Robert Francis (no, I don't call him Beto) is only progressive when compared to Ted Cruz.
Why do you call Beto O'Rourke "Robert Francis" and then call Rafael Cruz "Ted"?
Personal preference. My wife knows Rafael Senior, Ted's father, personally.
What's really funny with both of them, though, is that the Cuban-American goes by a completely English/American name while the Irish-American goes by a Mexican name.
Robert Francis (no, I don't call him Beto) is only progressive when compared to Ted Cruz.
Why do you call Beto O'Rourke "Robert Francis" and then call Rafael Cruz "Ted"?
Personal preference. My wife knows Rafael Senior, Ted's father, personally.
What's really funny with both of them, though, is that the Cuban-American goes by a completely English/American name while the Irish-American goes by a Mexican name.
Beto goes by Beto and Rafael goes by Ted. It seems reasonable to acknowledge their preferred names. A lot of people go by middle names or nicknames. So many people.
I mean, there's valid opportunity to criticism him on policy or actions but to not be willing to acknowledge his name seems petty. For a guy like Trump who's whole schtick is pettiness and name calling that might be appropriate but by all accounts Beto doesn't deserve that treatment.
And your wife knows the guy the President said was involved with the JFK assassination?
A Haitian Asylum-Seeker Did Everything Right. ICE Sent Him to a Windowless Jail Cell.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/a-haitian-asylum-seeker-did-everything-right-ice-sent-him-to-a-windowless-jail-cell/?fbclid=IwAR2FXfjmSeJDysQbTB2z9sbqFFLoBDEKx0bVbAWKt0g5m9VRjXt2181punE This isn't right. Not at all. There, he did exactly what US immigration officials have consistently told asylum-seekers to do: He came to an official port of entry and asked for protection from the persecution he’d faced back home, and a judge granted him asylum. What’s happened to him since is an extreme illustration of the distortion of the asylum process under President Donald Trump. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under its new Trump-appointed leadership, appealed Damus’ asylum decision, and while the case was being heard, ICE kept him locked up in Chardon. After the judge upheld his asylum grant, ICE again appealed, and Damus remained at the jail. The prolonged incarceration was emblematic of an administration that does everything in its power to keep asylum-seekers in jail, rather than releasing them with ankle monitors or other forms of supervision.
Trump picks Gen. Mark Milley as next top military adviser
House Democrat's response to Trump admin's request for more cash to detain kids: 'Over my dead body'
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817655/-House-Democrat-s-response-to-Trump-admin-s-request-for-more-cash-to-detain-kids-Over-my-dead-body?detail=emaildkre Maybe we can stop this now, if the Democrats refuse to give him the money to build more tent cities. The administration is calling for more cash as it continues to detain a record number of migrant children, the vast majority of them unaccompanied minors, or kids who came to the U.S. by themselves. Officials could release these kids to sponsors, but have instead increased the size of the Tornillo prison camp, at ongoing physical and emotional risk to children who were already escaping great physical and emotional harm. According to a government watchdog, a top Health and Human Services (HHS) official waived FBI background checks for Tornillo employees. Now, officials want more cash? Unfortunately, they could still get it. “In the HHS appropriations package signed into law earlier this year, the agency was given authority to transfer more unallocated funds from elsewhere in HHS to pay for housing migrant children.” DeLauro, though, could soon end this practice. The Hill reports that she’s “set to become head of the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), starting in January.”
Is the U.S. headed for recession? Trump's advisers say no, but Donald is shifting blame just in case
In North Carolina, Republican Mark Harris revealed his campaign owes $34,000 to a political operative accused of illegally collecting — and not submitting — absentee ballots.
Want to watch how institutional racism works?
Crystal Mason was sentenced to 5 years in prison for casting a provisional ballot at her church, not realizing that as a felon, she wasn’t allowed to vote.
Does anybody think a single person in this criminal conspiracy will ever be sentenced to 5 years? Will they even be charged is a legitimate question at this point.
The fact that the GOP is quiet about this proves their intentions. Had this been a Democrat we'd have launched an investigation and shunned that candidate.
Republicans aren't even talking about this story. It's not even a big deal.
"We cheat. So what?" should be answered loudly by voters.
A Haitian Asylum-Seeker Did Everything Right. ICE Sent Him to a Windowless Jail Cell.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/a-haitian-asylum-seeker-did-everything-right-ice-sent-him-to-a-windowless-jail-cell/?fbclid=IwAR2FXfjmSeJDysQbTB2z9sbqFFLoBDEKx0bVbAWKt0g5m9VRjXt2181punE This isn't right. Not at all. There, he did exactly what US immigration officials have consistently told asylum-seekers to do: He came to an official port of entry and asked for protection from the persecution he’d faced back home, and a judge granted him asylum. What’s happened to him since is an extreme illustration of the distortion of the asylum process under President Donald Trump. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under its new Trump-appointed leadership, appealed Damus’ asylum decision, and while the case was being heard, ICE kept him locked up in Chardon. After the judge upheld his asylum grant, ICE again appealed, and Damus remained at the jail. The prolonged incarceration was emblematic of an administration that does everything in its power to keep asylum-seekers in jail, rather than releasing them with ankle monitors or other forms of supervision.
It's not quite as evil as kidnapping children, but it shares the same mind-set. The idea is to make entry to the US for poor people so uncomfortable that they will give up on the idea themselves and also put out the message to others not to try to go there.
That basic approach is being employed not in support of the law, but despite it. I'm not a supporter of open borders and I have sympathy with those who believe appropriate restrictions are needed. I also believe, however, that the law should be applied in a just and fair fashion. If you think the law is wrong, it seems to me that the appropriate answer is to campaign to change the law and see if others agree with you - not to just abuse administrative power to bypass the law.
It's not my main point, but I suppose I should also mention the role money plays in this. Those profiteering from running detention centres and jails are effectively conspiring to maintain and increase this sort of abuse.
I'm conscious that many of my posts tend to be full of doom and gloom, so I'll also mention that there was a far more hopeful side to this story. There are a lot of ordinary people mentioned who have recognized the injustice being done to Damus and tried to help him. It's certainly worth remembering that this type of abuse (and yes I am aware I keep using that word) does not command popular support.
John Kelly is leaving the administration at the end of the year. I feel sorry for whoever is taking his place.
He helped Trump not implode.
By lending administrative skills, organization, authority, and competence kelly has helped prolong our national embarrassment under Trump. He's a a Trumpist Collaborator without Kelly we would have seen even more incompetence from Trump and this nightmare might have ended already.
And what did Kelly get out of this arrangement? Nothing. He's tossed aside when Trump got tired of him and Trump's imploding anyway.
A Haitian Asylum-Seeker Did Everything Right. ICE Sent Him to a Windowless Jail Cell.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/a-haitian-asylum-seeker-did-everything-right-ice-sent-him-to-a-windowless-jail-cell/?fbclid=IwAR2FXfjmSeJDysQbTB2z9sbqFFLoBDEKx0bVbAWKt0g5m9VRjXt2181punE This isn't right. Not at all. There, he did exactly what US immigration officials have consistently told asylum-seekers to do: He came to an official port of entry and asked for protection from the persecution he’d faced back home, and a judge granted him asylum. What’s happened to him since is an extreme illustration of the distortion of the asylum process under President Donald Trump. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under its new Trump-appointed leadership, appealed Damus’ asylum decision, and while the case was being heard, ICE kept him locked up in Chardon. After the judge upheld his asylum grant, ICE again appealed, and Damus remained at the jail. The prolonged incarceration was emblematic of an administration that does everything in its power to keep asylum-seekers in jail, rather than releasing them with ankle monitors or other forms of supervision.
What. The. FUCK!?!
