I'd be more accepting of Kavanaugh if Garland got a hearing, although I'd still be concerned by his deference to presidential power. At this point, I'm very supportive of the Dems just adding two seats the next time they can. I'd prefer term limits on justices, but the amendment process isn't going to work, and I'm in favor of making each individual justice less consequential.

The thing is...everybody knew the second Reid invoked the nuclear option on filibuster for federal judges, that Republicans would do the same for SCOTUS at the first opportunity.

And they did.

If Democrats take a page out of Roosevelt's book and look to add justices the next time they have control of the White House and Congress, do you really have any faith that Republicans wouldn't do exactly the same thing when the pendulum swung?

At some point, attempting to correct for excesses ends up undermining the institution.

To some extent I'm fine with that. One, I don't believe there's any different choice Dems could have made that would have changed McConnell's actions. Two, my problem isn't really about control of the courts, it's about how consequential each nominee is. If the court were larger each nominee is less important. Ideally we'd have terms for SC judges, but that takes an amendment and an amendment isn't going to happen. So, in lieu of that, I think expanding the size of the court, in small numbers at a time, is the next best option. We'll be fine with a court twice as large. I don't think it's healthy for democracy to have so much weight put upon each nominee.

Today's reminder that there's still a tweet for everything.

Only the Obama WH can get away with attacking Bob Woodward.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2013

I still say the same thing I did before; the way to correct this is to put Garland back up(or the closest thing to him that can be found).

JPhillips has a good point. Thing is, I think the only productive way forward is for people to care a lot more than they do about the kind of stonewalling that McConnell & Co. did. The 'any tactics are justified to defeat the opposition' mentality is just going to create more and more extremes until and unless cooler heads prevail. I know of one cooler head from our state: Rep. Justin Amash. He's quite conservative, but has the sense to not be blinded by it and has been willing to be a rare or even sole (R) voice on the correct side of things on a number of issues. Voices like his are rare, and we need a lot more of them which will only happen when the people demand it or are at least willing to support it. I hope for that to happen, but I don't expect it.

Could you imagine if Trump put Garland up?

Can you imagine, if he came out and said, this guy should have his chance? That what McDoofus did was wrong and we're going to make it right? I mean, it would be such an incredible move. Garland is old too.

I for one, am in the camp, that as long as the R's in the Capitol (I'm looking at Senate leadership from 2008 and on) are there, all still willing to play by a win at all costs playbook, then I'm ready to support the same on the opposite side. Until someone is willing to own up to the real issues, and honestly work to make it right. Too long has one side offered to strike a deal and been cut down, then been told, that's how you play the game and the other side celebrates. Too long. There is no response other than full on battle tactics afaic.

I can't come up with a plausible scenario for returning to some of these lost norms without mutually assured destruction hanging over all of them. Breaking norms needs to be perceived as more painful than observing them.

If anything was designed to make the xenophobic germaphobe Trump freak the fuck out:

BREAKING: An Emirates A380 in quarantine at JFK Airport right now awaiting CDC officials after about 100 passengers became ill with fevers over 100 degrees and coughing. Flight 203 had just arrived from Dubai. pic.twitter.com/lyUgNbMaEW

— Sam Sweeney (@SweeneyABC) September 5, 2018

I guess if the plane was coming from Africa, it would be a little worse for him, but this will still get all of his attention today

Maybe this is finally the Ebola outbreak Trump warned us about years ago. Stop the flights!

With all that is happening with Ebola, including the doctor who so easily came back to New York, Obama still refuses to stop the flights!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 26 October 2014

If you look at how democracies fall unfortunately that response is basically the playbook for that happening - it weakens the protections in place to prevent the rule of law being usurped by allowing wilder and wilder changes until at some point a real dictator takes charge (and no I don't think 'Trump' is going to be that).

If you look at the last few decades this has started to happen and its not all 'right wing' either unfortunately much as I'm a lefty you have to own up to bad decisions on both sides when this sort of thing occurs imho.

(and I for one would like to see the Democrats stand proudly on the left rather than continually subscribing to 'Republican lite' like they tend to ...)

4 years later finally happening!

We've seen this before

Just imagine if Trump was president during the Ebola outbreak.

I don’t even want to imagine that.

'Don't touch me again, man': Sen. Marco Rubio faces off against InfoWars conspiracy monger Alex Jones in hallway heckle spat https://t.co/d7o4wlvD3w pic.twitter.com/Z9Rj3ufv0O

— CNBC (@CNBC) September 5, 2018

Hallway Heckle Spat is going to be the name of my garage punk band.

