The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Can they make him testify against Trump or report Trump's "questionable" dealings?

If it was straight out illegal, I would think so but if it was in the grey area?

[JPhillips]

Ken White (aka Popehat) on why this raid is a big deal:

http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/0...rch-trump-lawy

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BBT

Guessing it may be related to the Stormy Daniels issue. Cohen’s payment may have violated the Federal Election law since he was associated with the Trump campaign when he made that payment.

I don't know. FEC violations usually result in a slap on the wrist.

[JPhillips]

WaPo says bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

Cohen's been with Trump for years, if he flips...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WaPo says bank fraud and campaign finance violations.

Cohen's been with Trump for years, if he flips...

If he flips, how much is he allowed to say?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If he flips, how much is he allowed to say?

There are limits to client-attorney privilege. If there were discussions to commit or cover up a crime, then there are no protections in place.

[Thomkal]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/polit...hen/index.html

Poor baby, its so unfair. It's like a broken record with him-criticize Jeff Sessions-check, why are they not investigating Hilary-check. badmouth Obama-check, criticize the Justice Department and the FBI-check..

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are limits to client-attorney privilege. If there were discussions to commit or cover up a crime, then there are no protections in place.

Seriously. Otherwise anyone looking to do anything illegal would just have it taken care of through an "attorney."

(Of course, that's probably exactly his logic.)

[RainMaker]

The US Attorney who filed the search warrant was appointed by Trump.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The US Attorney who filed the search warrant was appointed by Trump.

Trump only hires the best people.

[BBT]

http://www.startribune.com/fox-news-mistakenly-posts-graphic-showing-it-lags-in-trust/479130233/

"Media Buzz" host Howard Kurtz said on Facebook Monday that the graphic was posted out of sequence. It was later used on the show.

Kurtz was talking about a Monmouth University poll about whether the media regularly or occasionally report fake news.

But the graphic showed results from another question about trust in cable news outlets. Fox News was last at 30 percent.

The Associated Press earlier reported that Kurtz ordered the graphic be taken down, but did not note that it was used again moments later.

[Edward64]

Interesting chart on news bias

http://www.allgeneralizationsarefals...ermark-min.jpg

You can click on it to make it bigger. Here's the news story linking to it.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28

Are we even aware of our biases anymore?

If you look at this chart and are convinced your “extreme” source belongs in the middle, you just might be part of the problem plaguing America today.

“In the past, national evening news programs, local evening news programs, and the front pages of print newspapers were dominated by fact-reporting stories,” says the chart’s creator, patent attorney Vanessa Otero. “Now, however, many sources people consider to be ‘news sources’ are actually dominated by analysis and opinion pieces.”

She released the first version of the chart back in 2016, and she’s updated it several times since. Over the past year, it’s gone viral, with thousands of educators at both the high school and college levels using the compelling visual. She says she’s “shocked” by all the attention it’s received and still gets requests every day.

Otero also talked about why such bias is so troubling.

“I think the extremes are very toxic and damaging to the country,” she explained to MarketWatch. “These extreme sources play on people’s worst instincts, like fear and tribalism, and take advantage of people’s confirmation biases.”

[Atocep]

I've never heard of the media organizations in the liberal part of the red box. I'm surprised the Daily Beast and Mother Jones are considered fairly accurate, albeit left leaning.

The fact that Fox News, Breitbart, and Info Wars are where they are isn't really a surprise but it's sad when you consider those places are are most Trump supporters get their information. As I heard a Trump supporter say yesterday, "when I see a political commentator described as far right I know he's actually a moderate."

[mckerney]

Geoffrey Berman, the US Atty who signed off on the Michael Cohen search warrants, is:
* A Republican
* A @realdonaldtrump appointee
* A max individual donor to Trump's '16 general election campaign
* A former Rudy Giuliani law partner

— The Smoking Gun (@tsgnews) April 9, 2018

When will this witch hunt the Democrats are in end?

[mckerney]

It looks like Berman actually recused himself. Recusal will make Trump even more upset.

SCOOP: ABC News has learned Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation. He had no role in raid of Cohen's office. Another recusal that will make @realDonaldTrump unhappy.

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 10, 2018

[Ben E Lou]

Attorney–client privilege is dead!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 10, 2018

If an innocent man's attorney's office is raided by the FBI, he says, "Wow. Sucks for him. He seemed like a good guy to me. Wonder what he did?" An innocent man doesn't care about attorney-client privilege in this situation; a criminal does.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by mckerney

When will this witch hunt the Democrats are in end?

The ironic thing is that had Clinton won, Trump would be under much less investigation. I can't see the Clinton DOJ wasting political capital going after Trump and making him look like a martyr.

Basically, Trump keeps getting the screws put to him BECAUSE no Democrats are in charge of the investigation.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Attorney–client privilege is dead!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 10, 2018

If an innocent man's attorney's office is raided by the FBI, he says, "Wow. Sucks for him. He seemed like a good guy to me. Wonder what he did?" An innocent man doesn't care about attorney-client privilege in this situation; a criminal does.

Besides the fact that it indicates how fucking guilty he is for the reasons Ben points out, anyone see something else strange about that tweet?

[mckerney]

All I've got is that it's the worst understanding of attorney-client privilege by a Trump since Junior telling Congress a conversation with his father was covered by it because there was a lawyer present.

[digamma]

Ari Fleischer is making a run for having the worst understanding of A-C privilege on twitter right now.

On the first question, he didn't use the right dash?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Ari Fleischer is making a run for having the worst understanding of A-C privilege on twitter right now.

On the first question, he didn't use the right dash?

Not so much about right or wrong, but that can typically only be composed through entering a code.

Unless of course you happened to be on the Wiki page for attorney-client privilege to copy/paste from:

Attorney–client privilege - Wikipedia

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Logan

Not so much about right or wrong, but that can typically only be composed through entering a code.

Unless of course you happened to be on the Wiki page for attorney-client privilege to copy/paste from:

Attorney–client privilege - Wikipedia

Clever sleuthing but not so sure about that. Many programs with typing modules will turn two regular dashes into that character if you hit the spacebar after them. Like an autocorrect.

[RainMaker]

The Facebook hearing is pretty embarrassing. Most of these people don't understand the basics of the internet let alone what Facebook actually does.

[Coffee Warlord]

Most of these guys are just reading verbatim from whatever their lackeys wrote for them. They don't understand what they're even saying.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Facebook hearing is pretty embarrassing. Most of these people don't understand the basics of the internet let alone what Facebook actually does.

More or less embarrassing than the steroid hearings?

[Edward64]

Too bad Trump nor Obama gets to go to the wedding.

I think if they invited Obama only, the majority of us would understand it wasn't an insult to the US but a preference not to be with a dick.

[Edward64]

I would assume Trump really can't directly fire Mueller and that the courts will back that up eventually.

However, the immediate following such a hypothetical declaration will be very entertaining.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/polit...fbi/index.html

Less than 24 hours removed from Donald Trump musing that "many people" have told him he should fire special counsel Robert Mueller, Sarah Sanders made clear that that the White House has researched such a move and believes Trump has the ability to do it.

"He certainly believes he has the power to do so," the White House press secretary said of the President's ability to fire Mueller. "We've been advised that the President certainly has the power to make that decision."

That. Is. A. Big. Deal.

Think about what Sanders is saying here. She is saying that that White House has sought out guidance as to whether Trump can fire the special counsel. And concluded that he can.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Too bad Trump nor Obama gets to go to the wedding.

I think if they invited Obama only, the majority of us would understand it wasn't an insult to the US but a preference not to be with a dick.

But Trump is still the president and can do a lot of damage to the UK, so best not to piss him off.

