AuthorTopic: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread  (Read 226097 times)

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18564
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🤡 GOP challenger Joe Walsh: Donald Trump is a traitor
« Reply #2130 on: October 07, 2019, 01:49:25 AM »
CNN is going for the Jugular.

Trumpovetsky might lose this in the primaries.  The Illuminati may be throwing him under the bus.

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/4N6ftLgWXG4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/4N6ftLgWXG4</a>

Not a chance. The GOP has hitched its star to Fat Orange such that they are cancelling primaries and caucuses in at least four states, a move that would cut off oxygen to Trump’s long-shot primary challengers. Besides, Joe Walsh himself is a piece of work.

Killing primaries just illustrates Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party apparatus. His allies are bound and determined to snuff out any potential nuisance en route to his renomination — or even to deny Republican critics a platform to embarrass him. this perfectly reflects the extent to which trump supporters are done listening.
"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 Trump amps up complaints, says Pelosi may be guilty of treason
« Reply #2131 on: October 07, 2019, 02:08:19 AM »
Trumpovetsky goes on the ATTACK!

They're ALL "Treasonous".  It's mainly a question of who is MOST treasonous, and who got CAUGHT.  Also who keeps sticking his tweets further down his throat.  Guess who that is. ???  :icon_scratch:

He's going to be impeached.  Will he get convicted?  That is an open question.  I estimate at this point though he is unlikely to be re-elected.

RE

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-pelosi/trump-amps-up-complaints-says-pelosi-may-be-guilty-of-treason-idUSKBN1WM055

October 6, 2019 / 7:01 PM / Updated 4 hours ago
Trump amps up complaints, says Pelosi may be guilty of treason


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump, under pressure as Democrats pursue an impeachment inquiry against him, lashed out at the top Democrat in Congress on Sunday, saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be guilty of treason.

“Nancy Pelosi knew of all of the many Shifty Adam Schiff lies and massive frauds perpetrated upon Congress and the American people,” Trump said on Twitter, referring to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

Advertisement

Trump has attacked Schiff for his characterization of a call the president held with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and he has said, without evidence, that Schiff helped draft a whistleblower complaint at the heart of the inquiry.

During the July 25 call, Trump pressed Zelenskiy for an investigation into former U.S. vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, according to a summary of the call released by the Trump administration.

Democrats say Trump’s effort was an abuse of power to gather dirt on a political rival.

Schiff, who was tagged by Pelosi to lead the impeachment investigation, said during a hearing last month that the summary read like a “classic organized crime shakedown.”

Trump has repeatedly attacked Schiff for his characterization of the call. Schiff has said it was “meant to be at least part in parody.”
Slideshow (2 Images)

A spokesman for Schiff’s committee acknowledged last week that the whistleblower approached the panel for guidance before filing his complaint about Trump’s efforts to push Ukraine to pursue an investigation into the Bidens, but there is no evidence that Schiff or the panel helped draft the complaint.

Trump referred to both Schiff’s characterization of his call with Zelenskiy and the whistleblower’s approach to the House Intelligence Committee in his email targeting Pelosi.

“This makes Nervous Nancy every bit as guilty as Liddle’ Adam Schiff for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and even Treason,” he said on Twitter.

“I guess that means that they, along with all of those that evilly ‘Colluded’ with them, must all be immediately Impeached!”

Reporting by Tim Ahmann; Editing by Tom Hogue, Robert Birsel
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 GOP challenger Joe Walsh: Donald Trump is a traitor
« Reply #2132 on: October 07, 2019, 02:15:38 AM »

Not a chance. The GOP has hitched its star to Fat Orange such that they are cancelling primaries and caucuses in at least four states, a move that would cut off oxygen to Trump’s long-shot primary challengers. Besides, Joe Walsh himself is a piece of work.

Killing primaries just illustrates Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party apparatus. His allies are bound and determined to snuff out any potential nuisance en route to his renomination — or even to deny Republican critics a platform to embarrass him. this perfectly reflects the extent to which trump supporters are done listening.

I disagree.  The Repugnants are clearly on the run and jumping ship.  The polling gets more and more negative, and quite a few will be out of a job in 2020 if they don't turn it around.  They will need to some serious ballot stuffing to work around this, and I don't think they have the hackers capable of that kind of action.  It would take Ruskie or Chinese hackers to pull it off, and at this point Trumpovetsky has burned those bridges too.  He;s running out of powerful friends to enlist here.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18564
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2133 on: October 07, 2019, 05:53:11 PM »
We'll see how this ruling goes.

Federal judge says Donald Trump can be indicted while he’s still in office

| 12:41 pm EDT October 7, 2019

Palmer Report » Analysis

When Federal Judge Victor Marrero ruled this morning that Donald Trump’s tax returns must be turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney, he issued a wide-ranging ruling that covered a lot of ground. As Palmer Report explained, the legal battle centers around a grand jury subpoena over the tax returns, which means the grand jury is seeking to criminally indict Trump on state charges. It turns out the judge had something to say about when Trump can be indicted.

The big question about the New York grand jury is whether it’ll wait and indict Donald Trump the minute he’s no longer president (at which point he’d be immediately arrested), or if the grand jury will try to indict Trump while he’s still in office. Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is insisting that a sitting president can’t be indicted on federal charges – but the DOJ doesn’t have direct control over what the states can do. That’s why the judge’s ruling this morning is so crucial.

As flagged by a number of observers, the judge said in his ruling the DOJ’s position on not indicting a sitting president is essentially nonsense. We all know that the DOJ isn’t going to indict Donald Trump while Bill Barr is still running it. But the judge just handed significant legal precedent to New York State if it decides to try to indict Trump while he’s still in office.

We still don’t know what that would look like. Federal law enforcement probably won’t allow New York State to arrest Donald Trump while he’s still president. But if he’s indicted and he refuses to show up for his trial, it could be held without him. If he’s convicted, and the sentence includes asset seizures, that could begin while he’s still in office. It’s New York’s move now – but this ruling supercharges things.

"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2134 on: October 08, 2019, 02:40:24 AM »
We'll see how this ruling goes.

