Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

phiwum said:
That's about the administration's general strategy, but your question was not so narrow. You asked this: "Do you know how many votes in the various cases regarding subpoena power of Congress vs POTUS that the court has ruled in favor of POTUS?" You said the answer was zero.

Now, maybe I misinterpreted you, but it seems you meant that the courts have not once rejected a congressional subpoena involving the executive branch. If that's what you meant, you must certainly be wrong, since executive privilege is widely accepted as a valid defense regarding congressional subpoenas (within certain limits, of course).

For instance,



The quoted material is from a case I saw referenced in this article.

So, I'm definitely not claiming that the administration's stance is reasonable or likely to prevail. I'm just pointing out that what you said (no conflicts regarding congressional subpoenas have been settled in the president's favor) is wrong. Perhaps I misread what you wrote, so feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

No, I miswrote it. There are some limits to Congress's subpoena power. But it isn't what Trump is arguing. Congress has unlimited power to subpoena as long as it falls under it Congressional duties and responsibilities.

An important case is McGrain v Daugherty. Daugherty had been convicted of contempt
because he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of Daugherty's brother (Harry Daugherty, the former Attorney General)to prosecute wrongdoers in the Teapot Dome scandal.

The Court upheld Daugherty's contempt conviction, establishing a presumption that congressional investigations have a legislative purpose. This presumption was not overcome by showing that the committee also had another purpose, such as exposure of wrongdoing. This presumption would later restrict the Court's hand in clear cases of congressional overreaching while investigating communists after World War II.

Here's the thing. Impeachment is an inherent duty of the legislative branch. Trump is attempting a wholesale refusal to cooperate and the reasoning is absurd. The House has the the sole duty to impeach. To decide to or not to requires their ability to inquure as to the facts. The framers would not vest in the House this responsibility and deny them the ability to do it fairly.
 
BadBoy said:
I don't live in the USA, so maybe this is already happening but...

It just seems to me that someone who is opposed to Trump and who is intelligent, articulate and well informed could write a speech - probably every week, that completely rips him to bits. There's is a gold mine of tweets and rants every week that could be used as ammunition to really hit back. I just never see this happening very often and I don't understand why. Perhaps it will gain more traction once the Dems have decided will run against him?

I mean for example, his continued insistence that the current impeachment process is a witch hunt and is damaging the country is a so obviously crass thing to say. To be obviously so self serving and in the same breath make it about the country is just clumsy and stupid. If he has nothing to be afraid of, why not just say 'let the Dems waste their time while I get on and run the country, due process and time will show I acted correctly and within the law - but we will do everything to help bring the process to a swift but just conclusion so we can get on with the job in hand'.

Instead he comes across as a whiny teenager who has obviously screwed up and blames everyone/anyone else with no thought, nuance or intelligence. I just can't help feeling that someone with the correct stage and presence could convince some supporters if only the obvious reality of each tragic Trump wank fest could be pointed out.
Click to expand...

It's already happening. His supporters just won't even come close to reading things that seem like they might be critical of him. They've turned into a full blown cult.
 
kellyb said:
It's already happening. His supporters just won't even come close to reading things that seem like they might be critical of him. They've turned into a full blown cult.
Click to expand...

I have a slightly different take on this... I'm not convinced that media bubbles are as severe as often described. I think the problem is that rather than a lack of information, there is a processing issue. That Trumpistsas are reading exactly the same media I am and interpreting it differently.

Part of that is baseline assumptions being different - core premises, if you will. Background knowledge about what are already established 'facts'. The media snippet is absorbed and processed by both parties, but fuels different conclusions.

The psychological name for this is "[selective perception]."

There's a lot of research about this problem, and it's one of the reasons I'm also not very excited about alleged wonder solutions like police bodycams either. I think we overestimate the connection between our minds and objective reality.
 
blutoski said:
I have a slightly different take on this... I'm not convinced that media bubbles are as severe as often described. I think the problem is that rather than a lack of information, there is a processing issue. That Trumpistsas are reading exactly the same media I am and interpreting it differently.