He had a JUDGE grant him asylum. Not once, but TWICE. Not in some liberal bastion either, but OHIO, which is probably now more conservative than a real swing state.
Been in jail for 2 years because ICE keeps appealing his case. Maybe ICE SHOULD be disbanded.
How would abolishing a house even work? Assign all the Senate powers to the House, but are they 2 year and everyone runs again, or 6 year with 1/3 rotations every 2 years? Do we change the size of the House?
I also get the feeling that this is going to come to a head in the next 20 years or so. Like the article says, demographic projections are that populations are going to get REAL disproportionate.
"you can't go to jail for fraud - and money laundering that follows it - if you do not have the intent to commit fraud."
Obviously. I'm taking 5 accounting courses this semester, and we covered fraud in 3 of them (Auditing, Ethics, and Accounting Info Systems, not to mention covering it last semester in at least 2 other courses).
No intent is not fraud, it the division between fraud and something not-fraud, like negligence.
Granted, i don't see how a reasonable, unbiased person could not see this as NOT fraud. But whatever.
It seems beyond question now that if he were not currently the sitting President, Trump would likely currently be facing felony indictment for campaign finance violations based on the Cohen documents. The wording about "Individual 1" is plain as day. Trump instructed Cohen to make the secret payments. Cohen is now facing these charges. If Trump is the one who instructed him to make them, he is equally responsible.
Beyond that, the Manafort filings clearly suggest that after he entered into his plea with Mueller's team, part of what he did to break it was feeding information to Trump World. If there was any question of obstruction before, this is likely another nail in the coffin.
We are now in the territory where it seems blatantly obvious that Donald Trump is the point man for numerous criminal conspiracies. The only reason it is taking time to reach him is 1.) everyone has been initially lying to protect him and 2.) he is the sitting President. Most legal experts have concluded he would absolutely be facing indictment in the SDNY if he wasn't. I'd be shocked if Mueller doesn't have him stone-cold on obstruction of justice. If impeachment isn't warranted for someone like Trump, why should it even exist at all?? But more importantly, what is the point of Democrats impeaching him in the House when I doubt a SINGLE Republican could be moved in the Senate??
It seems beyond question now that if he were not currently the sitting President, Trump would likely currently be facing felony indictment for campaign finance violations based on the Cohen documents. The wording about "Individual 1" is plain as day. Trump instructed Cohen to make the secret payments. Cohen is now facing these charges. If Trump is the one who instructed him to make them, he is equally responsible.
Beyond that, the Manafort filings clearly suggest that after he entered into his plea with Mueller's team, part of what he did to break it was feeding information to Trump World. If there was any question of obstruction before, this is likely another nail in the coffin.
We are now in the territory where it seems blatantly obvious that Donald Trump is the point man for numerous criminal conspiracies. The only reason it is taking time to reach him is 1.) everyone has been initially lying to protect him and 2.) he is the sitting President. Most legal experts have concluded he would absolutely be facing indictment in the SDNY if he wasn't. I'd be shocked if Mueller doesn't have him stone-cold on obstruction of justice. If impeachment isn't warranted for someone like Trump, why should it even exist at all?? But more importantly, what is the point of Democrats impeaching him in the House when I doubt a SINGLE Republican could be moved in the Senate??
I can see the Senate impeaching.
They still have Pence as president, and if they think they can't hold the white house in 2020 with Trump, they have a vehicle to remove him.
They'll read the public, especially the swing states and states that are up for re-election. If the public is calling for his head, they'll give it. I read/heard somewhere it was the same with Nixon. The party was completely backing him until the impeachment came up and they turned on him.
It seems beyond question now that if he were not currently the sitting President, Trump would likely currently be facing felony indictment for campaign finance violations based on the Cohen documents. The wording about "Individual 1" is plain as day. Trump instructed Cohen to make the secret payments. Cohen is now facing these charges. If Trump is the one who instructed him to make them, he is equally responsible.
Beyond that, the Manafort filings clearly suggest that after he entered into his plea with Mueller's team, part of what he did to break it was feeding information to Trump World. If there was any question of obstruction before, this is likely another nail in the coffin.
We are now in the territory where it seems blatantly obvious that Donald Trump is the point man for numerous criminal conspiracies. The only reason it is taking time to reach him is 1.) everyone has been initially lying to protect him and 2.) he is the sitting President. Most legal experts have concluded he would absolutely be facing indictment in the SDNY if he wasn't. I'd be shocked if Mueller doesn't have him stone-cold on obstruction of justice. If impeachment isn't warranted for someone like Trump, why should it even exist at all?? But more importantly, what is the point of Democrats impeaching him in the House when I doubt a SINGLE Republican could be moved in the Senate??
I can see the Senate impeaching.
They still have Pence as president, and if they think they can't hold the white house in 2020 with Trump, they have a vehicle to remove him.
They'll read the public, especially the swing states and states that are up for re-election. If the public is calling for his head, they'll give it. I read/heard somewhere it was the same with Nixon. The party was completely backing him until the impeachment came up and they turned on him.
2 Differences.
1. Nixon was willing to stay in until he knew the Senate was going to impeach. Trump will stay in UNTIL he is impeached. 2. The Senate was made up of people with the moral fortitude to do the right thing. No way in hell is that happening this day and age. Mitch McConnell? The right thing? The constitutional thing? Please.
Pretty good article from Wired on where we're at. The conclusion?? It's revealing itself to be way worse than most people would let themselves believe (I'm not one of those people):
If impeachment isn't warranted for someone like Trump, why should it even exist at all?? But more importantly, what is the point of Democrats impeaching him in the House when I doubt a SINGLE Republican could be moved in the Senate??
Well the House should do it's job.
If the Justice Department does it's job it will put criminal charges on Trump Jr., Ivanka, Kushner, Roger Stone, and all the others involved with crimes. If you have the facts about crimes from individual 1 (Trump) you impeach.
Then, if the Senate doesn't do it's job you hang that shit around their neck like an anchor weighing them down in the 2020 election and then watch them get a blue tsunami in the Senate like the whooping that they just got in the House. Trump should lose in 2020 then laugh as New York reposesses his entire portfolio due to unpaid taxes and penalties.
I said a very, very long time ago that I found it extremely implausible that the Trump campaign conspired in any way with the Russian government. This was not out of any special trust in Donald Trump or his administration, but out of the belief that Vladimir Putin would not entrust that kind of secret with an American, whether it was Donald Trump or anyone else.
But over the past couple years, I've seen that prediction increasingly challenged, mostly in the last few months as more details have come out. Until recently, little was known about the Mueller investigation's progress. The FBI, to its credit and to many people's frustration, has been incredibly discreet about its progress and has avoided making public statements or leaking bombshells to the press.
We've already seen multiple members of Trump's campaign and later his administration being convicted or pleading guilty to various crimes, all while Trump himself has repeatedly denigrated the investigation on false grounds (to the extent that he has lied that the investigators are "Democrats all"), and even attempted to sabotage the investigation by firing Comey, as he accidentally revealed during a meeting with Russian diplomats. Now his own lawyer appears to be helping establish Donald Trump's personal role in violating campaign finance laws and actively trying to forge ties with the Russian government and welcoming its interference in the election...
...the one thing I didn't think was realistic. I always heavily doubted the notion that Trump himself attempted to work with the Russian government, but now I'm leaning towards the opposite. Now, I'd consider it "more likely than not."
Here was my mistake: I assumed that Putin would not trust American citizens with this kind of information. But that assumption was false for two reasons. First, Putin wouldn't necessarily need to fear the truth of conspiracy coming out--the United States already disliked him; if he was caught trying to interfere in the 2016 election, how would that really hurt him? Putin had no reason to fear being caught because he would suffer little punishment even if he did.