Amongst the numerous tweets since yesterday in response to the Woodward book:


Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?

The timing makes this suspect, but apparently Vanilla Ice is claiming to be on that plane.


Vanilla Ice on Twitter: "So I just landed from Dubai and now there is like tons of ambulances and fire trucks and police all over the place… "

Good job GOP establishment.

I love this post, because much of this rings true. I do differ with you on your final point, I think one of the reasons why the US has been stable for so long is that Democrats were Republican Lite and Republicans morphed into Democrat Lite.

I think what happened was once the Soviets ceased to be the big bad guy after Gorbachev, we did not have anything to rally around. Clinton was given a bit of a pass (by and large), until Lewinski came up. That gave the Republicans something to rally around. Then with the 2000 election, many Democrats were not going to work with GWB under any circumstances because the 2000 election was "stolen." If it was not for 9/11 GWB is a single term president. After the 2004 election, the Democrats were not going to pass anything under Bush, so the Republicans returned the favor under Obama when they could. We know the rest.

The problem with any truly free form of government, you need to have an educated population that is not voting for their party, but is thinking through the issues. Unfortunately, Americans have a personality quirk that we need to win at all costs. We do not want to back a loser. That is why we have so many more bandwagon fans than many other countries do. Many people here do not vote for a third party because that is throwing your vote away, and it is best to vote for one of the big two. If we always do this nothing is going to change.

We need to make it easier for more parties to get involved in government. The problem is, it is not in the interest of the Republicans or Democrats to let that happen. Also, if we do start to see good candidates from other parties, we need to vote for them rather than defaulting back to the big two.

But Mr. President, all you have to do under current law is prove that it's both false AND malicious. Surely that should be easy?

Oh, you mean you want the law changed so you can say "the bad man hurt my fee-fees give me all the money" without having to actually prove that the speech is maliciously false?

Constitutionalist, my ass.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

A "senior official in the Trump Administration", known to the NY times., asked to write an annoymous Op-Ed there to let people know that there are those in the admin trying to limit the damage Trump is doing.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...mid=tw-nytimes

When it says, "We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t." That's a coup right? People we have not elected are making decisions and preventing the president from executing the duties of the presidency.

Either Trump should be able to act how he wants or he should be removed. But having anonymous government workers Be "the adults" in the room is treasonous, right???

A soft coup perhaps. Trying to prevent the President from getting all the information. Though that has existed to a smaller level in previous administrations. This seems like all out coordinated activity to prevent the President from having too much power.

It'll be interesting to see who it is. And how crazy Trump is going right now.

As far as treasonous... that's a bit silly. Every treason statute says you have to be doing something aiding the enemies of the state.

I’m sure this happens under every President. It’s likely just on a much alrger scale this time.

Well sure, scale matters. But I can't think of another example where someone proclaimed: don't worry America, there's a bunch of us secretly working to thwart the President of the United States.

It was either Pence or someone who really wants people to think it was Pence.

Desperate times and all that stuff.....

Trump sucks. But people working to undermine the President from the inside should scare everyone.

Also, these people are the worst of the worst. They know, better than anyone, that the President is unfit. And they have the access to let us know that so that the constitutional process for removing him could begin in earnest.

But instead they prop him up because they are afraid that throwing him out might depress turnout in Iowa or some shit. Fuck those people for keeping Trump's finger on the button.

I haven't read the piece yet, but if I was them I would be concerned if I came forward and he wasn't removed, then I would be, thus removing the safeguard against him doing something batshit, which at some point he likely will do resulting in loss of lives..

There's some wiggle room as far as what constitutes "aid and comfort."

But the Constitution also says you have to confess to the act, or there have to be witnesses, plural. "Aid and comfort" ain't enough.

The idea that it is necessary scares me, but anything to keep a racist Cheeto Skinned Magic 8-Ball from running our country.

And now because the gullible jackasses on the right are still endlessly supporting him, we have gullible jackasses on the left replacing incumbents with Socialists. Congrats to the right, you elected Trump because of all the holier than thou sentiment and triggering. Now the left is responding in kind.

People are not intelligent enough to choose their own leaders or understand what policies are best for them beyond the current calendar year. On either side of the aisle.

