The Trump Presidency: Part 18

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

To be blunt, I think it's pretty damn naive to even entertain the idea that next Democrat President isn't going to be at least targeted heavily for impeachment.

Mitigated by the partial correlation between winning the presidency and winning the House.


ETA: Oops, looks like the correlation goes better in the opposite direction, at least recently. So much for any glimmer of hope.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

There are articles and books that say that Newt Gingrich was the tipping point. He’s the guy who suggested that name calling (e.g. “the loony left”) was an appropriate path. He suggested that Democrats and Republicans stop fraternizing on the weekends. He convinced legislators to look at politics as a zero-sum conflict.

ETA: Rush Limbaugh and his ilk helped a great deal.


MORE ETA: And once the internet ushered in the Misinformation Age (2009? 2010?) it was impossible to turn back.

The Great Experiment is over. It failed.

I use to be heavily involved in politics. I was a member of the Young Democrats for a decade. I worked for the Washington State Democratic Party. And yet I often attended Republican party events including their yearly barbecue. I had lots of Republican friends. And that all changed around 1990 but it wasn't an overnight thing.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dudalb

OK, if democracy is de facto dead, what is our next step and what do we replace it with?
I got a feeling that H.G. Wells idea of a small group of scientist taking over the world and producing Utopia will be popular.

I say we give feudalism another shot.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Missouri Official Admits to Tracking Women’s Periods

Quote:

During the second day of a weeklong state hearing that will decide whether Missouri’s last abortion clinic will be shut down, the state’s heath director, Dr. Randall Williams, admitted to keeping a spreadsheet that tracked the menstrual periods of its patients.

So far so good. It is the kind of thing a medical professional directly concerned with reproductive health should be doing for their patients.

Originally Posted by Aridas

According to the Kansas City Star, Williams said he had requested that the state’s primary investigator identify patients who had undergone “failed abortions” at the St. Louis Planned Parenthood facility.

But then we suddenly end up on Planet WTF out of side field. What is this bucket of crap? A failed abortion is a pregnancy, last I checked. Is it possible to test for a failed abortion? Sure, it's right there on the register of births. WTF are they even demanding here?

Originally Posted by Aridas

I'm not sure what to say beyond... This is a red flag.

It's a red herring. While my ex-wife bore two children with me, there was a first which sadly ended in spontaneous miscarriage. Sure, it was planned and all, and sure it was a bit tragic at the time, we named the poor sorry dude, it was a real person to us, but somehow it counts as an abortion? What crackpot came up with that crap?

[Segnosaur]

Another legal situation for Trump to deal with:

From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/carrol...rump-1.5347019
E. Jean Carroll, a longtime Elle magazine advice columnist, said in a complaint filed in a New York state court in Manhattan that Trump lied about attacking her, and "smeared her integrity, honesty, and dignity"...

Sadly I don't really think this is going to go very far, due to the standards of libel/slander. Still, anything that causes Trump any sort of problems is welcome in my books.

However, there is this: From the same Article:

After the account was published, Trump made statements that he did not rape Carroll and had never met her....An undated photo was unearthed at the time that showed Trump, along with his former wife Ivana, speaking to Carroll and Caroll's then-husband, John Johnson, at an event.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Well... If the Republicans keep putting forward guys that brazenly break the law when they get someone in office and shamelessly impeach Democrats as a dirty political ploy to shield their guys when their guys commit crimes like crazy, it's not quite too far-fetched. "As a matter of course," though, isn't quite properly descriptive of that.

And it's just as evil and stupid as it was then.

In other things of some interest...

Yovanovitch / McKinley testimony transcripts released by House Intel. - Volker / Sondland tomorrow

Includes easy links to them and pokes at a few things in them.

The transcripts trickling out is the gift that keeps on giving.

Originally Posted by Aridas

Federal appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim, orders tax returns turned over to grand jury

Things are bad when I'm actually letting out a sigh of relief at Judges actually doing their job. Trump will be appealing the unanimous decision against him, of course, by the sound of it, which means that this still isn't over, though.