And as most of you will recall, Trump tried to thwart new sanctions that were imposed on Russia in retaliation for the interference. Trump attempted, but failed, to shield Putin from punishment.
The second reason my assumption was false has only just occurred to me after reading the above article: Putin didn't need to place his trust in an unvetted, untested American co-conspirator. The filings thus far indicate that Russia made multiple overtures to the Trump campaign, tentatively inching forward.
Why is this important? Well, by repeatedly testing the waters over the course of multiple contacts, the Russian government could figure out if they could trust the Trump campaign. That infamous Trump Tower meeting could be one of those tests. It was only after the Russian government gaugedthe Trump campaign's willingness to work with foreign agents that they realized they could trust Trump's team to keep it quiet, and hopefully let Russia's influence campaign go unnoticed.
And as most of you will recall, Trump tried for quite some time to deny that Russia interfered in the election at all; not just that he personally was involved in it.
With my previous assumption disproved, the notion that Trump actively welcomed Russian assistance is now logically sound; it doesn't depend on the assumption that Putin was foolish or incompetent in dealing with Trump. As for whether it actually happened, the Cohen revelations support it, but we won't really know until the Mueller investigation comes to a close.
I'll add that though I have always been convinced of the underlying criminality at the heart of this campaign and Presidency from the beginning, the last two years have made me more convinced that even though it's all going to be revealed in broad daylight, nothing is going to happen to him. For one thing, I don't think the House Democrats have the stomach or fortitude to take him on when he's a cornered rat. If you think Trump is hostile and off the rails now, imagine what he is going to be like when all the chips are down. If the only thing preventing him from facing criminal prosecution is holding the Presidency, just how hard do you think he is going to hold onto that life-raft?? The Democrats will conclude that the public will see how bad it is, and put the situation in the hands of the voters. What is going to be the point of impeachment proceedings with an election at most 18 months away, especially if Trump himself will fight every revelation or development up to the Supreme Court if necessary?? At a bare minimum, Trump would be able to drag this out til the election without being removed from office no matter WHAT is revealed. The statement he made about shooting someone on 5th Ave wasn't hyperbole at all. It was just plain TRUE. Which leads up to.......
The rest of the Republican Party. Even separate from Trump, this is where any chance of justice falls apart. They aren't going to abandon him. This is the party that stole a Supreme Court seat. This is a party that is participating in legislative coups of recent election results, and now seems to be implicated in the flat-out theft of a Congressional seat. Have you heard ONE prominent national Republican speak out against the situation going on in Wisconsin or North Carolina?? I would be shocked to find out who they were if it has happened. They have abandoned the very idea of democracy itself. They no longer seem to believe in it's basic tenants. They continue to lurch toward a position where the only things they believe in are holding power and the idea that not only shouldn't Democrats hold power, but that they won't be ALLOWED to even if they win elections. And THIS is the party that is going to abandon Donald Trump?? They are Donald Trump, he is just their most loud and obnoxious avatar.
There are 47 Democrats in the Senate. 67 votes would be needed for impeachment. Which means even if every Democrat votes in favor of conviction in a hypothetical trial, they would need TWENTY Republicans to cross over and join them. I can't even think of 3 Republicans who would do so at this current moment, much less 20 of them. It would be a miracle if 5 of them had the backbone to do the right thing. Even in that highly unlikely scenario, you would still need 15 more. It can be argued that impeachment SHOULD commence at some time in the next 2 years, simply because the survival of our system of government calls for it. But there is almost zero chance of convincing 20 members of the modern Republican Senate to sign on no matter what Trump is revealed to have done. Anything short of a video of him committing a murder will be excused.
Impeachment has never ACTUALLY happened in this country from start to finish. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but not removed from office. Nixon WOULD have been removed from office, but in the end at least spared himself and the country that indignity and resigned. To say anyone has less moral scruples than Richard Nixon is a low-bar indeed, but I'd argue Trump has FAR less. There is just no way. He is going to have to be voted out, even as it's slowly revealed he is basically running a criminal syndicate.
Impeachment has never ACTUALLY happened in this country from start to finish. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but not removed from office. Nixon WOULD have been removed from office, but in the end at least spared himself and the country that indignity and resigned. To say anyone has less moral scruples than Richard Nixon is a low-bar indeed, but I'd argue Trump has FAR less. There is just no way. He is going to have to be voted out, even as it's slowly revealed he is basically running a criminal syndicate.
On the whole, I agree with the argument that Impeachment is essentially impossible in modern American politics. When partisanship is so incredibly high, it takes an unfathomable bar for partisans in the President's party to support removing him from office. Furthermore, Clinton's impeachment muddied the water in an important way: If one party presses for impeachment of the president, it can end up damaging their own popularity and buoying the opponent's popularity.
When those two features are taken in concert: That Democrats have to risk making Trump more popular, and Republicans towing the partisan line, there's no real reason to expect impeachment to happen. Especially when you consider that popularity inherently figures into impeachment. If Trump's popularity falls sufficiently far that even the GOP would consider cutting him loose to try to salvage some part of an election, then Democrats would tactically want Trump to be on the ticket as an albatross.
Like I've said many times before, there is no reason not to prosecute Trump now and I think that would be a better remedy than impeachment. There's not a clear constitutional bar on prosecuting a President in any circumstances, but it's generally reckoned that would not be allowed by the Supreme Court for offences committed during a Presidential term and on official business. While some (like Kavanaugh) would like to extend that protection more widely there are a number of precedents that would need to be overcome to do that and I don't believe a general bar on prosecution of a President would be supported by the Supreme Court (to do so would actually undermine their own independent power base in the Constitution). Even if they did ultimately agree such a bar on prosecution, that would only apply while a President was actually in office and starting a prosecution now would thus not be wasted effort - it would actually be helpful to get information out to the public in a less partisan way than via an impeachment.
I don't believe Trump would run for re-election if it's obvious that he won't get re-elected - he hates losing too much. While it's true that there's been a lot of damage to the US political system in recent years, I don't think there's yet any grounds for considering that he could get away with dispensing with elections entirely - and even allowing for the possibility of various electoral scams, I suspect that events over the next year or so will show that would be his only route for continuing as President.
Impeachment has never ACTUALLY happened in this country from start to finish. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but not removed from office. Nixon WOULD have been removed from office, but in the end at least spared himself and the country that indignity and resigned. To say anyone has less moral scruples than Richard Nixon is a low-bar indeed, but I'd argue Trump has FAR less. There is just no way. He is going to have to be voted out, even as it's slowly revealed he is basically running a criminal syndicate.
On the whole, I agree with the argument that Impeachment is essentially impossible in modern American politics. When partisanship is so incredibly high, it takes an unfathomable bar for partisans in the President's party to support removing him from office. Furthermore, Clinton's impeachment muddied the water in an important way: If one party presses for impeachment of the president, it can end up damaging their own popularity and buoying the opponent's popularity.
When those two features are taken in concert: That Democrats have to risk making Trump more popular, and Republicans towing the partisan line, there's no real reason to expect impeachment to happen. Especially when you consider that popularity inherently figures into impeachment. If Trump's popularity falls sufficiently far that even the GOP would consider cutting him loose to try to salvage some part of an election, then Democrats would tactically want Trump to be on the ticket as an albatross.
I believe Clinton's approval during the impeachment trial was over 60%. Initially, his lies about Lewinsky were viewed as a fatal blow to his Presidency. But the only thing they were ever hanging their hat on was that he lied in a civil deposition in the Paula Jones case. The Republicans had the upper-hand right up to the point of the televised questioning of Clinton by the Starr team, which was broadcast everywhere for a week. If the Republicans had stuck to the actual legal merits of the situation, which was potential perjury, they might have had something. But since they were pretending to crusade for some sort of morality, it became 99.9% about sexual deviancy, and the public wanted no part of it after a certain point, especially when prominent members of the Republican House were revealed to have been engaging in affairs at the same time.
