Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 264

FBI says Clinton’s laptop is missing - “LOCK HER UP!!!”

WH officials say Trump leaked classified information to the Russians - “There is no incontrovertible evidence.”

Not a Trump supporter said:

I’d have given Hillary Clinton the same chance had she won.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Possessed said:

One could argue that legalizing gay marriage and marijuana are conservative standpoints as that means less government limitations on your personal life.

I’ve wondered about that myself. Unfortunately, for some (possibly arbitrary) reason, the Republican party seems to be intertwined with Christianity. I say arbitrary because I have many conservative friends for whom their one gripe with the Republican party is its immersion in religion.

I’ve often wondered what the U.S. would look like if it happened to be the liberals that were embroiled in Christianity.

I prefer to imagine a US with actual separation of church and state.

There are so many final nails in the Trump coffin in the last two days that the whole thing is basically nails at this point. Hopefully it’ll sink to the black depths of history where it belongs.

Good. Maybe the Republicans will all stop being massive P U 5 5 Y S and take their party and their dignity back from this sham of a Presidency.

Trump stands by ‘absolute right’ to share sensitive information with Russia:-

~ Trump reportedly shared Israeli intelligence related to Isis plot
~ Politicians and intelligence officials concerned information put sources at risk

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/16/donald-trump-russia-shared-information

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Trump is pushing hard to drop the Russia thing not because they’ll find anything, but because it’s embarrassing. Every step he takes to get rid of it makes him look guilty, but it could just be his ego.

TV’s Frink said:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/333803-first-republican-raises-impeachment-for-trump

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Wednesday said reports that President Trump pressed ousted FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation would merit impeachment if true, becoming the first Republican lawmaker to broach the idea.

The New York Times on Tuesday reported that Trump tried to pressure Comey to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, citing a memo written by Comey.

Asked by The Hill if the details in the memo would merit impeachment if they’re true, Amash replied: “Yes.”

“But everybody gets a fair trial in this country,” Amash added as he left a House GOP conference meeting.

Asked by another reporter whether he trusted Comey’s word or Trump’s, Amash said: “I think it’s pretty clear I have more confidence in Director Comey.”

Republicans beginning to turn (or at least voicing their concerns)?

TV’s Frink said:

doubleofive said:

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Trump is pushing hard to drop the Russia thing not because they’ll find anything, but because it’s embarrassing. Every step he takes to get rid of it makes him look guilty, but it could just be his ego.

He’s trying to keep the hooker-piss thing from being proven. That’s his whole angle.

The Israelis don’t like being pissed on by the Russians - more so if the piss has been supplied by Trump.

No hookers required (this time)…

oojason said:

The Israelis don’t like being pissed on by the Russians

You lie down with Trump, you wake up wet.

CatBus said:

oojason said:

The Israelis don’t like being pissed on by the Russians

You lie down with Trump, you wake up wet.

😃

and with a bad smell 😉

I really disagree with that analysis. During Watergate, 2/3 of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee voted against all impeachment charges. And that’s after there was an actual audio recording of the President committing the crimes he was charged with. Direct evidence like that is very rare, even in normal criminal cases–usually convictions hinge upon a pile-up of circumstantial evidence that can’t be explained away by any other plausible scenario (i.e. “beyond reasonable doubt”). That’s much more likely to be the case here.

So if the case against Trump never gets as bulletproof as the case against Nixon, I’d say well over 2/3 of the Republican members of the relevant committees will avoid taking any action at all. Which is more than enough to ensure nothing happens. And Republicans won’t see any blowback regardless of how big the scandal becomes. As long as Trump’s approval stays above ~32%, they keep the Senate–with no real risk of losing it until 2022. The House is theirs until 2022 even if voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats–and it’ll likely remain theirs after 2022 if they keep control of the redistricting process. What other changes may happen to our election system before 2022 is also worth considering.

If the scandals keep going at their current rate (major scandal every 12 hours or so, no actual video footage of Trump eating the puppy, just twelve witnesses), I think we’re looking at a second Trump term. That’s not doomed.

CatBus said:

I really disagree with that analysis. During Watergate, 2/3 of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee voted against all impeachment charges. And that’s after there was an actual audio recording of the President committing the crimes he was charged with. Direct evidence like that is very rare, even in normal criminal cases–usually convictions hinge upon a pile-up of circumstantial evidence that can’t be explained away by any other plausible scenario (i.e. “beyond reasonable doubt”). That’s much more likely to be the case here.

So if the case against Trump never gets as bulletproof as the case against Nixon, I’d say well over 2/3 of the Republican members of the relevant committees will avoid taking any action at all. Which is more than enough to ensure nothing happens. And Republicans won’t see any blowback regardless of how big the scandal becomes. As long as Trump’s approval stays above ~32%, they keep the Senate–with no real risk of losing it until 2022. The House is theirs until 2022 even if voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats–and it’ll likely remain theirs after 2022 if they keep control of the redistricting process. What other changes may happen to our election system before 2022 is also worth considering.

If the scandals keep going at their current rate (major scandal every 12 hours or so, no actual video footage of Trump eating the puppy, just twelve witnesses), I think we’re looking at a second Trump term. That’s not doomed.

I think there are some additional factors to take into consideration here. One of them is that Trump has already made quite a few enemies in Congress, and he’s proving to be an embarrassment in terms of policy. Nixon was at least a savvy politician. There is also the matter of the crime. The Russia collusion has the potential to be much bigger than Watergate, if any hard evidence surfaces. Of course, there has been an erosion of values in Congress leading them to look the other way even when faced with wrongdoing, so perhaps these factors cancel out. But I don’t think that he is in a better position than Nixon at this point in his presidency.

NeverarGreat said:

CatBus said:

I really disagree with that analysis. During Watergate, 2/3 of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee voted against all impeachment charges. And that’s after there was an actual audio recording of the President committing the crimes he was charged with. Direct evidence like that is very rare, even in normal criminal cases–usually convictions hinge upon a pile-up of circumstantial evidence that can’t be explained away by any other plausible scenario (i.e. “beyond reasonable doubt”). That’s much more likely to be the case here.

So if the case against Trump never gets as bulletproof as the case against Nixon, I’d say well over 2/3 of the Republican members of the relevant committees will avoid taking any action at all. Which is more than enough to ensure nothing happens. And Republicans won’t see any blowback regardless of how big the scandal becomes. As long as Trump’s approval stays above ~32%, they keep the Senate–with no real risk of losing it until 2022. The House is theirs until 2022 even if voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats–and it’ll likely remain theirs after 2022 if they keep control of the redistricting process. What other changes may happen to our election system before 2022 is also worth considering.

If the scandals keep going at their current rate (major scandal every 12 hours or so, no actual video footage of Trump eating the puppy, just twelve witnesses), I think we’re looking at a second Trump term. That’s not doomed.

I think there are some additional factors to take into consideration here. One of them is that Trump has already made quite a few enemies in Congress, and he’s proving to be an embarrassment in terms of policy. Nixon was at least a savvy politician. There is also the matter of the crime. The Russia collusion has the potential to be much bigger than Watergate, if any hard evidence surfaces. Of course, there has been an erosion of values in Congress leading them to look the other way even when faced with wrongdoing, so perhaps these factors cancel out. But I don’t think that he is in a better position than Nixon at this point in his presidency.

Sure, there’s never a 100% perfect analog. That’s the perennial problem with using historical precedents to predict current events. But I think that it’s pretty clear (to me, at least) that if Republicans ran both houses of Congress, Nixon would never have been forced to resign, in spite of direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing. That doesn’t bode well.

Anybody else see the irony in Trumpy addressing Coast Guard graduates, when his administration wants to severely cut the Coast Guard’s budget? Nice to have a captive audience either way.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve seen a few Republicans trying to claim that Trump made his Flynn comments to Comey as a joke or exaggeration or friendly banter. But if that’s the case…why did he tell Pence and Sessions to leave the room first?

It’s a variation on the “he’s too much of an idiot to have really known the full import of what he was doing” defense. And it’s proven shockingly effective in the past. I expect it to be used a lot more as things come out.

It basically boils down to intent. Firing Comey was obstruction… depending on intent. And so on. The argument is that idiots have no intent in anything they do, so if they seem to commit a crime where intent is relevant, then they’re simply not guilty by reason of being an idiot.