They alredy Appealed it to the 2nd Circuit.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A.
« Reply #2135 on: October 08, 2019, 02:48:13 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/nyregion/trump-taxes-lawsuit-vance.html

Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A.

A judge rejected the president’s argument that he was immune from criminal investigations.


President Trump at a White House event on Friday.Credit T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

William K. RashbaumBenjamin Weiser

By William K. Rashbaum and Benjamin Weiser

    Oct. 7, 2019
    Updated 6:08 p.m. ET

A federal judge on Monday rejected President Trump’s effort to shield his tax returns from Manhattan state prosecutors, calling the president’s argument that he was immune from criminal investigation “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

The decision from Judge Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in Manhattan was the first significant ruling in a case that could require Mr. Trump to hand over his tax returns and ultimately test the limits of presidential power.

The judge dismissed a lawsuit that had been filed by Mr. Trump, who was seeking to block a subpoena for eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns. The Manhattan district attorney demanded the records in late August as part of an investigation into hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Trump’s tax returns, however, remain protected for now. His lawyers quickly appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, which agreed to temporarily delay enforcement of the subpoena while it considers arguments in the case.
Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter

Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.

Advertisement

In a 75-page ruling that included detailed constitutional analysis and cited Supreme Court precedents, Judge Marrero systematically dismantled the president’s arguments that investigating a sitting president was unconstitutional. The judge said Mr. Trump’s lawyers were, in essence, arguing that the president, along with his family, associates and companies, were above the law.

“This court finds aspects of such a doctrine repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values,” wrote the judge, who was appointed to the bench in 1999 by President Bill Clinton.
Judge Victor Marrero’s Ruling

Court ruling in Trump v. New York D.A. (PDF, 75 pages, 1.98 MB)
75 pages, 1.98 MB

The dispute has pitted the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., against the president and his Justice Department and has raised a host of issues that have not been tested in the courts. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether presidents can be charged with a crime while in office, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue.

Walter Dellinger, who served as acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said Judge Marrero’s opinion was “an emphatic rejection of the imperial presidency claim that a president cannot even be investigated.”

Advertisement

The judge’s decision came a little more than a month after Mr. Vance subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his personal and corporate tax returns dating to 2011.

Mr. Vance’s office has been investigating whether any New York State laws were broken when Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has denied the affair.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers sued last month to block the subpoena. The lawyers acknowledged that their constitutional argument had not been tested, but said presidents have such enormous responsibility and a unique position in government that they cannot be burdened with investigations, especially by local prosecutors who might be politically motivated.

“This case presents momentous questions of first impression regarding the presidency, federalism and the separation of powers,” a lawyer for the president, Patrick Strawbridge, wrote to the appeals court on Monday. He said the losing party should be given time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case also has drawn in Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department, which has not taken a position on the president’s argument but supported his request to delay enforcement of the subpoena because of the “significant constitutional issues.”

A lawyer for the president and a spokesman for Mr. Vance both declined to comment on Monday, as did a spokeswoman for the Justice Department.

The decision was a victory for Mr. Vance, whose office had asked Judge Marrero to dismiss Mr. Trump’s suit, accusing the president and his team of trying to drag out the investigation until the statute of limitations runs out on any possible crime.
Editors’ Picks
Ming, the Bengal Tiger Raised in a Harlem Apartment, Has Died
The Beauty of America’s Ugliest Ballpark
What We Learned in N.F.L. Week 5

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have called the investigation by Mr. Vance, a Democrat, politically motivated.

Longstanding policy from the Justice Department bars federal prosecutors from charging a sitting president with a crime. Department lawyers have concluded that presidents have temporary immunity while they are in office.

But in the past, that position has not precluded investigating a president. Mr. Trump and other presidents have been the subjects of federal criminal investigations while in office. Local prosecutors, such as Mr. Vance, are also not bound by the Justice Department’s policy.

Mr. Trump’s arguments went a step further, starting with a central claim that the Constitution gave him sweeping immunity not just from indictment and prosecution, but also from any investigation by federal or state authorities.

In his opinion, Judge Marrero pointedly noted that in throwing off the yoke of the British crown, the country’s founders had dismissed the notion of broad immunity.

“Shunning the concept of the inviolability of the person of the King of England and the bounds of the monarch’s protective screen,” the judge wrote, “the founders disclaimed any notion that the Constitution generally conferred similarly all-encompassing immunity upon the president.”

Judge Marrero also dispatched Mr. Trump’s other claims, including that the district attorney had no authority to subpoena his tax returns or had acted in bad faith, and that being forced to turn over the returns would cause Mr. Trump “irreparable harm.”

The judge rejected the conclusions of three Justice Department memos dating back to as early as 1973 that he said have long been cited as supporting the interpretation that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

Advertisement

He said the memos rely on “suppositions, practicalities and public policy” as well as dire pictures of hypothetical scenarios — and not on an actual case.

Late Monday, the appeals court said that it would hear arguments in the case later this month and that enforcement of the subpoena would be delayed at least until then.

If Mr. Vance ultimately prevails in obtaining the president’s tax returns, they would not automatically become public. The documents would be protected by rules governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations unless the documents became evidence in a criminal case.

The president and his lawyers have fought vigorously in other venues to shield his tax returns, which Mr. Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he would make public but has since refused to disclose.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sued to stop attempts by congressional Democrats to gain access to his tax returns and financial records and to block a New York State law that would share state tax returns with congressional committees. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns.

Mr. Vance’s office has been investigating whether the Trump Organization falsely accounted for the reimbursements to Mr. Cohen as a legal expense. In New York, filing a false business record can be a crime.