Moreover, if Starr had EVER found evidence of Clinton's lawyers funneling hush money payments to Lewinsky, it would have been game, set and match. He would have been removed from office. He also participated in the marathon interview with Starr's prosecutors. Trump has now been found to have ordered hush money payments to conceal information during a national election AND he is steadfastly refusing to sit with Mueller's team, much less have the interview broadcast 24/7 on cable news like Clinton's was. Point being, Clinton was able to regain the support of the public not only because he had an inherent charm and likability that Trump lacks, but also because Ken Starr was so nakedly partisan. Not only were they nakedly partisan, but they leaked info to the press CONSTANTLY, which was illegal in and of itself. Mueller's team is not only not a partisan operation, but has essentially leaked NOTHING this entire time.
Like I've said many times before, there is no reason not to prosecute Trump now and I think that would be a better remedy than impeachment. There's not a clear constitutional bar on prosecuting a President in any circumstances, but it's generally reckoned that would not be allowed by the Supreme Court for offences committed during a Presidential term and on official business. While some (like Kavanaugh) would like to extend that protection more widely there are a number of precedents that would need to be overcome to do that and I don't believe a general bar on prosecution of a President would be supported by the Supreme Court (to do so would actually undermine their own independent power base in the Constitution). Even if they did ultimately agree such a bar on prosecution, that would only apply while a President was actually in office and starting a prosecution now would thus not be wasted effort - it would actually be helpful to get information out to the public in a less partisan way than via an impeachment.
I don't believe Trump would run for re-election if it's obvious that he won't get re-elected - he hates losing too much. While it's true that there's been a lot of damage to the US political system in recent years, I don't think there's yet any grounds for considering that he could get away with dispensing with elections entirely - and even allowing for the possibility of various electoral scams, I suspect that events over the next year or so will show that would be his only route for continuing as President.
Kavanaugh's flip-flop on Executive Power from when he was one of Ken Starr's attack dogs going after Clinton to his later change on the subject the MOMENT a Republican President took office (George W. Bush) is the reason he is sitting on the court today. More than anyone else, he is a Republican operative wearing a robe. He would back Trump on ANY claim of Executive Power and I have absolutely zero doubt that in 8 years if the same case came up involving a Democrat, he would issue a different ruling. Because he has already proven his opinion on Executive Power changes based on who is occupying the office. This is the #1 reason he was backed by Republicans so strongly.
Like I've said many times before, there is no reason not to prosecute Trump now and I think that would be a better remedy than impeachment. There's not a clear constitutional bar on prosecuting a President in any circumstances, but it's generally reckoned that would not be allowed by the Supreme Court for offences committed during a Presidential term and on official business. While some (like Kavanaugh) would like to extend that protection more widely there are a number of precedents that would need to be overcome to do that and I don't believe a general bar on prosecution of a President would be supported by the Supreme Court (to do so would actually undermine their own independent power base in the Constitution). Even if they did ultimately agree such a bar on prosecution, that would only apply while a President was actually in office and starting a prosecution now would thus not be wasted effort - it would actually be helpful to get information out to the public in a less partisan way than via an impeachment.
I don't believe Trump would run for re-election if it's obvious that he won't get re-elected - he hates losing too much. While it's true that there's been a lot of damage to the US political system in recent years, I don't think there's yet any grounds for considering that he could get away with dispensing with elections entirely - and even allowing for the possibility of various electoral scams, I suspect that events over the next year or so will show that would be his only route for continuing as President.
Kavanaugh's flip-flop on Executive Power from when he was one of Ken Starr's attack dogs going after Clinton to his later change on the subject the MOMENT a Republican President took office (George W. Bush) is the reason he is sitting on the court today. More than anyone else, he is a Republican operative wearing a robe. He would back Trump on ANY claim of Executive Power and I have absolutely zero doubt that in 8 years if the same case came up involving a Democrat, he would issue a different ruling. Because he has already proven his opinion on Executive Power changes based on who is occupying the office. This is the #1 reason he was backed by Republicans so strongly.
He might back Trump, but I wouldn't like to guarantee that. He's in a position now where Trump can essentially do nothing further for him personally. However, it's pretty clear that if Trump stays in power he's going to be chipping away at the independence of the judiciary - which is bad for the position of the Supreme Court as a whole (and therefore of Kavanaugh). Why therefore should he risk such damage by going out on a limb for Trump? It's possible I suppose he would do that out of gratitude for past favors, but I wouldn't rely too strongly on that. It's also possible that his convictions as a Republican would outweigh the cost to him, but again that doesn't seem probable. Even if he did support Trump on this though, I can't see a majority of other Justices following him.
Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day: Mike Pence- 2018 Update
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/5/1817176/-Crazy-Stupid-Republican-of-the-Day-Mike-Pence-2018-Update?detail=emaildkre Just part of the reason why I think that President Pence wouldn't be much better than President Trump. Then Gov. Pence, the insane true believer in the American culture wars that he is, went and signed Indiana’s “religious freedom” law to allow for the legal discrimination of the LGBT community, then denied that the point of the bill was allowing discrimination (and making many send him the literal definition of “discrimination” since he seemed unable to understand it) and claiming he was incapable of discrimination because he once participated in an anniversary walk in Selma, Alabama. That only made critics note that during his time in the U.S. House, he actually campaigned on an agenda to “oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s as a ‘discreet and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities” or that he called for “an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus“ and instead, ”Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior“. If you’re unclear as to what that means, it’s that Pence wanted money redirected towards gay conversion therapy, which doesn’t actually work, and is considered a human rights violation. But that’s not all. Pence responded to the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act by making the ludicrous claim that it would allow intimidation towards or even charges to be filed against pastors who expressed a Biblical worldview critical to homosexuality, and also tried arguing that the 2010 repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would, in his words, “weaken unit cohesion” of our military, and once voted for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. Factor in the time Pence is awful enough to women that he voted against all equal pay legislation including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, railed against the Disney cartoon Mulan for implying that women might be able to honorably serve in the military, and actually had an Indiana woman arrested for having a miscarriage because his obsession with cracking down on reproductive rights is that over-the-top insane. We’re talking that he voted for for the Terry Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill extreme, here. We’re saying that he was a sponsor of the legislation that tried to defund Planned Parenthood back in 2011, and his "evidence” of wrongdoing was a DIFFERENT doctored fraud of a video produced by friends of Breitbart News hacks like James O'Keefe. Pence also compared the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act to 9/11, and in early 2015 decided state taxpayer dollars should be allocated towards “JustIN’, a state-run news service with two employees being paid $100,000 salaries to present a point of view where Mike Pence could do no wrong (cancelled after taxpayers called him out on wasting their money on him lying to them). Pence denied a link between smoking an cancer as late as 2001 (he was accepting money from the big tobacco lobby, of course), and denies climate change is a thing to this day.
Global Warming Denier Set to Lead Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Still freaking out about Stormy Daniels lol. Didn't care then and I don't care now about her or her payments. If I had known in 2016 the Donald was sleeping around, it wouldn't have surprised me at all and would not have altered my vote one bit. I wasn't looking for the nicest guy but the one with the best policy.
The fact that this is taken as vindication of the ongoing Russia conspiracy theory is pretty funny.
Some of the statements made in court are rich. He sought to "influence the election from the shadows" and "acted as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful" by paying off porn stars. Gee, I wonder if we can find any other examples of "acting as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful"!