All SCOTUS has to do is decline to take the case, it is a state matter.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The transcripts trickling out is the gift that keeps on giving.


All SCOTUS has to do is decline to take the case, it is a state matter.

From your post to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ear.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by dudalb

OK, if democracy is de facto dead, what is our next step and what do we replace it with?
I got a feeling that H.G. Wells idea of a small group of scientist taking over the world and producing Utopia will be popular.

Yeah, I typed that when I was in a somewhat foul mood.

I suppose getting rid of winner-take-all electoral votes would be a good start.

Getting rid of the electoral college might be a good idea. What percentage of the population could correctly name another country or institution that uses anything similar? It really is an outdated kludge that allows a duopoly to run the country.

ETA teaching critical thinking in schools.

Or at least teaching kids that if you can’t correctly describe your opponent’s position, then you really don’t have much right to debate.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

From your post to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ear.

It's not strictly a state matter once executive privilege is invoked, I'd think.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

And a book tour then becomes an option.

In the face of the usual right-wing death threats and harassment, on top of the **** that Trump would inevitably be sending in their direction.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

The Great Experiment is over. It failed.

Not yet, much as it will be if we all take that attitude. There are serious challenges that we need to face and overcome for it to continue much longer, but it's not over yet. For a point of hope - as long as younger people grow up with better skill in discerning disinformation from valid information and the people who are more susceptible to being fooled are dying off, things will settle down naturally anyways, even without intervention.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

All SCOTUS has to do is decline to take the case, it is a state matter.

Which doesn't mean that they actually will, especially with Kavanaugh drooling at the chance to declare Trump to be the Overlord.

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's not strictly a state matter once executive privilege is invoked, I'd think.

Meh. The Trump Administration's version of executive privilege is utter nonsense, though.

Anyways, other stuff time.

As Giuliani hunts for 'CrowdStrike' conspiracies, House Republicans .... keep hiring them?

That's an interesting twist. Pushing the claim that the people that you're hiring are the people who you claim hacked the DNC, in direct opposition to what the US intelligence agencies are saying with quite a bit of evidence?

That... might have broken my mind a little at the audacity and WTF-factor.

Moving on, Mueller's Investigation Records are out, by the look of it.

FBI arrested a white supremacist who was plotting to bomb a historic Colorado synagogue

Thank you, FBI, for preventing yet another white supremacist terrorist attack.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Yeah, I typed that when I was in a somewhat foul mood.

I suppose getting rid of winner-take-all electoral votes would be a good start.

Getting rid of the electoral college might be a good idea. What percentage of the population could correctly name another country or institution that uses anything similar? It really is an outdated kludge that allows a duopoly to run the country.

ETA teaching critical thinking in schools.

Or at least teaching kids that if you can’t correctly describe your opponent’s position, then you really don’t have much right to debate.

How about a consistent and relatively foolproof election methodology across the whole nation. Policed to ensure votes are not lost, misplaced, miscounted, or otherwise fouled up. Wherever you live, you will know that your vote will count and will be counted the same way.

And how about making voter registration consistent and simple as well. One method to register, nation-wide, available from "outlets" readily accessible to every citizen.

And lastly, official punishment for anybody trying to prevent citizens from voting, or in any way disenfranchising them.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I got a feeling that H.G. Wells idea of a small group of scientist taking over the world and producing Utopia will be popular.

I remember AM radio raving lunatic Michael Savage playing a clip of Bill Maher complaining about the lack of scientific education among legislators and how it impacted their lawmaking. Savage's response was:

"You want scientists running the country? Hitler was a scientist. Is that the sort of person you want running the country?"

Leaving aside the Godwin, I'm not sure what reality he lives in in which Hitler was a scientist. In any case, "Science bad. Scientists evil." has become too widespread among parts of the population for a technocracy to be accepted.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's not strictly a state matter once executive privilege is invoked, I'd think.

All precedence says it is.