Part of that is baseline assumptions being different - core premises, if you will. Background knowledge about what are already established 'facts'. The media snippet is absorbed and processed by both parties, but fuels different conclusions.

The psychological name for this is "[selective perception]."

There's a lot of research about this problem, and it's one of the reasons I'm also not very excited about alleged wonder solutions like police bodycams either. I think we overestimate the connection between our minds and objective reality.
Click to expand...
So that's the thing. I cant help feeling that someone who is a direct opposing force, but who has some stage presence and charisma, someone who could be accepted as non bias in all other respects could show the emperor has indeed no clothes.

So I think I am not talking about specific media bubbles as such. I am talking more direct attacks on Trumps specific accusations and pronouncements and general inept speech making, not just about what he is saying, but about the way he says it too.

We (they) need the satire without the satire. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
I have a slightly different take on this... I'm not convinced that media bubbles are as severe as often described. I think the problem is that rather than a lack of information, there is a processing issue. That Trumpistsas are reading exactly the same media I am and interpreting it differently.

Part of that is baseline assumptions being different - core premises, if you will. Background knowledge about what are already established 'facts'. The media snippet is absorbed and processed by both parties, but fuels different conclusions.

The psychological name for this is "[selective perception]."

There's a lot of research about this problem, and it's one of the reasons I'm also not very excited about alleged wonder solutions like police bodycams either. I think we overestimate the connection between our minds and objective reality.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Selective perception sounds like one of the mechanisms behind psychological denial (which is a very real and extraordinarily powerful thing.)

I think there's a lot of what you're talking about, but when it comes to anti-Trump editorials ("a speech - probably every week, that completely rips him to bits")...I don't think they read that sort of stuff at all.

I think you might be underestimating the media bubble these folks have gone into, as well, maybe. In my city, the conservatives have left the "politically mixed" local politics facebook boards to start their own, private, conservative-only groups. When you can catch one in a comments section, they literally just yell "FAKE NEWS" at you when you present high quality contradictory evidence.

It's wild. It's new. I'm not sure if the data/research demonstrating the severity of the issue is in yet, either.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
We did in 2018 with the Midterms.
Click to expand...

With mixed results.

For sure the Democrats got a majority in the House, but they lost ground in the Senate. Instead of a blue tsunami we got an azure ripple.

The GOP is fighting tooth and nail to ensure that, just because they cannot command the support of much more than 40% of the electorate, this shouldn't be a barrier to holding power. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and outright electoral fraud are the tools currently being employed. I'm sure they'll find new ones over the coming months leading up to the 2020 elections and beyond.

Despite all the current furore over impeachment (and now the Kurds), President Trump has shown time and again that dips in his approval rating are temporary as his base and the GOP find ways to forget about the last scandal and/or discover new reasons to support him.

Unless there is a recession, this time next year it'll be too close to call who is going to win the Presidency, GOP efforts at gerrymandering, voter suppression and electoral fraud will have the House back in play and they'll be looking to shore up the Senate.

We could have a position that with high 30's or low 40's support in essentially a two party race that the GOP has the Presidency, and a majority in both houses.
 
The Don said:
With mixed results.

For sure the Democrats got a majority in the House, but they lost ground in the Senate. Instead of a blue tsunami we got an azure ripple.

The GOP is fighting tooth and nail to ensure that, just because they cannot command the support of much more than 40% of the electorate, this shouldn't be a barrier to holding power. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and outright electoral fraud are the tools currently being employed. I'm sure they'll find new ones over the coming months leading up to the 2020 elections and beyond.

Despite all the current furore over impeachment (and now the Kurds), President Trump has shown time and again that dips in his approval rating are temporary as his base and the GOP find ways to forget about the last scandal and/or discover new reasons to support him.