Still freaking out about Stormy Daniels lol. Didn't care then and I don't care now about her or her payments. If I had known in 2016 the Donald was sleeping around, it wouldn't have surprised me at all and would not have altered my vote one bit. I wasn't looking for the nicest guy but the one with the best policy.
The fact that this is taken as vindication of the ongoing Russia conspiracy theory is pretty funny.
Some of the statements made in court are rich. He sought to "influence the election from the shadows" and "acted as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful" by paying off porn stars. Gee, I wonder if we can find any other examples of "acting as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful"!
Still illegal. You may personally not care about a bunch of kids passing around a joint on a sidewalk, but a police officer is still going to press charges if he sees the action.
And I honestly think the Stormy thing is going to end up being a very minor sidebar once the whole thing is released.
Still freaking out about Stormy Daniels lol. Didn't care then and I don't care now about her or her payments. If I had known in 2016 the Donald was sleeping around, it wouldn't have surprised me at all and would not have altered my vote one bit. I wasn't looking for the nicest guy but the one with the best policy.
The fact that this is taken as vindication of the ongoing Russia conspiracy theory is pretty funny.
Some of the statements made in court are rich. He sought to "influence the election from the shadows" and "acted as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful" by paying off porn stars. Gee, I wonder if we can find any other examples of "acting as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful"!
Still illegal. You may personally not care about a bunch of kids passing around a joint on a sidewalk, but a police officer is still going to press charges if he sees the action.
And I honestly think the Stormy thing is going to end up being a very minor sidebar once the whole thing is released.
And while it might not matter to the economic anxiety crowd, white nationalist voters, or certain individual voters there are theorectically a large group that probably would have cared.
Having an affair where you rawdog a "horse face" porn star a couple months after Melania had his son Barron would be something that evangelicals and religious types might not excuse.
And as you say, it's a crime. Whether people care or not about the affair, covering up the fact is a criminal act. He directed this act to influence the election.
Still freaking out about Stormy Daniels lol. Didn't care then and I don't care now about her or her payments. If I had known in 2016 the Donald was sleeping around, it wouldn't have surprised me at all and would not have altered my vote one bit. I wasn't looking for the nicest guy but the one with the best policy.
The fact that this is taken as vindication of the ongoing Russia conspiracy theory is pretty funny.
Some of the statements made in court are rich. He sought to "influence the election from the shadows" and "acted as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful" by paying off porn stars. Gee, I wonder if we can find any other examples of "acting as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful"!
Still illegal. You may personally not care about a bunch of kids passing around a joint on a sidewalk, but a police officer is still going to press charges if he sees the action.
And I honestly think the Stormy thing is going to end up being a very minor sidebar once the whole thing is released.
Pretty much. By paying those women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall was ilegally influencing the election on behalf of Donald Trump. In short, he made an in-kind contribution to Donald Trump's campaign that was more than he was allowed. Finding out that Donald Trump paid off women who could 'besmirch' his good name might not matter to you, or anyone else who voted for him, but according to the laws of the country, it's illegal. And he did it because Donald Trump asked him to. That was illegal. The payment was illegal. Not to mention the way Trump lied about asking him to make the payment, over and over. He was asked why Cohen had done so, and Trump said, "I don't know. You'll have to ask him."
Another lie. Trump knew very well *why* Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Trump asked him to. Have you ever noticed Trump's pattern of lies? First, he claims he didn't do it. Then, he says he did it and that it wasn't illegal, and anybody would have done the same. Then, it becomes not only "not illegal", but also "not a big deal".
And how about that Cohen also was pursuing business deals with Vladimir Putin for Trump even after Trump was elected? Another thing Trump lied about and lied flagrantly. What about his plans to build Trump Tower Moscow that didn't end until July of 2017? (after he was elected and in office)? And the plan to give Putin outright a Penthouse Apartment worth $50 million? What about the fact that Cohen briefed Trump's kids and Jared Kushner on this whole thing, and all Ivanka cared about what getting to design the Tower?
Let's face it- if a Democratic President had been doing this stuff, The Republicans would not only have impeached him, they'd have strung him up from the nearest tree. How come no one is shouting 'lock her up!' about Ivanka? (or Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who also used private e-mail to do business? Of course, back then, it wasn't illegal, merely frowned upon. That's why Hillary Clinton never got indicted. When she did it, it wasn't illegal.) Ivanka, on the other hand, has no excuse. It *is* illegal now.
Still freaking out about Stormy Daniels lol. Didn't care then and I don't care now about her or her payments. If I had known in 2016 the Donald was sleeping around, it wouldn't have surprised me at all and would not have altered my vote one bit. I wasn't looking for the nicest guy but the one with the best policy.
The fact that this is taken as vindication of the ongoing Russia conspiracy theory is pretty funny.
Some of the statements made in court are rich. He sought to "influence the election from the shadows" and "acted as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful" by paying off porn stars. Gee, I wonder if we can find any other examples of "acting as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful"!
I imagine you've not been reading the same sources as me . As for Stormy Daniels I agree it's no big deal that he slept with her. What is more significant is that he made an apparently illegal payment to her and lied about it. There is an association with the Russia investigation through Cohen, who was carrying on negotiations for a business deal in Moscow during the campaign. Trump lied about that as well at the time and if you're impressed by his recent tweet admitting that and describing it as "very legal and very cool" I guess you're in a minority. Are you really comfortable with your President putting himself in a position where an unfriendly country is able to blackmail him (as they of course knew all along that Trump had lied about contacts with them) quite apart from any other levers they might have on him?
As has been pointed out a number of times, Mueller's investigation has actually progressed rapidly compared to previous investigations of similar scope. He's already got criminal convictions against a number of people at the top of the Trump campaign and even from what has already been published it seems clear he would be able to do the same against Trump. Convictions for lying to the investigation are of course a slam dunk - it's always been obvious that would happen since Trump can't keep his mouth shut and lies constantly. Convictions for campaign finance breaches are also certain and on the basis of information already in the public realm I think it's almost sure that there will also in due course be convictions for obstructing justice. As for the original core issue of conspiracy with Russia I think he's guilty, but I'm less sure about being able to prove that - though I think the chances are still high and getting higher over time. At a minimum though members of his family will be convicted.
Comments
"You learned from a mistake and made improvements in the law -- that's so Europe."
Also the interviewee couldn't be more Finnish lol
What's really funny with both of them, though, is that the Cuban-American goes by a completely English/American name while the Irish-American goes by a Mexican name.
I mean, there's valid opportunity to criticism him on policy or actions but to not be willing to acknowledge his name seems petty. For a guy like Trump who's whole schtick is pettiness and name calling that might be appropriate but by all accounts Beto doesn't deserve that treatment.
And your wife knows the guy the President said was involved with the JFK assassination?
A Haitian Asylum-Seeker Did Everything Right. ICE Sent Him to a Windowless Jail Cell.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/a-haitian-asylum-seeker-did-everything-right-ice-sent-him-to-a-windowless-jail-cell/?fbclid=IwAR2FXfjmSeJDysQbTB2z9sbqFFLoBDEKx0bVbAWKt0g5m9VRjXt2181punEThis isn't right. Not at all.
There, he did exactly what US immigration officials have consistently told asylum-seekers to do: He came to an official port of entry and asked for protection from the persecution he’d faced back home, and a judge granted him asylum. What’s happened to him since is an extreme illustration of the distortion of the asylum process under President Donald Trump. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under its new Trump-appointed leadership, appealed Damus’ asylum decision, and while the case was being heard, ICE kept him locked up in Chardon. After the judge upheld his asylum grant, ICE again appealed, and Damus remained at the jail. The prolonged incarceration was emblematic of an administration that does everything in its power to keep asylum-seekers in jail, rather than releasing them with ankle monitors or other forms of supervision.