Quote:

The Supreme Court has never ruled that sitting presidents are beyond the reach of criminal investigations, though. In 1974, the court ruled that President Richard Nixon was required to comply with a subpoena directing him to turn over tape recordings of conversations in the White House. In 1975, President Gerald Ford complied with an order to give a deposition in the trial of a woman charged with trying to shoot him. In 1996, President Bill Clinton gave videotaped testimony in two criminal trials.

....A further problem for Trump is that Vance is not seeking any material involving official presidential duties, even though some of it overlaps with the time he's been in office. For that reason, the president is not making any claim that the material sought by the grand jury is protected by executive privilege.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1076186

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

I remember AM radio raving lunatic Michael Savage playing a clip of Bill Maher complaining about the lack of scientific education among legislators and how it impacted their lawmaking. Savage's response was:

"You want scientists running the country? Hitler was a scientist. Is that the sort of person you want running the country?"

Leaving aside the Godwin, I'm not sure what reality he lives in in which Hitler was a scientist. In any case, "Science bad. Scientists evil." has become too widespread among parts of the population for a technocracy to be accepted.

Did Savage actually refer to Hitler as a "scientist"? On what planet was Hitler a scientist? Hitler was a failed artist with a gift for "bull ****." Just like Trump.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's not strictly a state matter once executive privilege is invoked, I'd think.

I think if they try to exert Executive Privilege over tax returns from before he was president, the case will be laughed out of court.

As always, the rub is that these things take time.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Did Savage actually refer to Hitler as a "scientist"? On what planet was Hitler a scientist? Hitler was a failed artist with a gift for "bull ****." Just like Trump.

It was a while ago, some time in 2008 I think, but that's something that sticks in your memory. His exact words were "Hitler was a scientist."

[Venom]

Savage is just comically misinformed and stupid.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

All precedence says it is.

All of which strongly says that if the SCOTUS sides with Trump you know the SCOTUS is truly FUBAR.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I think if they try to exert Executive Privilege over tax returns from before he was president, the case will be laughed out of court.

As always, the rub is that these things take time.

It takes 4 justices to accept a case on appeal. And yes, they can delay almost for forever.

[smartcooky]

Any of you read the transcripts of the Michael McKinley and Maria Yovanovitch testimonies yet? I mean, Holy Snappin' Duckshit!

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

All of which strongly says that if the SCOTUS sides with Trump you know the SCOTUS is truly FUBAR.

Exactly. Hell, even DOJ memos don't support Trump's lawyer's argument.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Meh. The Trump Administration's version of executive privilege is utter nonsense, though.

I'm not saying it isn't nonsense. The Supreme Court could refuse to hear it because the Appeals Court is obviously right (I doubt they will), but not because it's strictly a state matter, far as I can tell.

[Horatius]

“Read the Transcript,” Trump Berates Reporter Who Is Quoting Transcript


Not The Onion.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

All precedence says it is.

I wasn't commenting on the merits. Merely pointing out that the administration's arguments put it in ther jurisdiction of ther federal courts.

Previous federal rulings may make out an easy case, one which ther Supreme Court might refuse to hear and let the appellate ruling stand, though due to the importance of the case, I doubt it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Horatius

“Read the Transcript,” Trump Berates Reporter Who Is Quoting Transcript


Not The Onion.

This just underscores how his supporters are engaging in extreme willful blindness. They remind me of the 3 "no evil" monkeys, only for them it's "See no lies, hear no lies, he speaks no lies".

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

This just underscores how his supporters are engaging in extreme willful blindness. They remind me of the 3 "no evil" monkeys, only for them it's "See no lies, hear no lies, he speaks no lies".

It's the Life Of Brian president. If you completely ignore the fact he is a criminal, wilful, ignorant, juvenile, lying, mentally-deficient, narcissistic bully and wannabe Mafia don with insane delusions of grandeur and a rap-sheet two miles long and growing...he's a great president!

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Venom

Savage is just comically misinformed and stupid.

As is Bill Maher, who is the latest high-profile moron to prop up anti-vax ********.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

As is Bill Maher, who is the latest high-profile moron to prop up anti-vax ********.

Wait, Maher anti-vax? Where?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Wait, Maher anti-vax? Where?

