or obstruct the investigation, but he shouldn't be held accountable because he wasn't successful at doing so. Fine. Let's see that same logic apply at every other goddamn level of the justice system. I'm open to letting Trump off the hook completely if the stupidity and ineffectual defense is open to every single person standing before a judge and jury in this country. So who's on board?? Anyone??.......no, I didn't think so.
This is actually one of the most damning parts of Volume 2 (though to be perfectly frank, even just scanning through the report looking for this section I ran into about 4 or 5 others that were just as bad or worse):
9. The President Attempts to Have K.T. McFarland Create a Witness Statement Denying that he Directed Flynn’s Discussions with Kislyak
On February 22, 2017, Priebus and Bannon told McFarland that the President wanted her to resign as Deputy National Security Advisor, but they suggested to her that the Administration could make her the ambassador to Singapore. The next day, the President asked Priebus to have McFarland draft an internal email that would confirm that the President did not direct Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador about sanctions. Priebus said he told the President he would only direct McFarland to write such a letter if she were comfortable with it. Priebus called McFarland into his office to convey the President’s request that she memorialize in writing that the President did not direct Flynn to talk to Kislyak. McFarland told Priebus she did not know whether the President had directed Flynn to talk to Kislyak about sanctions, and she declined to say yes or no to the request. Priebus understood that McFarland was not comfortable with the President’s request, and he recommended that she talk to attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office.
McFarland then reached out to Eisenberg. McFarland told him that she had been fired from her job as Deputy National Security Advisor and offered the ambassadorship in Singapore but that the President and Priebus wanted a letter from her denying that the President directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. Eisenberg advised McFarland not to write the requested letter. As documented by McFarland in a contemporaneous “Memorandum for the Record” that she wrote because she was concerned by the President’s request: “Eisenberg ... thought the requested email and letter would be a bad idea – from my side because the email would be awkward. Why would I be emailing Priebus to make a statement for the record? But it would also be a bad idea for the President because it looked as if my ambassadorial appointment was in some way a quid pro quo." Later that evening, Priebus stopped by McFarland’s office and told her not to write the email and to forget he even mentioned it.
In short, Trump asks his Chief of Staff to tell KT McFarland to write an email that essentially leaves a "paper trail" distancing him from Flynn, and they will reward her with the position of Ambassador to Singapore in exchange. Another order clearly given, another order not followed because the people involved have alarm bells ringing in their ears saying "this is could be seen as criminal". Again, another attempt stopped not because of their intent (which was to obstruct and deceive in regards to the truth about Flynn) but because the request was so insane that people in the White House Counsel's Office were telling her in no uncertain terms DO NOT write that email.
Again, if people take the time to actually read the obstruction part of this report, this type of shit is ALL OVER the place. And it really does help put it into context even beyond the media reports summarizing it. Trump was engaged in a full-scale cover-up and abuse of power from the moment Flynn's lies to the FBI and Pence were made known to him. It never stopped after that point, and only escalated. Which we have ALWAYS known, but seeing it all in sequential order in one place is just so, so damning. It's a portrait of absolute corruption that can't be denied. Any one of these things on their own can MAYBE be excused. The the systematic requests and orders for them time after time after time in regards to this investigation is simply too much to ignore. I defy anyone to read Volume 2 in it's entirety and tell me this man should still be in office.
Edit: A word or two about Flynn....there is a reason this guy's lies kicked this whole thing off. Flynn was not some sideline player in Trump's world. If you speak to any reporter who actually traveled with the Trump campaign in 2016, they will attest to Flynn being at Trump's side nearly 24/7. He was a daily presence. As he would have been in the Oval Office as National Security Adviser, which ranks just below Chief of Staff as far as West Wing positions go. When Obama had his meeting in the days after the election with Trump, despite EVERYTHING Trump had said about his birthplace, he went out of his way to warn Trump about hiring Flynn, and told him it was a horrible idea and not to do it. Obama tried to save Trump from himself at the very beginning, despite having EVERY reason not to from a personal standpoint. And he didn't listen.
Washington Democrats have called for the expulsion of the GOP politician from his caucus and other sanctions after the report.
According to The Guardian, the participants, including Shea, discussed in a extremist right wing chat thread their desire to physically attack leftists, showing up at their homes, or where their children go to day care, and conducting background checks on political organizers.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-democrats-call-for-gop-state-rep-matt-shea-to-be-expelled-after-latest-allegations/
I think in those discussions it is important to keep in mind the difference between intent and ignorance of the law.
Intent is usually required for a crime to be committed, with the obvious exception of all crimes based on negligence.
Ignorance of the law is almost never a valid defense.
E.g. to commit murder you have to try to kill someone. If you kill someone by accident it is not murder. Even if you have a felony murder law (which I consider to be dubious), then intent is still required for the original crime you wanted to commit. So intent is required.
Not knowing that murder is illegal is not an excuse before the law. Ignorance of the law does not matter.
At least on the internet it often gets confused as lack of intent is often the same as ignorance of the consequences of your action (but not the law).
I'm not sure the highlighted bit is true. There can be a grey area about whether something is ignorance of the law or a lack of intent, but ignorance can certainly be a factor in murder cases. Consider for instance a situation where a person of limited intelligence has caused a death. It may be accepted by all parties that they intended to commit an illegal action - and, if that results in a death, in many jurisdictions that could be automatically classed as felony murder. However, they would have a strong defense if they were able to demonstrate that they truly were ignorant of the law. In that case the likely outcome would be a conviction for manslaughter rather than murder. For most people this defense is not realistic in murder cases as it's hard to demonstrate that level of ignorance.
Note that there could be a separate defense that the defendant actually lacked the mental capacity to form intent. In the above example though I'm assuming it's accepted that the intent was there for the original crime - that does not invalidate the defense based on ignorance.
The Sri Lanka bombings are said to be in retaliation to the Christchurch shootings.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/asia/sri-lanka-investigation-ntj-intl/index.html
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
Jihadists are far right terrorists.
Donald Trump has decided he doesn't want to do that and to cover his own ass he's decided to go full authoritarian (instead of the half measures he'd been doing.)
So he's been on a 24 hour rage filled tweet storm binge watching Fox News. halso apparently ordered the Treasury to deny laws that require the IRS to turn over his tax forms.
He has launched a lawsuit to prevent Congress from seeing his financial documents.
He ordered a former White House staffer to ignore a subpoena on a matter of national security.
Trump is deliberately bringing on a collision with Congress and he might get away with it because Mitch McConnell has been filling the judiciary with far right loonies like Bart Kavanaugh, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and ghost hunters.
Disagree. I don't think they give a shit about the political spectrum...