Trump picks Gen. Mark Milley as next top military adviser
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-picks-gen-mark-milley-next-top-military-143312619--politics.html?re=0&.tsrc=notification-brknewsPresident Donald Trump announced Saturday that he's picked a battle-hardened commander who oversaw troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be the nation's next top military adviser.
I Served in Congress Longer Than Anyone. Here’s How to Fix It.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/?fbclid=IwAR3B5Dt_9reg-Z5cWqhA_2Uc_waNsCQ5BkGtA12M3ciHEDa9X1pQ8SE0o64Abolish the Senate and publicly fund elections.
George W. Bush Is Caught Secretly Giving Michelle Obama Candy (Again).. At His Father’s Funeral
https://www.pettymayonnaise.com/michelle-obama-george-bush-candy/?fbclid=IwAR1PQt2AHl281ifBwa3Plrqnzxcw16kmS59WGpSJK6086r_Ss1e8yQ_sLLoBombshell report: Trump campaign illegally coordinated with the NRA during the 2016 election
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817518/-Bombshell-report-Trump-campaign-illegally-coordinated-with-the-NRA-during-the-2016-election?detail=emaildkreNo! Really? ::irony.::
'Totally clears the president,' tweets Trump of new filings. Not so fast, says Twitter
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817756/--Totally-clears-the-president-tweets-Trump-of-new-filings-Not-so-fast-says-Twitter?detail=emaildkreTrump takes every chance to tweet how innocent he is. I'm with Twitter on this.
Rex Tillerson speaks out, says Trump asked him to break the law and 'wouldn't read briefings'
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817633/-Rex-Tillerson-speaks-out-says-Trump-asked-him-to-do-break-the-law-and-wouldn-t-read-briefings?detail=emaildkreWhat a surprise. I'm shocked, shocked, I say!
Trump sticks solemn Pearl Harbor tribute in between two crazy witch hunt tweets
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817658/-Trump-sticks-solemn-Pearl-Harbor-tribute-in-between-two-crazy-witch-hunt-tweets?detail=emaildkreSNAFU, business as usual for Trump.
Kurt Eichenwald explains clearly how Trump is in danger on fraud, money laundering and other crimes
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817770/-Kurt-Eichenwald-explains-clearly-how-Trump-is-in-danger-on-fraud-money-laundering-and-other-crimes?detail=emaildkreYou have to read this one, it's really good.
Krugman says Wisconsin has become like "Hungary on the Great Lakes"
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817643/-Krugman-says-Wisconsin-has-become-like-Hungary-on-the-Great-Lakes?detail=emaildkreNaked Power Grab by Republicans? Check.
House Democrat's response to Trump admin's request for more cash to detain kids: 'Over my dead body'
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817655/-House-Democrat-s-response-to-Trump-admin-s-request-for-more-cash-to-detain-kids-Over-my-dead-body?detail=emaildkreMaybe we can stop this now, if the Democrats refuse to give him the money to build more tent cities.
The administration is calling for more cash as it continues to detain a record number of migrant children, the vast majority of them unaccompanied minors, or kids who came to the U.S. by themselves. Officials could release these kids to sponsors, but have instead increased the size of the Tornillo prison camp, at ongoing physical and emotional risk to children who were already escaping great physical and emotional harm. According to a government watchdog, a top Health and Human Services (HHS) official waived FBI background checks for Tornillo employees. Now, officials want more cash?
Unfortunately, they could still get it. “In the HHS appropriations package signed into law earlier this year, the agency was given authority to transfer more unallocated funds from elsewhere in HHS to pay for housing migrant children.” DeLauro, though, could soon end this practice. The Hill reports that she’s “set to become head of the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), starting in January.”
Is the U.S. headed for recession? Trump's advisers say no, but Donald is shifting blame just in case
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817640/-Is-the-U-S-headed-for-recession-Trump-s-advisers-say-no-but-Donald-is-shifting-blame-just-in-case?detail=emaildkreThe usual, when it comes to Trump, sadly.
134 days past judge's reunification deadline, children kidnapped from parents are still in custody
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817641/-134-days-past-judge-s-reunification-deadline-children-kidnapped-from-parents-are-still-in-custody?detail=emaildkreNeo-Nazi convicted on all counts for driving into a crowd of protesters, killing Heather Heyer
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/7/1817741/-Neo-Nazi-convicted-on-all-counts-for-driving-into-a-crowd-of-protesters-killing-Heather-Heyer?detail=emaildkreI am rejoicing.
Want to watch how institutional racism works?
Crystal Mason was sentenced to 5 years in prison for casting a provisional ballot at her church, not realizing that as a felon, she wasn’t allowed to vote.
Does anybody think a single person in this criminal conspiracy will ever be sentenced to 5 years? Will they even be charged is a legitimate question at this point.
The fact that the GOP is quiet about this proves their intentions. Had this been a Democrat we'd have launched an investigation and shunned that candidate.
Republicans aren't even talking about this story. It's not even a big deal.
"We cheat. So what?" should be answered loudly by voters.
https://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-gop-candidate-owes-34000-to-operative-accused-of-fraud-2018-12?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral
That basic approach is being employed not in support of the law, but despite it. I'm not a supporter of open borders and I have sympathy with those who believe appropriate restrictions are needed. I also believe, however, that the law should be applied in a just and fair fashion. If you think the law is wrong, it seems to me that the appropriate answer is to campaign to change the law and see if others agree with you - not to just abuse administrative power to bypass the law.
It's not my main point, but I suppose I should also mention the role money plays in this. Those profiteering from running detention centres and jails are effectively conspiring to maintain and increase this sort of abuse.
I'm conscious that many of my posts tend to be full of doom and gloom, so I'll also mention that there was a far more hopeful side to this story. There are a lot of ordinary people mentioned who have recognized the injustice being done to Damus and tried to help him. It's certainly worth remembering that this type of abuse (and yes I am aware I keep using that word) does not command popular support.
By lending administrative skills, organization, authority, and competence kelly has helped prolong our national embarrassment under Trump. He's a a Trumpist Collaborator without Kelly we would have seen even more incompetence from Trump and this nightmare might have ended already.
And what did Kelly get out of this arrangement? Nothing. He's tossed aside when Trump got tired of him and Trump's imploding anyway.
He had a JUDGE grant him asylum. Not once, but TWICE. Not in some liberal bastion either, but OHIO, which is probably now more conservative than a real swing state.
Been in jail for 2 years because ICE keeps appealing his case. Maybe ICE SHOULD be disbanded.
How would abolishing a house even work? Assign all the Senate powers to the House, but are they 2 year and everyone runs again, or 6 year with 1/3 rotations every 2 years? Do we change the size of the House?
I also get the feeling that this is going to come to a head in the next 20 years or so. Like the article says, demographic projections are that populations are going to get REAL disproportionate. "you can't go to jail for fraud - and money laundering that follows it - if you do not have the intent to commit fraud."
Obviously. I'm taking 5 accounting courses this semester, and we covered fraud in 3 of them (Auditing, Ethics, and Accounting Info Systems, not to mention covering it last semester in at least 2 other courses).
No intent is not fraud, it the division between fraud and something not-fraud, like negligence.
Granted, i don't see how a reasonable, unbiased person could not see this as NOT fraud. But whatever.
Beyond that, the Manafort filings clearly suggest that after he entered into his plea with Mueller's team, part of what he did to break it was feeding information to Trump World. If there was any question of obstruction before, this is likely another nail in the coffin.