But it becomes a felony only if prosecutors can prove that the false filing was made to commit or conceal another crime, such as bank fraud or tax violations. It was unclear why the office has attempted to obtain Mr. Trump’s personal financial records as part of that inquiry.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, which he sued along with the district attorney’s office to bar the company from turning over his returns, reiterated an earlier statement that it would comply with its legal obligations.
Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated
Sept. 19, 2019
A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?
May 29, 2017

William K. Rashbaum is a senior writer on the Metro desk, where he covers political and municipal corruption, courts, terrorism and broader law enforcement topics. He was a part of the team awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news. @WRashbaum • Facebook

Benjamin Weiser is a reporter covering the Manhattan federal courts. He has long covered criminal justice, both as a beat and investigative reporter. Before joining The Times in 1997, he worked at The Washington Post. @BenWeiserNYT
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
https://www.businessinsider.com/support-impeaching-trump-rising-across-political-spectrum-2019-10

Support for the impeachment inquiry into Trump is rising rapidly across the political spectrum
Eliza Relman
2 hours ago


Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence look on as U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol Building on February 5, 2019 in Washington, DC. Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images

trump impeachment banner

    Support for the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump is on the rise across the political spectrum, according to new polling by The Washington Post and ABC.
    Since July, support for the impeachment investigation has grown by 21 percentage points among Republicans, 25 percentage points among Democrats, and 20 percentage points among those who identify as independents.
    The survey found that 58% of Americans support the House Democrats' newly-opened impeachment investigation and 49% believe Trump should be removed from office.
    Americans' sentiment has shifted dramatically over the past few weeks following the revelation that Trump asked the Ukrainian president to initiate an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
    Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Support for the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump is on the rise across the political spectrum.

A whopping 58% of Americans support the House Democrats' impeachment investigation into Trump, while 49% of Americans believe he should be removed from office, according to new polling by the Washington Post and ABC.

Among those who support the impeachment inquiry, just 6% oppose removing the president from office.

Since July, support for the impeachment investigation has grown by 21 percentage points among Republicans, 25 percentage points among Democrats, and 20 percentage points among those who identify as independents, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Americans' sentiment has shifted dramatically over the last few weeks.

A Quinnipiac University poll published on September 25th found that just 37% of Americans supported impeaching and removing Trump from office. Five days later, that number jumped 10 percentage points to 47%. Similarly, Reuters/Ipsos polling found that support for impeachment rose eight percentage points in the last week of September.

Read more: Just a handful of Republican lawmakers have rebuked Trump's calls for Ukraine and China to interfere in the US election

News broke late last month that Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to do him "a favor" by initiating an investigation into allegations of corruption against former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Shortly before the president's July 25th phone call with Zelensky, the White House froze $391 million in key security aid to the country.

A large majority of Americans — 64% — believe Trump's request that the Ukrainian government initiate an investigation into the Bidens was inappropriate. But while 84% of Democrats and 63% of independents believe this, just one-third of Republicans said the same. Nearly 60% of GOP respondents said Trump's request was appropriate.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads

Trump has repeatedly insisted that his call with Zelensky was "perfect" and called criticism of his actions a "witch hunt." His 2020 reelection campaign is using the impeachment inquiry to raise funds.

Overall, just 35% of Americans — 29% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats — said Trump upholds "adequate standards for ethics in government."

The poll, conducted between October 1-6, surveyed 1,007 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 High Crimes and Misdemeanors of the Fading American Century
« Reply #2137 on: October 09, 2019, 11:19:23 AM »
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176613/

Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich, High Crimes and Misdemeanors of the Fading American Century
Posted by Andrew Bacevich   at 7:28am, October 8, 2019.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch.


Hey, in the age of Trump, what could be more appropriate than quoting oneself? So let me do just that. As I wrote about a month before the 2016 presidential election, “As a phenomenon, Donald Trump couldn’t be more American... What could be more American, after all, than his two major roles: salesman (or pitchman) and con artist? From P.T. Barnum... to Willy Loman, selling has long been an iconic American way to go. A man who sells his life and brand as the ultimate American life and brand... come on, what’s not familiar about that?”

And then, in that fateful October, I added:

    “In relation to his Republican rivals, and now Hillary Clinton, he stands alone in accepting and highlighting what increasing numbers of Americans, especially white Americans, have evidently come to feel: that this country is in decline, its greatness a thing of the past... Under such circumstances, many of these voters have evidently decided that they’re ready to send a literal loose cannon into the White House; they’re willing, that is, to take a chance on the roof collapsing, even if it collapses on them. That is the new and unrecognizable role that Donald Trump has filled. It’s hard to conjure up another example of it in our recent past. The Donald represents, as a friend of mine likes to say, the suicide bomber in us all. And voting for him, among other things, will be an act of nihilism, a mood that fits well with imperial decline.”

Looking back, so much of what I wrote then has become the essence of now. Donald Trump was always the symptom, not the cause. He was the suicide bomber whose way into the White House was paved by twenty-first-century Washington. Now, he’s there -- beyond there -- with that same heartland crew still supporting him, roof collapsing or not. All in all, it’s quite a spectacle and who likes such things (especially when focused on him) more than... you-know-who. Today, TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich considers the latest chapter of that very extravaganza and what to make of the impeachment spectacle that has swept us all away. What “high crimes and misdemeanors” actually lie behind it? Or, to be more precise, what high crimes and misdemeanors put The Donald in the White House in the first place? Tom

    The Real Cover-Up
    Putting Donald Trump’s Impeachment in Context
    By Andrew J. Bacevich

    There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they think.

    From the time of Donald Trump’s election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual certainty.

    No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back down now would expose the president’s pursuers as spineless cowards. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.

    So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, “The stage is set, the destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God.” Of course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty. That it now concerns a “Mafia-like shakedown” orchestrated by one of Wilson’s successors tells us something about the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a story of ascent.

    The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of Donald Trump’s election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered by Bill Clinton’s “sexual relations” will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.

    As this process unspools, what politicians like to call “the people’s business” will go essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office, gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation’s infrastructure will proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion -- larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us preoccupied with America’s role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding what’s still called “national security” will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and pointless.

    By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield. Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of possibilities awaiting the nation.

    The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having worn off, being president can’t be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the “deals” an ex-president could make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he’s bestowed favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and lucrative) way out.

    The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and “do the right thing,” joining with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing. In the Washington of that classic twentieth-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart holding forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery, this might have happened. In the real Washington of “Moscow Mitch” McConnell, think again.

    The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president’s loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless that base were to flip, don’t expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.