Unless there is a recession, this time next year it'll be too close to call who is going to win the Presidency, GOP efforts at gerrymandering, voter suppression and electoral fraud will have the House back in play and they'll be looking to shore up the Senate.

We could have a position that with high 30's or low 40's support in essentially a two party race that the GOP has the Presidency, and a majority in both houses.
Click to expand...
wow. Well, good luck with that. Move to Canada is my advice (I live in Australia though, don't like the cold) and let the USA self destruct to the point it's not a place worth living in.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
wow. Well, good luck with that. Move to Canada is my advice (I live in Australia though, don't like the cold) and let the USA self destruct to the point it's not a place worth living in.
Click to expand...

I live in the UK and we're arguably in a far worse place.

52% of those who voted in a referendum chose to leave the EU which apparently has given the government carte blanche to pursue a course of action which has support somewhere in the 20% to 30% range and which, unlike the US elections, will have a permanent and irrevocable effect.
 
Minoosh said:
As far as I can tell, what Democrats want more than anything is information. Trump is fighting not to give it to them. Much of this wouldn’t have been contested at all in other presidencies.
Click to expand...

In short, if The Prestige's hypothetical law existed, I would expect the letter of it to be followed but the spirt be folded up, put in my wallet and spent on a whore.
 
acbytesla said:
No, I miswrote it. There are some limits to Congress's subpoena power. But it isn't what Trump is arguing. Congress has unlimited power to subpoena as long as it falls under it Congressional duties and responsibilities.

An important case is McGrain v Daugherty. Daugherty had been convicted of contempt
because he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of Daugherty's brother (Harry Daugherty, the former Attorney General)to prosecute wrongdoers in the Teapot Dome scandal.

The Court upheld Daugherty's contempt conviction, establishing a presumption that congressional investigations have a legislative purpose. This presumption was not overcome by showing that the committee also had another purpose, such as exposure of wrongdoing. This presumption would later restrict the Court's hand in clear cases of congressional overreaching while investigating communists after World War II.

Here's the thing. Impeachment is an inherent duty of the legislative branch. Trump is attempting a wholesale refusal to cooperate and the reasoning is absurd. The House has the the sole duty to impeach. To decide to or not to requires their ability to inquure as to the facts. The framers would not vest in the House this responsibility and deny them the ability to do it fairly.
Click to expand...
Okay, that settles our disagreement. And your admission of a misstatement is a nice sign that internet discussions are not utterly dead. Thanks.
 
varwoche said:
At least your other lame, pro-Russia cites were to people presumably using their real name. Now your citing "Tyler Durden", a character from a movie, opining at a garbage website. Whoop-de-doo.
Click to expand...


I have better sources. That's why I knew where the documents are. They aren't in English though, so for you it is Tyler Durden or ignorance.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, we did not. Midterms have implications for the presidency, but they are not direct votes on the president. Why is this not obvious?
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say that when the only significant issues in 2018 were the ghastly awful stench coming from the White House and its pathological obsession with undoing everything Obama accomplished.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I don't see how you can say that when the only significant issues in 2018 were the ghastly awful stench coming from the White House and its pathological obsession with undoing everything Obama accomplished.
Click to expand...

All politics is local. And the fact that you didn't care about anything else doesn't mean nobody else cared about anything else.

And if you're so sure the American public has turned against Trump, then what are you worried about? Trump will get voted out, and that will be that. No need to go through a divisive impeachment process.
 
Ziggurat said:
Quite so. So why not leave the question to the American people instead?
Click to expand...
How would you propose we do that?

Ziggurat said:
No, we did not. Midterms have implications for the presidency, but they are not direct votes on the president. Why is this not obvious?
Click to expand...
There is no direct vote for the President, none that matters anyway. And the last popular vote we do have, Trump lost.
 
Upchurch said:
As Republicans like to point out, the popular vote doesn't matter, just the electoral college, where some people matter more than others.
Click to expand...

And?

Impeachment is not a remedy for the fact that the popular vote and the electoral college vote can differ. No president gets elected without a lot of public support.
 