We are now in the territory where it seems blatantly obvious that Donald Trump is the point man for numerous criminal conspiracies. The only reason it is taking time to reach him is 1.) everyone has been initially lying to protect him and 2.) he is the sitting President. Most legal experts have concluded he would absolutely be facing indictment in the SDNY if he wasn't. I'd be shocked if Mueller doesn't have him stone-cold on obstruction of justice. If impeachment isn't warranted for someone like Trump, why should it even exist at all?? But more importantly, what is the point of Democrats impeaching him in the House when I doubt a SINGLE Republican could be moved in the Senate??
They still have Pence as president, and if they think they can't hold the white house in 2020 with Trump, they have a vehicle to remove him.
They'll read the public, especially the swing states and states that are up for re-election. If the public is calling for his head, they'll give it. I read/heard somewhere it was the same with Nixon. The party was completely backing him until the impeachment came up and they turned on him.
1. Nixon was willing to stay in until he knew the Senate was going to impeach. Trump will stay in UNTIL he is impeached.
2. The Senate was made up of people with the moral fortitude to do the right thing. No way in hell is that happening this day and age. Mitch McConnell? The right thing? The constitutional thing? Please.
https://www.wired.com/story/manafort-cohen-sentencing-trump-mueller-investigation-worst-case-scenario/
If the Justice Department does it's job it will put criminal charges on Trump Jr., Ivanka, Kushner, Roger Stone, and all the others involved with crimes. If you have the facts about crimes from individual 1 (Trump) you impeach.
Then, if the Senate doesn't do it's job you hang that shit around their neck like an anchor weighing them down in the 2020 election and then watch them get a blue tsunami in the Senate like the whooping that they just got in the House. Trump should lose in 2020 then laugh as New York reposesses his entire portfolio due to unpaid taxes and penalties.
But over the past couple years, I've seen that prediction increasingly challenged, mostly in the last few months as more details have come out. Until recently, little was known about the Mueller investigation's progress. The FBI, to its credit and to many people's frustration, has been incredibly discreet about its progress and has avoided making public statements or leaking bombshells to the press.
We've already seen multiple members of Trump's campaign and later his administration being convicted or pleading guilty to various crimes, all while Trump himself has repeatedly denigrated the investigation on false grounds (to the extent that he has lied that the investigators are "Democrats all"), and even attempted to sabotage the investigation by firing Comey, as he accidentally revealed during a meeting with Russian diplomats. Now his own lawyer appears to be helping establish Donald Trump's personal role in violating campaign finance laws and actively trying to forge ties with the Russian government and welcoming its interference in the election...
...the one thing I didn't think was realistic. I always heavily doubted the notion that Trump himself attempted to work with the Russian government, but now I'm leaning towards the opposite. Now, I'd consider it "more likely than not."
Here was my mistake: I assumed that Putin would not trust American citizens with this kind of information. But that assumption was false for two reasons. First, Putin wouldn't necessarily need to fear the truth of conspiracy coming out--the United States already disliked him; if he was caught trying to interfere in the 2016 election, how would that really hurt him? Putin had no reason to fear being caught because he would suffer little punishment even if he did.
And as most of you will recall, Trump tried to thwart new sanctions that were imposed on Russia in retaliation for the interference. Trump attempted, but failed, to shield Putin from punishment.
The second reason my assumption was false has only just occurred to me after reading the above article: Putin didn't need to place his trust in an unvetted, untested American co-conspirator. The filings thus far indicate that Russia made multiple overtures to the Trump campaign, tentatively inching forward.
Why is this important? Well, by repeatedly testing the waters over the course of multiple contacts, the Russian government could figure out if they could trust the Trump campaign. That infamous Trump Tower meeting could be one of those tests. It was only after the Russian government gaugedthe Trump campaign's willingness to work with foreign agents that they realized they could trust Trump's team to keep it quiet, and hopefully let Russia's influence campaign go unnoticed.
And as most of you will recall, Trump tried for quite some time to deny that Russia interfered in the election at all; not just that he personally was involved in it.
With my previous assumption disproved, the notion that Trump actively welcomed Russian assistance is now logically sound; it doesn't depend on the assumption that Putin was foolish or incompetent in dealing with Trump. As for whether it actually happened, the Cohen revelations support it, but we won't really know until the Mueller investigation comes to a close.
The rest of the Republican Party. Even separate from Trump, this is where any chance of justice falls apart. They aren't going to abandon him. This is the party that stole a Supreme Court seat. This is a party that is participating in legislative coups of recent election results, and now seems to be implicated in the flat-out theft of a Congressional seat. Have you heard ONE prominent national Republican speak out against the situation going on in Wisconsin or North Carolina?? I would be shocked to find out who they were if it has happened. They have abandoned the very idea of democracy itself. They no longer seem to believe in it's basic tenants. They continue to lurch toward a position where the only things they believe in are holding power and the idea that not only shouldn't Democrats hold power, but that they won't be ALLOWED to even if they win elections. And THIS is the party that is going to abandon Donald Trump?? They are Donald Trump, he is just their most loud and obnoxious avatar.
There are 47 Democrats in the Senate. 67 votes would be needed for impeachment. Which means even if every Democrat votes in favor of conviction in a hypothetical trial, they would need TWENTY Republicans to cross over and join them. I can't even think of 3 Republicans who would do so at this current moment, much less 20 of them. It would be a miracle if 5 of them had the backbone to do the right thing. Even in that highly unlikely scenario, you would still need 15 more. It can be argued that impeachment SHOULD commence at some time in the next 2 years, simply because the survival of our system of government calls for it. But there is almost zero chance of convincing 20 members of the modern Republican Senate to sign on no matter what Trump is revealed to have done. Anything short of a video of him committing a murder will be excused.
Impeachment has never ACTUALLY happened in this country from start to finish. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but not removed from office. Nixon WOULD have been removed from office, but in the end at least spared himself and the country that indignity and resigned. To say anyone has less moral scruples than Richard Nixon is a low-bar indeed, but I'd argue Trump has FAR less. There is just no way. He is going to have to be voted out, even as it's slowly revealed he is basically running a criminal syndicate.
On the whole, I agree with the argument that Impeachment is essentially impossible in modern American politics. When partisanship is so incredibly high, it takes an unfathomable bar for partisans in the President's party to support removing him from office. Furthermore, Clinton's impeachment muddied the water in an important way: If one party presses for impeachment of the president, it can end up damaging their own popularity and buoying the opponent's popularity.
When those two features are taken in concert: That Democrats have to risk making Trump more popular, and Republicans towing the partisan line, there's no real reason to expect impeachment to happen. Especially when you consider that popularity inherently figures into impeachment. If Trump's popularity falls sufficiently far that even the GOP would consider cutting him loose to try to salvage some part of an election, then Democrats would tactically want Trump to be on the ticket as an albatross.
Like I've said many times before, there is no reason not to prosecute Trump now and I think that would be a better remedy than impeachment. There's not a clear constitutional bar on prosecuting a President in any circumstances, but it's generally reckoned that would not be allowed by the Supreme Court for offences committed during a Presidential term and on official business. While some (like Kavanaugh) would like to extend that protection more widely there are a number of precedents that would need to be overcome to do that and I don't believe a general bar on prosecution of a President would be supported by the Supreme Court (to do so would actually undermine their own independent power base in the Constitution). Even if they did ultimately agree such a bar on prosecution, that would only apply while a President was actually in office and starting a prosecution now would thus not be wasted effort - it would actually be helpful to get information out to the public in a less partisan way than via an impeachment.
I don't believe Trump would run for re-election if it's obvious that he won't get re-elected - he hates losing too much. While it's true that there's been a lot of damage to the US political system in recent years, I don't think there's yet any grounds for considering that he could get away with dispensing with elections entirely - and even allowing for the possibility of various electoral scams, I suspect that events over the next year or so will show that would be his only route for continuing as President.
I believe Clinton's approval during the impeachment trial was over 60%. Initially, his lies about Lewinsky were viewed as a fatal blow to his Presidency. But the only thing they were ever hanging their hat on was that he lied in a civil deposition in the Paula Jones case. The Republicans had the upper-hand right up to the point of the televised questioning of Clinton by the Starr team, which was broadcast everywhere for a week. If the Republicans had stuck to the actual legal merits of the situation, which was potential perjury, they might have had something. But since they were pretending to crusade for some sort of morality, it became 99.9% about sexual deviancy, and the public wanted no part of it after a certain point, especially when prominent members of the Republican House were revealed to have been engaging in affairs at the same time.
Moreover, if Starr had EVER found evidence of Clinton's lawyers funneling hush money payments to Lewinsky, it would have been game, set and match. He would have been removed from office. He also participated in the marathon interview with Starr's prosecutors. Trump has now been found to have ordered hush money payments to conceal information during a national election AND he is steadfastly refusing to sit with Mueller's team, much less have the interview broadcast 24/7 on cable news like Clinton's was. Point being, Clinton was able to regain the support of the public not only because he had an inherent charm and likability that Trump lacks, but also because Ken Starr was so nakedly partisan. Not only were they nakedly partisan, but they leaked info to the press CONSTANTLY, which was illegal in and of itself. Mueller's team is not only not a partisan operation, but has essentially leaked NOTHING this entire time.
Senate Republican warns of civil war if Democrats continue supporting the Federal government
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/2/1815431/-Senate-Republican-warns-of-civil-war-if-Democrats-continue-supporting-the-Federal-government?detail=emaildkreRepublicans want to strangle the Federal Government, and still, it made me say "What the wha-?"
Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day: Mike Pence- 2018 Update
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/5/1817176/-Crazy-Stupid-Republican-of-the-Day-Mike-Pence-2018-Update?detail=emaildkreJust part of the reason why I think that President Pence wouldn't be much better than President Trump.
Then Gov. Pence, the insane true believer in the American culture wars that he is, went and signed Indiana’s “religious freedom” law to allow for the legal discrimination of the LGBT community, then denied that the point of the bill was allowing discrimination (and making many send him the literal definition of “discrimination” since he seemed unable to understand it) and claiming he was incapable of discrimination because he once participated in an anniversary walk in Selma, Alabama. That only made critics note that during his time in the U.S. House, he actually campaigned on an agenda to “oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s as a ‘discreet and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities” or that he called for “an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus“ and instead, ”Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior“. If you’re unclear as to what that means, it’s that Pence wanted money redirected towards gay conversion therapy, which doesn’t actually work, and is considered a human rights violation. But that’s not all. Pence responded to the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act by making the ludicrous claim that it would allow intimidation towards or even charges to be filed against pastors who expressed a Biblical worldview critical to homosexuality, and also tried arguing that the 2010 repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would, in his words, “weaken unit cohesion” of our military, and once voted for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. Factor in the time Pence is awful enough to women that he voted against all equal pay legislation including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, railed against the Disney cartoon Mulan for implying that women might be able to honorably serve in the military, and actually had an Indiana woman arrested for having a miscarriage because his obsession with cracking down on reproductive rights is that over-the-top insane. We’re talking that he voted for for the Terry Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill extreme, here. We’re saying that he was a sponsor of the legislation that tried to defund Planned Parenthood back in 2011, and his "evidence” of wrongdoing was a DIFFERENT doctored fraud of a video produced by friends of Breitbart News hacks like James O'Keefe. Pence also compared the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act to 9/11, and in early 2015 decided state taxpayer dollars should be allocated towards “JustIN’, a state-run news service with two employees being paid $100,000 salaries to present a point of view where Mike Pence could do no wrong (cancelled after taxpayers called him out on wasting their money on him lying to them). Pence denied a link between smoking an cancer as late as 2001 (he was accepting money from the big tobacco lobby, of course), and denies climate change is a thing to this day.
Global Warming Denier Set to Lead Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/3/1816494/-Global-Warming-Denier-Set-to-Lead-Democrats-on-the-Senate-Energy-and-Natural-Resources-Committee?detail=emaildkreGreat. Just what we need. :P
A Tale of Ten to the Two Cities
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/6/1817471/-A-Tale-of-Ten-to-the-Two-Cities?detail=emaildkreThis, at least, is heartwarming, Cincinnatti has become the 100th City to go completely clean. All clean energy.
Here's how the new Democratic members of the House sort out ideologically
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/30/1816117/-Here-s-how-the-new-Democratic-members-of-the-House-sort-out-ideologically?detail=emaildkreFrom the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Wing.
Abortion Rate Dropped Between 2006-2015, Birth Control Helped Lower Rate
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/6/1817427/-Abortion-Rate-Dropped-Between-2006-2015-Birth-Control-Helped-Lower-Rate?detail=emaildkre"Just say no" doesn't work with drugs or sex.
It's Not About Moving to the Left or Right
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/5/1817180/-It-s-Not-About-Moving-to-the-Left-or-Right?detail=emaildkreWe need to respresent more people with different ideals.
F**k "Bipartisanship"
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/5/1817281/-F-ck-Bipartisanship?detail=emaildkreI am deeply concerned about the open threat that 1 of our 2 major parties poses to the foundations of a governmental system that dates back to 1787.
The fact that this is taken as vindication of the ongoing Russia conspiracy theory is pretty funny.
Some of the statements made in court are rich. He sought to "influence the election from the shadows" and "acted as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful" by paying off porn stars. Gee, I wonder if we can find any other examples of "acting as if the election process belonged to the rich and powerful"!
And I honestly think the Stormy thing is going to end up being a very minor sidebar once the whole thing is released.
Having an affair where you rawdog a "horse face" porn star a couple months after Melania had his son Barron would be something that evangelicals and religious types might not excuse.
And as you say, it's a crime. Whether people care or not about the affair, covering up the fact is a criminal act. He directed this act to influence the election.
Another lie. Trump knew very well *why* Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Trump asked him to. Have you ever noticed Trump's pattern of lies? First, he claims he didn't do it. Then, he says he did it and that it wasn't illegal, and anybody would have done the same. Then, it becomes not only "not illegal", but also "not a big deal".
And how about that Cohen also was pursuing business deals with Vladimir Putin for Trump even after Trump was elected? Another thing Trump lied about and lied flagrantly. What about his plans to build Trump Tower Moscow that didn't end until July of 2017? (after he was elected and in office)? And the plan to give Putin outright a Penthouse Apartment worth $50 million? What about the fact that Cohen briefed Trump's kids and Jared Kushner on this whole thing, and all Ivanka cared about what getting to design the Tower?
Let's face it- if a Democratic President had been doing this stuff, The Republicans would not only have impeached him, they'd have strung him up from the nearest tree. How come no one is shouting 'lock her up!' about Ivanka? (or Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who also used private e-mail to do business? Of course, back then, it wasn't illegal, merely frowned upon. That's why Hillary Clinton never got indicted. When she did it, it wasn't illegal.) Ivanka, on the other hand, has no excuse. It *is* illegal now.
As has been pointed out a number of times, Mueller's investigation has actually progressed rapidly compared to previous investigations of similar scope. He's already got criminal convictions against a number of people at the top of the Trump campaign and even from what has already been published it seems clear he would be able to do the same against Trump. Convictions for lying to the investigation are of course a slam dunk - it's always been obvious that would happen since Trump can't keep his mouth shut and lies constantly. Convictions for campaign finance breaches are also certain and on the basis of information already in the public realm I think it's almost sure that there will also in due course be convictions for obstructing justice. As for the original core issue of conspiracy with Russia I think he's guilty, but I'm less sure about being able to prove that - though I think the chances are still high and getting higher over time. At a minimum though members of his family will be convicted.