    That leaves outcome number four, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a colossal waste of time and blather.

    Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting, for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president’s various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.

    Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress’s approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public, a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.

    Not Removal But Restoration

    So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren’t necessarily in a more favorable position. And that ain’t the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it’s you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place.

    Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton declared Trump to be an “illegitimate president.” Implicit in her charge is the conviction -- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president. People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump doesn’t deserve to be president and never did.

    For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path.

    In a recent column in the Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest, and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what’s going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained.

    Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as “centrists,” members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama’s promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change.

    These centrists share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in “American global leadership,” which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power, and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump’s antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.

    “For all their appeals to enduring moral values,” Moyn writes, “the centrists are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power.” Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. “Centrists simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility.” Precisely.

    High Crimes and Misdemeanors

    For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice. Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for an über-qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and unprincipled political novice in 2016.

    Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump’s antics regarding Ukraine may even meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the “centrists” who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed). Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008. As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.

    Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who sold the war don’t particularly matter. The results include thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured; millions displaced; trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case even formed inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it has yet to recover. How do Trump’s crimes stack up against these?

    The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a direct result of the ensuing chicanery, nearly nine million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment shot up to 10%. Roughly four million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be asked: How do these results compare to Trump’s dubious dealings with Ukraine?

    Trump’s critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.

    To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch?  I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. “Trump’s shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory,” Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse “to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality.” Just so.

    What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming months, don’t expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of addressing such questions.

    Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory, will be published in January.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 The 8 wildest moments from Trump's Wednesday press event
« Reply #2138 on: October 09, 2019, 06:40:25 PM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/8-wildest-moments-trump-s-wednesday-press-event-n1064451

The 8 wildest moments from Trump's Wednesday press event

The president criticized the Kurdish forces he's accused of abandoning, saying 'They didn't help us in the Second World War'


President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters during an event on "transparency in Federal guidance and enforcement" in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, on Oct. 9, 2019.Evan Vucci / AP

Oct. 9, 2019, 3:48 PM AKDT
By Dareh Gregorian

President Donald Trump criticized the Kurdish allies he's been accused of abandoning, shrugged off the prospect of ISIS terrorists going free, referred to the Ukraine whistleblower's source as a "spy," and mocked two NBA coaches during a wide-ranging back and forth with reporters at the White House on Wednesday.

Trump spoke at an event in the Roosevelt Room, where he was touting two executive orders involving deregulation, and questioning quickly turned to impeachment as well as his decision to pave the way for Turkey's military actions in Syria. Here are some the most notable moments from the press conference.
1. He said Kurds "didn't help us with Normandy"

While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have blasted Trump for pulling back U.S. forcesand allowing the Turkish military to attack the U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters, Trump suggested the Kurds had only been looking out for their own interests.

"They didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy," Trump said, adding they were only interested in "fighting for their land."

"In addition to that, we have spent tremendous amounts of money on helping the Kurds in terms of ammunition, in terms of weapons, in terms of money, in terms of pay," he added. "With all of that being said, we like the Kurds."

The Kurds have been instrumental in helping the U.S. fight ISIS and experts have sounded alarms that the U.S. withdrawal could make them vulnerable to attacks from Turkey, their longtime adversaries, as well as ISIS.
2. He suggested ISIS "go back to their homes" in Europe

Asked if he was worried that thousands of ISIS fighters who have been in the custody of the Kurds could escape during the Turkish assault, Trump said, "Well, they're going to be escaping to Europe. That's where they want to go. They want to go back to their homes."
3. He simultaneously questioned the existence of the whistleblower's sources and suggested they could be "a spy"

Trump said he wasn't aware that the record of his phone call with Ukraine's president had been put in a server used for the nation's top secrets because "I'm not a lawyer."

"This city is the leaking capital of the world," he said. "I assume it was for leaks. I've read that. I don't think it's a big deal."

What is a big deal, he said, was that a White House official told a whistleblower about the "perfect" call.

"Who is the person giving this information, if that person exists? I'm not sure if that person exists," he said.

If the person does, "we could have a spy and I don't want to have spies," he said. "I don't want to have spies in the White House. I want to be free to make calls."
Trump talks meeting families of fallen soldiers at Dover Air Force Base
Oct. 9, 201902:13
4. He discussed meeting with families of slain soldiers

Trump said his desire to end U.S. military presence in Syria was born in part from seeing families of slain U.S. soldiers react to their deaths.

"I go to Dover when I can, but it's so devastating for the parents," he said, saying that family members sometimes "scream like I've never seen anything before. Sometimes they'll run to the coffin and jump on top of the coffin, crying, mothers and wives crying desperately. And this is on these endless wars that just never stop."
5. He said he would cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry.... "if they give us our rights"

A day after the White House said it would not cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry, Trump suggested he might if the House votes on it and "if they give us our rights." The Trump administration has blocked a number of current and formal officials from complying with House-issued subpoenas. The State Department earlier this week blocked E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland from testifying.

He again blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for how he characterized his call with Ukraine's president. "He made me sound like a tyrant. It’s a terrible thing," Trump said. "He defrauded the American public. I mean honestly I don’t know what could happen, but there are those that say he should be prosecuted for what he did."
6. He mocked two NBA coaches over their response to China

The president was asked about the international firestorm that's engulfed the NBA in the wake of Houston Rockets' general manager Daryl Morey having tweeted in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. China, which has invested billions in the sport, responded by suspending ties with the franchise and Chinese TV outlets announced they'd no longer air Rockets games. The league has been scrambling to mend fences, which has led to bipartisan criticism from lawmakers.
Recommended
nightly-news
Turkey launches attack on U.S.-backed Kurds in Syria
now
How allies are responding to U.S. troops pulling out of Syria

Trump used his answer to mock the responses of two of his longtime critics, Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr and San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich.

"I watched this guy, Steve Kerr, and he was like a little boy who so so scared to be even answering the question ... He was shaking, 'Oh, I don't know, I don't know.' He didn't know how to answer the question. And yet he'll talk about the United States very badly. I watched Popovich — sort of the same thing, but he didn't look quite as scared, actually. But they talk badly about the United States, but when it talks about China, they don't want to say anything bad. I thought it was pretty sad actually," he said.

Asked if he was OK with the Chinese government pressuring the NBA to keep quiet about the Hong Kong protests, Trump said, "They have to work out their own situation. The NBA is — they know what they're doing. But I watched the way that like Kerr, Popovich and some of the others were pandering to China, and yet to our own country, they don't. It’s like they don't respect it," Trump said. "To me, it's very sad."
7. He said he might not even want a trade deal with China

Trump also addressed reports that Chinese officials aren't optimistic about striking a deal to end the trade war that's dragged on for over a year. "China wants to make a deal more than I do."

"Look, I'm very happy right now, were taking in billions of dollars of tariffs," he said. "They want to make a deal. The question is do I want to make a deal? The answer would be if we make the right deal I'd love to do it. I think it would be a great thing for China also."
8. He repeated a debunked claim about Robert Mueller

Trump also doubled down on his claim that former FBI Director Robert Mueller had asked him to get his old job back one day before he became special counsel. Mueller has under oath denied doing so.

"He absolutely wanted to become the FBI director. I said no," he said. Asked about unconfirmed reports of a dispute between Mueller and Trump's Virginia golf course, Trump said, "that may be one of the reasons I said no.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 Trump accused of 26 new cases of ‘unwanted sexual contact’
« Reply #2139 on: October 10, 2019, 01:57:43 AM »
Think any Repugnant Wimmen will vote for Trumpovetsky again? ???   :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-sexual-assault-allegations-harassment-groping-women-karen-johnson-book-a9149021.html

Trump sexual accuser E Jean Carroll is 'sick' of women not being listened to
Trump accused of 26 new cases of ‘unwanted sexual contact’


President ‘hid behind tapestry to grope woman’

    Chris Riotta
    New York @chrisriotta

Donald Trump has been accused of another 26 incidents of “unwanted sexual contact” and 43 instances of inappropriate behaviour, including a claim he hid behind a tapestry to grope a woman at his Mar-a-Lago property.

The explosive allegations are featured in a new book, All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator, by Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy, the first excerpt of which has been published by Esquire magazine. Mr Trump has faced accusations of sexual misconduct for years, and has denied them all – including the infamous moment from the 2016 campaign trail when an audio tape was leaked of him discussing grabbing women “by the p****” without their consent.

Karen Johnson spoke exclusively for the first time to Mr Levine and Ms El-Faizy about her claims of unwanted touching on the part of the president during a New Year’s Eve party in the early 2000s.
00:15 / 00:30

“When he says that thing, ‘Grab them in the p****,’ that hits me hard because when he grabbed me and pulled me into the tapestry, that’s where he grabbed me – he grabbed me there in my front and pulled me in,” she said.

The book’s co-authors said they conducted more than 100 interviews with women from Mr Trump’s life during the writing process.
00:17 / 00:30
Top articles
1/6
READ MORE
Brexit: Parliament to sit on a Saturday for first
time in 37 years in last-ditch Boris Johnson bid to stop delay
Read more

    The full list of women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault

Mr Trump has long denied all accusations of inappropriate sexual behaviour against him, and has frequently sought to undermine women who have come forward detailing allegations of abuse and unwanted touching, criticising their claims on Twitter and elsewhere.

Ms Johnson said she “hadn’t seen [Mr Trump] that whole entire night” at the party when she took a trip to the bathroom before going home.

“I was just walking to the bathroom,” she said. “I was grabbed and pulled behind a tapestry, and it was him. And I’m a tall girl and I had six-inch heels on, and I still remember looking up at him. And he’s strong, and he just kissed me.”

She added: “I was so scared because of who he was ... I don’t even know where it came from. I didn’t have a say in the matter.”
Trump 2020 launch: Fascist Proud Boys, baby blimps and Uncle Sam
Show all 30

Mr Trump then reportedly encouraged her to stand next to him as he said goodbye to the guests, as Melania was upstairs.
Independent news email

Only the best news in your inbox

Register with your social account or click here to log in
I would like to receive morning headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts by email

He also began calling her in the days following the incident, offering to take her on trips as she cared for her dying husband.

“Don’t worry about it, he’ll never know you were gone,” Mr Trump said, according to Ms Johnson.

Prior to this book, at least 24 women came forward accusing Mr Trump of sexual misconduct.

One of the most recent was author E Jean Carroll, who said the president forced himself onto her in a dressing room at a department store in the 1990s.

Mr Trump said she was “peddling fake news” and “trying to sell a new book” by coming forward.

The authors also described how the president first met Melania Trump when she was 28 years old, at a time when he was dating numerous women.
Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

They said Mr Trump asked one of them, Kara Young, to marry him after seemingly becoming infatuated with her. Ms Young was dating Mr Trump at the same time as Ms Trump, according to the new book, and reportedly used his credit card to shop in New York CIty’s SoHo neighbourhood.

One day, the book says Ms Trump found another woman’s make-up on a bathroom towel – presumably that of Ms Young – and later broke up with Mr Trump over “trust issues,” according to an interview with the first lady’s former roommate. She said the two eventually got back together after Ms Trump forgave Mr Trump.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/10/20906172/trump-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-crisis-impeachment


Trump’s resistance to the impeachment inquiry is a genuine constitutional crisis


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) answers questions with House Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) at the US Capitol on October 2, 2019, in Washington, DC. Win McNamee/Getty Images

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent an eight-page-long middle finger to House Democratic leaders on Tuesday, pledging resistance to the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

As a legal matter, Cipollone’s letter is nonsense. Several court decisions make it clear that the White House is not above the law. Executive privilege is real, and it sometimes prevents some inquiries into presidential behavior, but it is not an absolute privilege — especially in the context of a criminal investigation.

As a practical matter, however, Trump is likely to get away with it because there’s no one who can stop him. House investigators and others may be able to obtain a court order requiring the White House to comply with an investigation. But if Trump continues to refuse, Congress and the courts have limited options.

As Alexander Hamilton once wrote of courts: the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

The constitutional mechanism, meanwhile, for dealing with a lawless president — impeachment and conviction — requires at least 20 Republican senators to vote to remove a president of their own party.

So long as Trump believes that his fellow partisans will hang together, he has little incentive to comply with a court order.

The question of how to define a “constitutional crisis” is hotly contested among scholars. Yet one common definition, according to Georgetown law professor Victoria Nourse, is “a fight among branches of government in which neither side backs down, and there is no clear resolution within the constitutional system.”

There is no resolution to the present crisis within our constitutional system. The White House announced its clear intention to violate the law. But the only sure mechanism to enforce that law, impeachment, is a paper tiger so long as Republican senators stand with Trump.
The law does not permit Trump’s extraordinary resistance to investigations

Cipollone’s letter reads less like a legal document than it does like a Sean Hannity monologue. But he appears to be arguing that the Trump administration is free to defy congressional subpoenas because the House impeachment inquiry has not given Trump “constitutionally mandated due process” that he believes he is entitled to.

Trump’s legal position appears to be that no one in his administration is under any obligation to cooperate with anyone investigating whether Trump violated the law: he has made such sweeping claims of immunity to investigation that a federal judge recently described his arguments as “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

Let’s take these two arguments in turn: the argument that Trump may demand that the House impeachment inquiry be conducted in a certain way and the argument that Trump has broad authority to resist investigations.

Cipollone claims that the House’s impeachment inquiry should afford Trump certain rights typically associated with criminal trials, including “the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses” and “to have counsel present.” But this demand misunderstands the role of the House during impeachment.

As Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, the House stands in the role of “accusers” during the impeachment process while the Senate acts as “judges” over anyone impeached by the House. A House impeachment inquiry is not, in other words, analogous to a trial. It is more similar to a police investigation of someone suspected of committing a crime.

Even at a Senate trial, an impeached official may not demand the kind of due process rights that Trump seeks. A similar issue arose in Nixon v. United States (1992), a Supreme Court case involving disgraced federal Judge Walter Nixon, who claimed that his impeachment trial did not afford him due process because certain parts of that trial were delegated to a committee consisting of only a subset of the Senate.

As the Court explained, the Constitution gives the House the “sole” power to impeach and the Senate the “sole” power to try those impeachments. The Supreme Court concluded that courts have virtually no authority whatsoever to second-guess the process Congress uses during an impeachment.
The executive branch has a very limited ability to resist subpoenas emerging from an impeachment inquiry

While the courts may not micromanage the process used during impeachment, they often have an obligation to enforce subpoenas. That was the holding of United States v. Nixon (1974), an entirely different Nixon case involving then-President Richard Nixon. This was the pivotal Watergate case that required Nixon to release incriminating tapes, which eventually led to his resignation.

This Nixon case concluded that many of a president’s communications with his aides are shielded from investigators. “Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process,” the Court explained. To ensure that presidents receive honest advice from their advisers — even when that advice is unpopular or impolitic — courts should show “great deference” to a president’s assertion that internal White House communications should be kept secret.

This deference, though, is not absolute. Allowing the president to “withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts,” the Supreme Court concluded, forcing President Nixon to turn over incriminating tapes that eventually led to his resignation.

A 1997 federal appeals court decision, In re: Sealed Case, offered a fuller explanation of executive privilege, defining it as coming in two different forms. The stronger form, known as the “presidential communications privilege,” applies to communications directly with the president, or communications “authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate.”

This privilege is what was at issue in the 1974 Nixon case. And Sealed Case described several limitations on it: Among other things, it is “limited to communications ‘in performance of [a President’s] responsibilities,’ ‘of his office,’ and made ‘in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’” Sealed Case also suggests that congressional committees may breach the presidential communications privilege when it seeks information that is “demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s functions.”

Meanwhile, a weaker privilege known as the “deliberative process privilege” permits “the government to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal ‘advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.’” But this privilege is extraordinarily weak. Indeed, it “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.”

So House investigators have broad power to subpoena almost all executive branch communications so long as there is “reason to believe government misconduct occurred.” They have somewhat less power to seek communications involving Trump and his inner circle, but even these communications may be subpoenaed when they will reveal information that is “demonstrably critical” to the impeachment inquiry. And documents unrelated to Trump’s official duties — such as, say, his tax returns — are not subject to executive privilege at all.

The White House’s sweeping refusal to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry simply has no basis in law.
What happens if the Supreme Court orders Trump to comply with the law and he says “no”?

If a court does order the administration to comply with congressional subpoenas, Trump’s first line of defense is the fact that Republican appointees control the Supreme Court. There’s no guarantee than any such order will be upheld by this Supreme Court, no matter how clearly existing caselaw says that it should.

But let’s assume the best-case scenario for impeachment investigators. Suppose that the courts move swiftly, that they soundly reject Trump’s defiance of congressional oversight, and that the Supreme Court orders Trump to end that defiance. What comes next if Trump refuses to comply with that order?

I asked Josh Chafetz, a Cornell law professor and author of Congress’s Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers, what legal options exist shy of impeachment. His response was pretty fatalistic. “At the point at which we’re talking about ignoring court orders,” Chafetz told me, “what does ‘legal options’ even mean any more?”

The remedy, if it came at all, would have to be political. If Trump were to defy both the House and the judiciary, Chafetz predicts that the president “would outrage a decent chunk of the public” and that Trump’s approval rating would crater. That “would have the effect of turning a bunch of GOP elites against him, which, in turn, might drive his approval still lower. I think at that point it ends with his ouster.”

But Chafetz adds that he’s not especially certain of this outcome and he “could very easily see it going other ways, too.”

Trump presides over a Republican Party that is both more united and more homogenous than the party Nixon presided over. Even if President Nixon wanted to defy the 1974 Nixon decision, it’s unlikely he could have gotten away with such a decision because much of his own party would have turned against him.

For one thing, political parties were far less “sorted” in 1974 than they are today. There were still conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and these factions wielded considerable power within their party coalitions. After Nixon left office, for example, Republican President Gerald Ford picked the leader of his party’s liberal wing as vice president.

So lawmakers in 1974 were accustomed to working across party lines because that was often the only way to find enough ideological allies to get a bill through Congress. Today’s lawmakers are far less accustomed to forming such cross-partisan alliances.

Similarly, for reasons that Princeton political scientist Frances Lee explains, Nixon-era Republicans had a particular incentive to work with Democrats that Trump-era Republicans do not. For most of the 1970s, largely due to the fact that many Southern conservatives still identified as Democrats, the Democratic Party had an enormous advantage in the battle for control of Congress. Because Republicans expected to be in the minority, they had a strong incentive to make nice with Democrats because forming bipartisan alliances was the most reliable way for Republicans to wield power.

Lee’s thesis is that when “neither party perceives itself as a permanent majority or permanent minority,” the parties tend to polarize. Why cooperate with your partisan rivals when you can undermine them and increase your own chances of gaining the majority in the process?

Republicans have a strong incentive to stick with Trump no matter how often Trump thumbs his nose at the law. Republicans don’t see Democrats as potential allies; they see them as bitter rivals trying to take something they want.

Many of the Founding Fathers, for what it’s worth, understood the risk of such a polarized system and hoped to avoid it. “There is nothing I dread So much, as a Division of the Republick into two great Parties,” future President John Adams wrote in 1780. A two-party system “is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil, under our Constitution.”

Yet many of the men who designed the Constitution believed that they’d built a system that was immune to partisanship. The “well constructed Union” envisioned under that Constitution, future President James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, would have a “tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”

It didn’t. As anyone familiar with the musical Hamilton can tell you, the nation’s leaders split into two political parties almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified.

The framers, in other words, built our government on the assumption that lawmakers could rally together during times of crisis, rather than dividing into teams and digging in for partisan advantage. Polarized political parties simply are not compatible with a system that requires two-thirds of the Senate to remove a president — at least, if you don’t want a system where the president is immune from impeachment.

That’s likely to leave the question of whether Trump will face consequences for lawless behavior to the voters — which is ultimately where it rests in any democracy. A well-designed constitution can mitigate the risk that a corrupt executive will hold onto power but it can’t prevent the voters from repeatedly electing such a leader.

As Chafetz warns, “no constitution on its own can prevent power holders from blowing through it if there is not sufficient political will to stop them.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 A majority of respondents support his impeachment and removal from office.
« Reply #2141 on: October 10, 2019, 02:49:25 PM »
If Faux Newz is getting poll results like this, Trumpovetsky is in serious shit.

RE

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/10/20907864/fox-news-impeachment-poll-trump

A majority of respondents support his impeachment and removal from office.
By Aaron Rupar@atrupar Oct 10, 2019, 10:50am EDT


Trump at the White House on Wednesday. Win McNamee/Getty Images

A new Fox News poll about impeachment should send shivers down the spines of President Donald Trump and his supporters.

The poll, which surveyed 1,003 registered voters between October 6 and October 8, finds that a majority of voters (51 percent) support Trump’s impeachment and removal from office — a significant jump from the last time Fox News polled the question in July, when only 42 percent of respondents supported removing Trump.

The survey indicates Trump’s efforts to cajole the Ukrainian government into investigating the Bidens are a major problem for him, and his moves to spin the scandal into one about the Biden family are backfiring.

Thirty-eight percent of respondents said they are “extremely” troubled by “the situation surrounding President Trump’s dealings with the Ukrainian president” — twice as many (19 percent) who are extremely troubled by the allegations Trump has made “about Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in Ukraine and China.” Forty-three percent said they think what Trump “said on the call with the president of Ukraine” is “an impeachable offense,” compared to 27 percent who found it “inappropriate, but not impeachable” and 17 percent who said it was “appropriate.”

The Fox News poll indicates that respondents actually think the impeachment inquiry into Trump is fairer than the one President Bill Clinton faced.

It’s worth pointing out that it’s still early. House Democrats launched their impeachment inquiry less than a month ago, and there’s still a lot we don’t know about how voters will react as it continues to unfold. But the latest Fox News poll — which, as my colleague Sean Collins has detailed, comes on the heels of a string of surveys indicating that support for Trump’s impeachment has risen rapidly — is perhaps the starkest illustration yet of the trouble the president faces.
Trump is upset that Fox News won’t rig polls for him

While Fox News’s programming for the most part skews in a markedly pro-Trump direction, its polls adhere to similar standards as other reputable pollsters. Trump, however, seems to be bothered that the network isn’t rigging polls for him.

Trump, who started lambasting Fox News in August after they published a poll that showed him polling below 40 percent in head-to-head matchups against four frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, wasted no time on Thursday portraying the new polling as the latest evidence that Fox News is “much different than it used to be in the good old days.”

“Whoever their Pollster is, they suck,” Trump tweeted.

Trump followed that up with another tweet touting a network he’s been promoting as a more loyal alternative to Fox News — the One America News Network (OANN).

With reliable pollsters showing support for an impeachment inquiry rising, Trump has resorted to touting fake numbers both on Twitter and during press conferences.

The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18564
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🤡 Trump accused of 26 new cases of ‘unwanted sexual contact’
« Reply #2142 on: October 10, 2019, 04:36:57 PM »
Think any Repugnant Wimmen will vote for Trumpovetsky again? ???   :icon_scratch:

RE

Yes, I do. Plenty of them.

"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 Trump accused of 26 new cases of ‘unwanted sexual contact’
« Reply #2143 on: October 10, 2019, 04:49:23 PM »
Think any Repugnant Wimmen will vote for Trumpovetsky again? ???   :icon_scratch:

RE

Yes, I do. Plenty of them.

Yea, OK, he gets some of the Slut vote.  :(

The Lezzies will vote for Warren though.  :)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/RTeG46XvMhQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/RTeG46XvMhQ</a>

There are Lesbos here in Ameika too you know, they're not all Brits.  lol.

Gotta admit there Surly, that was champion level Googling.  ;D

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41363
    • View Profile
🤡 Judges rule against the Trump administration three times in one day
« Reply #2144 on: October 11, 2019, 09:43:20 PM »
Not looking too good for El Trumpo these days...  :)

RE

By Kevin Liptak, CNN

Updated 11:20 PM ET, Fri October 11, 2019
Judges rule against the Trump administration three times in one day


Washington (CNN)Five federal courts dealt blows to President Donald Trump on Friday just as the limits of his legal strategy to block an impeachment inquiry became clear.
It amounted to a challenging end of a challenging week for Trump, who remains consumed by an impeachment crisis that is clouding his presidency.
Within moments of each other, a career diplomat began painting a damning portrait of the President's foreign policy to lawmakers just as Trump lost his appeal in a federal appeals court to stop a House subpoena of his tax documents, which he's guarded fiercely since refusing to make them public as a candidate.
Then, in rapid succession, judges in New York, Texas, Washington state and California sided against Trump administration initiatives meant to limit immigrants from entering the country -- both through a physical barrier and by raising the requirements on migrants seeking legal status.

Friday night, the man in charge of executing much of Trump's immigration agenda, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, submitted his resignation to the President as the legal setbacks mounted. Long in the works, and by all accounts unrelated to the court decisions or the impeachment crisis, the move nonetheless fueled a sense of an administration in flux. McAleenan was the fourth person to serve in that post since the Trump presidency began.
All of the court cases will be appealed. But the rulings added to the sense of Trump's worsening legal fortunes, and Democratic investigations into his finances and foreign activity seemed to gain steam.
A silver lining came in the afternoon, when Trump announced a "phase one" trade agreement with China that he hopes will signal the beginning of the end of a withering trade war. News of the emerging deal sent stocks soaring, even as the President acknowledged it still requires "papering."
Three federal judges hit Trump on immigration policy changes
Three federal judges hit Trump on immigration policy changes
The President remained defiant, telling reporters as he departed the White House for his second rally in two days that he would prevail in the end.
"We'll win," he said. "You know how many cases I've lost and then we win?"
But even as he was speaking, the setbacks were piling up.
A disgruntled deposition
Former US ambassador to Ukraine says Trump wanted her removed and blames &#39;unfounded and false claims&#39;
Former US ambassador to Ukraine says Trump wanted her removed and blames 'unfounded and false claims'
The trouble began in the morning, when Trump's ousted ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, strode into a deposition on Capitol Hill behind a pair of dark glasses.
Three days earlier, the White House had issued a letter declaring the administration would refuse to comply with Democrats' requests as they speed ahead in their impeachment efforts, saying the proceedings were "illegitimate." Democrats said the White House tried to prevent Yovanovitch's testimony on Thursday evening, so they were forced to issue a subpoena.
In talking points distributed to allies, the White House said that "we are not concerned with any information Yovanovitch might share, because the President did nothing wrong."
But in her prepared testimony, the career diplomat was scathing in her assessment of how Trump conducts foreign policy and of the actions of some of his confidants.
"Although I understand that I served at the pleasure of the President, I was nevertheless incredulous that the US government chose to remove an ambassador based, as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives," she said in a 10-page statement obtained by The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Yovanovitch's appearance on Capitol Hill illustrates the limits of the legal strategy laid out by Trump's lawyers earlier this week. While the administration has worked to bar officials from appearing before lawmakers, they do not seem able to prevent those officials from complying with subpoenas compelling them to appear.
Already a number of administration officials have signaled they are willing to break with Trump's dictate to not cooperate in the investigation. After his voluntary appearance was derailed by the State Department this week, US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland plans to appear next Thursday after being subpoenaed by congressional investigators.
Democrats have also scheduled depositions next week with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl. Fiona Hill, the White House's top Russia adviser, who left the administration in August, has been scheduled to appear for a deposition on Monday.
It's not clear if all intend to appear, and one Trump congressional ally downplayed the testimony of administration officials as defiance of the White House, saying they're doing so only under subpoena.
But the pattern of administration officials choosing Congress over the White House remains a remarkable choice for a President who routinely demands loyalty from those who work for him.
'No authority'
Trump loses appeal to stop House subpoena of tax documents

Trump loses appeal to stop House subpoena of tax documents 02:17
There was another signal Friday that the White House strategy of refusing to cooperate could face an uphill battle. In the tax document ruling, the federal appeals panel wrote it has "no authority" to require the House to take a full vote in support of a subpoena to investigate the President, citing the Constitution.
It's the first major case at the appeals court level in the standoff between the House and Trump. The President so far has lost all of his challenges to stop House subpoenas that have been decided at the trial court level.
Trump may appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the release of his tax records, but courts, including the Supreme Court, previously have refused to curtail Congress' subpoena power.
That ruling preceded a day of setbacks on Trump's immigration agenda, designed around efforts to limit migrants from entering the country.
A federal judge in Texas ruled the President's national emergency declaration to build a border wall unlawful and appeared poised to block the use of those funds. At issue is $3.6 billion in military construction funds that has been diverted to build the wall, which remains one of Trump's chief campaign promises.
Meanwhile, judges in New York, California and Washington state blocked implementation of a Trump administration rule that would make it more difficult for immigrants who rely on public assistance to obtain legal status, just days before the regulation was set to take effect.
Under the proposed rule, many green card and visa applicants could be turned down if they have low incomes or limited education because they'd be deemed more likely to need government assistance in the future, including most forms of Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
Trump appeared nonplussed by the immigration setbacks as he departed the White House on Friday afternoon for a rally in Louisiana. He was emerging from a meeting with China's vice premier, where he announced a "phase one" trade deal he said amounted to a "love fest" after months of friction.
"We lost on immigration?" he asked when questioned about the string of rulings. "I haven't heard that. We'll win. We'll turn -- you know how many cases I've lost and then we win?"

Elsewhere, his senior adviser was less sanguine.
"It impedes democracy," Stephen Miller, who leads Trump's efforts on immigration, told reporters in the White House driveway.
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2323 Views
Last post January 13, 2017, 04:34:48 PM
by RE
1 Replies
2396 Views
Last post January 18, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
by RE
3 Replies
1946 Views
Last post June 02, 2018, 09:43:37 AM
by agelbert