Ziggurat said:
And if you're so sure the American public has turned against Trump, then what are you worried about? Trump will get voted out, and that will be that. No need to go through a divisive impeachment process.
Click to expand...

The polls are certainly showing that currently, however it's got to the point now that waiting for the election isn't an option. I'll Let Lindsay Graham answer as to why that is for you....


 
Ziggurat said:
And?
Click to expand...
And you said leave the question to the American people. There is no avenue for the American people to have their voices heard directly.

Ziggurat said:
Impeachment is not a remedy for the fact that the popular vote and the electoral college vote can differ.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is, however, a remedy for a corrupt president who is breaks the law, ignores the Constitution, and betrays our allies. And that's just within the last month.

Ziggurat said:
No president gets elected without a lot of public support.
Click to expand...
Man, Trump just breaks all the rules, doesn't he?
 
Last edited:
If voters give a party a majority in the House, they give that party the ability to Impeach. Voters did exactly that in 2018. If they regret that decision, they can change that in 2020.
 
Ziggurat said:
By the time this process plays out (if it even does), it won't really be between elections anymore.
Click to expand...

Maybe. There's still a little over a year until the next election. Clinton's impeachment inquiry (October 5, 1998) to acquittal in the Senate (February 12, 1999) took something like 5 months.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Quite so. So why not leave the question to the American people instead?
Click to expand...

The Pelosi strategy has been pretty clear since the Dems took office in January. Keep up the pressure on Trump with various investigations and sternly worded letters to keep the Liberal base in line, but do not actually go for Impeachment in the House because that is a huge[i/] roll of the dice that almost certainly will not work since the Senate is loaded with GOPers who have ritually castrated themselves and thrown their genitals on the dark altar of Trump. Instead, string things out so that we get into primary season, say there is not time for impeachment as it would look too political, then vote Trump out in 2020. Which “worked” right up to the Biden/Ukraine thing.

It went a little like this:
Dems: Trump became President in 2016 with the help of the Russian Government, and is using his office to obstruct the investigation. We should Impeach!

Pelosi: Impeachment is a very risky political move that almost certainly will not work. We should continue to investigate Trumps misdeeds, but we should aim to defeat him in the 2020 Presidential election.

Dems: Trump is building concentration camps for children, and stealing money from the VA to build his wall in the desert. We should impeach!

Pelosi: Impeachment is a very risky political move that almost certainly will not work. We should continue to investigate Trumps misdeeds, but we should aim to defeat him in the 2020 Presidential election.

Dems: Trump is using his hotel chains to accept bribes directly from foreign goernments, in clear violation of the US Constitution. We should Impeach!

Pelosi: Impeachment is a very risky political move that almost certainly will not work. We should continue to investigate Trumps misdeeds, but we should aim to defeat him in the 2020 Presidential election.

Dems: Trump is using his office to force other governments to manufacture evidence against his political opponents and rig the 2020 Presidential election. We should Impeach!

Pelosi: Impeachment is a very risky political move that almost certainly will not work. We should continue to investigate Trumps misdeeds, but we should aim to defeat him in the 2020 Presidential elect… wait. Could you repeat that last one?
Click to expand...

The Pelosi plan, rightly or wrongly, is built around beating Trump in the 2020 election. That plan doesn’t work if Trump rigs the election. So she has to act now, even if she would rather take the traditional Democratic strategy of letting the GOP do whatever they want until the electorate throws them out in disgust.
 
BadBoy said:
wow. Well, good luck with that. Move to Canada is my advice (I live in Australia though, don't like the cold) and let the USA self destruct to the point it's not a place worth living in.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you grasp how uncomfortably close to the US Canada is.

Childlike Empress said:
I have better sources.
Click to expand...

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! That's hilarious.

Ziggurat said:
By the time this process plays out (if it even does), it won't really be between elections anymore.
Click to expand...

That is entirely irrelevant to my point. Congress has a duty to check the President's power and punish abuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom