American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Biff]

I have a sneaky suspicion that the prosecutorial and investigative sides are on the same page. I believe they'll play ball and respect normal process unless and until the administration stonewalls or "obstructs". I expect that attempts to derail a thorough investigation will be met with more chess-move procedural steps and, if necessary, public disclosures to keep attention and heat on this so that the WH and / or a complicit Congress will find it difficult to sweep it all under the carpet. I hope and believe that sober-minded career people are absolutely committed to seeing that the rule of law prevails rather than a banana republic.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump won't to go the UK if there's protests?

Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.

The call was made in recent weeks, according to a Downing Street adviser who was in the room. The statement surprised May, according to those present.

The conversation in part explains why there has been little public discussion about a visit.

...

Trump has named Woody Johnson, a Republican donor and owner of the New York Jets, as the new ambassador to the UK but has yet to nominate him formally. A large number of US ambassadorial positions remain unfilled worldwide largely due to the Trump team failing to make any formal nominations.

The acting US ambassador to the UK, Lewis Lukens, a career diplomat, clashed with Trump last week by praising Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, for his strong leadership over the London Bridge and Borough Market terror attack.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...in-put-on-hold

The simple response to Trump here is: "ok "

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

heh-heh-heh..."Woody Johnson"...

I know what you're thinking, and I don't think this is how you are going to get the gold medal at next year's Western Canadian Regional Model Contest.

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I know what you're thinking, and I don't think this is how you are going to get the gold medal at next year's Western Canadian Regional Model Contest.

...so I should stick with the "Harry Sachs" idea instead?

to keep it on topic, I'll build a model of Trump driving a star-spangled locomotive off a cliff.

[octothorp]

I bet Trump is really anxious for any story that pops up that will move attention away from the Russia/Comey/obstruction stories.

Hey, Attorneys General in Maryland and D.C. are launching a lawsuit at trump over the fact that foreign payments to his business violate the anti-corruption code.

Why could this matter?

"If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps would be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.e206dead5ecf

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Jeremy Corbyn‏@jeremycorbyn
Cancellation of President Trump's State Visit is welcome, especially after his attack on London's mayor & withdrawal from #ParisClimateDeal.

[Street Pharmacist]

I think so much more could be gleaned here simply by creating a proper visual timeline with known discoveries in proper order. For example:

On January 26th, Sally Yates was so worried about the false information Pence was telling the American people about Mike Flynn's communication with the ambassador, that she went directly to White House Counsel Donald McGahn's office. She told him "unambiguously" that Flynn had been compromised by the Russians and they knew this.

The very next day, Trump invited Comey over to the White House for dinner and told Comey he "hoped you can see your way to clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go"

That's quite striking when viewed in context of the timeline IMO

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He's saying that the sorts of highly partisan, ultra-ideological Democrats who are likely to be nominated in 2018, should they gain control of Congress and impeach Trump, are the sorts of people who will so utterly alienate the center of the country that by the time 2020 rolls around they'll get crushed.

That seems right to me... hell, they almost nominated Ellison as DNC chair, who could best be described as "the guy Republicans must have been confusing Obama with for all those years". The establishment's grip over that party is just as tenuous as the GOP's was when they lost their hold over it.

Hmm I guess I can see that. Not sure I agree, but what do I know.

I think if Trump gets impeached it mostly bursts the bubble on Republicans.

It would be such a huge story that everybody would want to get in on it. The dirt on just how immoral and incompetent the Trump regime would start to come out, without there being anyone who would have a real reason to defend it. I think only the worst fanatics could defend him at that point.

It would leave most of GOP looking guilty by association. I think the chaos and media frenzy could just as easily get them absolutely murdered in the following election.

[FlameOn]

CNN is reporting that Trump's lawyer will not rule out firing Meuller

One of President Trump's lawyers didn't rule out that Mr. Trump could fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to oversee the FBI's investigation into Russian election meddling and any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

"Look, the president of the United States, as we all know, is a unitary executive," Jay Sekulow, a member of Mr. Trump's legal team, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But the president is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside. And I'm not going to speculate on what he will or will not do."

"But right now the role of the president is to govern the United States of America," Sekulow continued. "He's going to do that. He's going to leave anything else to the lawyers. But I can't imagine that that issue is going to arise. But that again is an issue that the president with his advisers would discuss if there was a basis."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-la...probe-mueller/

[photon]

Trump's outside lawyer's press spokesperson:

"All US Attorneys work for and at the pleasure of POTUS. There is nothing abnormal with the executive speaking directly with his employees."

https://twitter.com/MarkCorallo1/sta...91832878551040

Uh, they work for the people and swear allegiance to the constitution, they aren't employees serving king Trump.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

CNN is reporting that Trump's lawyer will not rule out firing Meuller

That worked out real well for Nixon...

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

With the removal of Trump, it fires up the base and removes some enthusiasm from the left

I don't see it...

A: For starters removing the President would require a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Given the slate of states up in 2018 it would be impossible for Trump to be removed without a very large number of Republicans also voting for removal. It'd be the most bipartisan effort in years. The "base" would have to be fired up against the GOP almost as much as the DNC.

B: The left wouldn't find it hard to be enthusiastic about aligning against a President Pence. It'd be a different type of enthusiasm but he's really really really conservative. He's no nativist demagogue but he's not someone they'd have a hard time wanting to see the back of.

C: There isn't any history to suggest such is true. Nixon's Resignation in the face of surefire impeachment/removal led to big GOP losses in the next election, Clinton's impeachment (with non-removal) was followed by mild congressional losses for the GOP (albeit with a GOP Presidential win via hanging chad). Two isn't a real sample size but history doesn't suggest a big backlash against the removing/impeaching party.

[FlameOn]

Jeff Sessions to publicly testify tomorrow in front of Senate Intelligence Committee.

Meanwhile Newt Gingrich is calling for the abolition of the Special Council investigating Trump claiming it will be biased.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

CNN is reporting that Trump's lawyer will not rule out firing Meuller



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-la...probe-mueller/

In fairness to Trump and his lawyer, CBS is kind of distorting what he actually said. What he said is that Trump is focused on governing and leaving the other stuff to the lawyers for now.

Characterizing those comments as "not ruling out firing Mueller" is a little perverse in my opinion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Sweet press conference on now. Donald telling it like it is. He's done more than any President, ever! Well except maybe FDR, who had a depression to deal with.

350 billion dollars in deals on his last trip! They will create millions of jobs and end terrorism.

Coal mines are re-opening very, very fast, employing thousands.

I know we aren't supposed to say the people who believe this guy's bull#### are stupid, but they are. There's no way around it.

[ResAlien]

They're not stupid, they're willfully ignorant. It's an important distinction.

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

They're not stupid, they're willfully ignorant. It's an important distinction.

easily conned

[Itse]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

They're not stupid, they're willfully ignorant. It's an important distinction.

Personally I think that's the worst kind of stupid.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Itse

Personally I think that's the worst kind of stupid.

I agree but simply calling them stupid almost absolves them of the responsibility of their choice as if they don't know any better. They know they just don't care.

Of course let us not say such hurtful things as then we won't be able to have discourse with them. They should be coddled and we should let them know it's ok that they support and believe all these terrible things. Pointing out how awful they are only serves to make them defensive and shut down conversation.

[DuffMan]

they're willfully ignorant and stupid