I really don't believe this is the case. I believe this person when they talk about concern over a constitutional crisis. I can only imagine the laundry list of "end of times"-type scenarios that would play out if Trump was removed from office in that way. "Mueller had nothing, so now they're just gonna make crap up and take him down." It would only serve to enrage and embolden the crazies on the right who believe all of this is make-believe, a product of the deep state.

We'd have wide-scale rioting, I believe. Sarasota would likely be the first to burn...

This.

There's a lot wrong here. The GOP worked against Clinton from day one. Look at the tax bill, the health reform process, the reaction to Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the travel office outrage, Whitewater.... All this in 1993.

And with Bush, Dems helped pass the tax bill, the Homeland Security bill, the education bill, the Iraq war bill. The first universal opposition was to the idea of Social Security privatization and that was in 2005.

What I wonder is if this is meant as a "it's ok everybody - we have this" message or if this individual wants to push either their co-minders or Congress to act.

The op-ed was written by a coward. Speak out. Follow procedures laid out in the Constitution. Testify to Congress in favor of impeachment.

Knifing the President and pretending it's okay is a pretty transparent attempt to rehabilitate reputations. Cowards aren't heroes.

Am I the only one that thinks that maybe this wasn't penned by a senior official in the Whitehouse? I tend to be skeptical of anonymous sources.

I don't see the NYT lying about the source. Senior is the only word I think may be in doubt, but I'd be shocked if this wasn't a person with regular contact with Trump or at least the WH staff.

Would seem very odd of the NY Times to lie about something like that. Also Trump has responded, after a Treason one-word post the next one was more chilling:


Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

Chilling, but pretty telling. Implies that it's completely fake, but says just in case, that the Times should hand them over...

I think it's just as likely they know that Congressional Republicans have completely abdicated that responsibility. I see Rainmaker said it was likely Pence, my first thought was John Kelly, but he seems like the type that would just do it and not worry about his reputation or be dumb enough to think this op-ed would help anything. Could be someone on his staff though.

One big issue is that until people do step forward, it’s nigh on impossible to prove or disprove, so it ends up reinforcing Trump when he refutes them, goes on a rant, and his base dig their trenches in even further.

The problem will all of this is I don't think the information getting out does any good, at least not right now. Trump's approval rating hasn't fluctuated much at all with traditionally good/bad news. The things which generally make him unfit for office are not new discoveries. They were well known months before the election.

Another op-ed

remember when the ny times had standards pic.twitter.com/gkOhI23ogm

— josh terry (@JoshhTerry) September 5, 2018

Given the cowardice inherent in this op-ed, the fact that now we see that there's an oft-used-by-Mattis phrase in there as well, I'm going with Ben Carson as my #1 suspect--someone with the combination of intelligence and cowardice to pull this off. (No one other than Ted Cruz has displayed Carson's level of cowardice in my estimation.)

Given the scope of individuals that run our government, and the layers upon layers of people that are all exposed to various topics, events, plans, and personnel, how do can people continue to follow something like the Q-anon or any other massive conspiracy where you've got supposedly secret information, that is so secret only 1 or 2 people know about it, and it's so huge, that it engulfs entire departments or multiple departments?

The converse to that statement is, here we have another book, and it's not the first. Book after book, about what goes on in the WH. From multiple sources, granted they are not open sources, but many, many sources. Talking about who said what, and what goes on. Open that even further, and look at the body of work written in articles from actual sources about what kind of person trump was in business, how operated in the reality show world, the Access Hollywood tapes, and you've got a pretty clear picture, and none of it surprising.

SO. How is it, that a large group of people are simply swayed by the idea that literally all of the latter are lying and that every bit of it is made up, simply because the boss said so? And how can this same large group of people be willing to believe that a massive, all encompassing plan is afoot to usurp the power of government and that the resistance to this incredible plan is masterminded by 1 or a small group of people that have this incredible power across multiple agencies? Further, how is it, that in this age, where information seems to be pretty readily available from sources, that no other knowledge of such a plan is known despite the layers and layers of people in said agencies, who would be willing to talk?

I just don't get the logic leap that has to exist. I do understand however, that a group, that feels constantly persecuted, and is willing to believe that they have been overlooked, marginalized and ignored, is willing to latch on to someone they see as their savior.

Ben Sasse:


How many senators have been hearing these stories three times a week and for how long? Pillars of strength, all of them.

Does Booker actually have the balls to leak all these redacted emails?