Babbylonian is having a knee-jerk reaction to this...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-...kAKZsyd4LXAcWC

..and if you read through this, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that Maher is an anti-vaxxer.

For a start, he acknowledges that vaccines do work, so that eliminates him from the antivax nut-jobs right there.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Meh. The Trump Administration's version of executive privilege is utter nonsense, though.

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm not saying it isn't nonsense. The Supreme Court could refuse to hear it because the Appeals Court is obviously right (I doubt they will), but not because it's strictly a state matter, far as I can tell.

Trump's lawyer didn't claim "Executive Privilege" but instead made an argument that no previous President has ever asserted which is "absolute Presidential immunity". Executive privilege covers internal White House communications and not all of them as was clear in US v Nixon.

It is hard to imagine what legal reasoning that SCOTUS could use to rule in Trump's favor. This was a NY State Grand Jury performing a criminal investigation on activities that predated Trump's election. And the subpoena required no action of President Trump since they were sent to third parties.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Babbylonian is having a knee-jerk reaction to this...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-...kAKZsyd4LXAcWC

..and if you read through this, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that Maher is an anti-vaxxer.

For a start, he acknowledges that vaccines do work, so that eliminates him from the antivax nut-jobs right there.

No it isn't.

Quote:

Although Maher acknowledged that vaccines work, he told his audience, which appeared to largely support what he was saying, that the idea that they cause autism still merits debate.

Unless this is a decade old piece, Maher is still clinging to disproven science.

All of this is disproven bull ****:

Quote:

“You know, to call you this crazy person,” he told Gordon, “really, what you’re just saying is [a] slower [vaccination timetable], maybe less numbers, and also take into account individuals. People are different. Family history, stuff like that. I don’t think this is crazy.”

It's the faux science veneer of someone who wants to give anti-vaxxers a legit position instead of actually looking at the science.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No it isn't.

Unless this is a decade old piece, Maher is still clinging to disproven science.

All of this is disproven bull ****:

Exactly. I was careful with my words, too. I didn't call him an anti-vaxxer. I said he propped it up, and he absolutely did.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

CBS News reports, the whistleblower is reaching out to the GOP. Is this a planned end run around Donnie or something else?

I don't think the GOP wants to question him. He's more valuable as an unknown they can constantly yell about in order to distract from the real issue.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No, he doesn't look genuinely black.....

Originally Posted by EvilBiker

Well, considering these are all kids of the guy who initially posted the pic, I'd say he was white (aside from the makeup discrepancies).

Yeah, I was wrong. Isn't the first time and won't be the last.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I don't think the GOP wants to question him. He's more valuable as an unknown they can constantly yell about in order to distract from the real issue.

Exactly.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Trump Tweets

...House Republicans must have nothing to do with Shifty’s rendition of those interviews....

Dump didn't write that tweet.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Trump Retweeted

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow
Elizabeth Warren would destroy jobs and the middle class. If elected she must be impeached.

That's rich in light of the fact that GOPers are complaining that the Dems were talking about impeachment the day after the election. Levin's talking impeachment more that a YEAR before the election.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Did Savage actually refer to Hitler as a "scientist"? On what planet was Hitler a scientist? Hitler was a failed artist with a gift for "bull ****." Just like Trump.

Well, he was somewhat involved with chemistry.












What?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Anyway, where do you think that this deepening divide between the two parties/sides began? The civil rights movement? Nixon? Reagan? Clinton? Bush?

It's obviously been always there, even before confederation, but it's gotten worse.

Linked to the rise of the internet. Before that, the nutbars had their newsletter and a few followers and so their ideas didn't spread much. Now any crazy has a world wide platform and an associated megaphone (Fox) to amplify even the far-out ideas.

Obviously that's not the whole story but it's also not to be ignored.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It takes 4 justices to accept a case on appeal. And yes, they can delay almost for forever.

I was half wrong about this. To begin with, Trump's appeal will go first to a single Supreme Court justice seeking a stay. That appeal for a stay will go to RBG. If she denies the stay, Trump's lawyers would have to appeal to the entire court which would require 4 Justices to agree.