[PilotMan]

What happens if Trump fires Rosenstien, fires Sessions, appoints someone who fires Mueller, then the Republicans totally cowtow to him and let him get away with it? The whole thing buckles under and falls apart and Trump just solidifies his entire stance/power/influence? What then?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What happens if Trump fires Rosenstien, fires Sessions, appoints someone who fires Mueller, then the Republicans totally cowtow to him and let him get away with it? The whole thing buckles under and falls apart and Trump just solidifies his entire stance/power/influence? What then?

Which was apparently his plan for Pruitt and why he keeps backing him.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What happens if Trump fires Rosenstien, fires Sessions, appoints someone who fires Mueller, then the Republicans totally cowtow to him and let him get away with it? The whole thing buckles under and falls apart and Trump just solidifies his entire stance/power/influence? What then?

The Democrats dominate the midterms, take over both chambers, open their own investigations and shackle Trump as much as possible?

[Brian Swartz]

If not outright impeach him. The whole consolidating his power thing only works so long as he has a reasonably friendly Congress. If Congress is controlled by the Democrats, it wouldn't take a huge amount of Republican defections to simply get rid of him(depending on the magnitude of the majority) and at the very least they'd be able to keep him from getting much done.

[PilotMan]

I keep thinking Trump is gonna go all Palpatine and dissolve the parts of government he doesn't like, then declare "elections" for new terms he sets, like Russia.

I know better of course, that things would hold up better than that, but I can't help but think that based on his behavior in office.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Too bad Trump nor Obama gets to go to the wedding.

I think if they invited Obama only, the majority of us would understand it wasn't an insult to the US but a preference not to be with a dick.

yeah they invited no political leaders, including their own prime minister.

[bronconick]

Supposedly, people have to resign instead of being fired to be able to slide Senate approved Cabinet members without another vote, which is why there was a kerfuffle over the VA director.

Sounds pretty vague, so there would be lawsuits up the wazoo fighting over the newest Saturday Night Massacre

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What happens if Trump fires Rosenstien, fires Sessions, appoints someone who fires Mueller, then the Republicans totally cowtow to him and let him get away with it? The whole thing buckles under and falls apart and Trump just solidifies his entire stance/power/influence? What then?

Funny you should say that:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/polit...ler/index.html

And according to the NY Times, threatened to fire Mueller in December:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/u...-december.html

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If not outright impeach him. The whole consolidating his power thing only works so long as he has a reasonably friendly Congress. If Congress is controlled by the Democrats, it wouldn't take a huge amount of Republican defections to simply get rid of him(depending on the magnitude of the majority) and at the very least they'd be able to keep him from getting much done.

They can impeach him, but it won't mean a damn thing without a 2/3 majority in the Senate. They won't get that.

And I'm infinitely more likely to have a threesome with Hayley Atwell and Jennifer Lawrence than Senate Republicans are to vote to remove Trump from office, no matter what "high crime(s) and misdemeanor(s)" he's charged with, or how rock-solid the evidence.

And Trump ain't the sort to be embarrassed or chastised, so even if he were impeached by the House, he'd just keep on Trumping on.

Best the Democrats can hope for from the midterms is to take either the House or the Senate to stymie Trump's agenda and try to take back some state houses and governorships around the country in 2018 (and hold ONTO them in 2020) for redistricting purposes.

That's the pipe dream. That's the "if everything breaks exactly right" goal.

Impeachment isn't even a fart in a tropical breeze by comparison.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm infinitely more likely to have a threesome with Hayley Atwell and Jennifer Lawrence than Senate Republicans are to vote to remove Trump from office, no matter what "high crime(s) and misdemeanor(s)" he's charged with, or how rock-solid the evidence.

That depends on how much public opinion turns against Trump. He's doing a few points better on that than he was last summer and fall, but if the electorate were to turn against him hard, the Senate would do it to save their political necks. Given the degree to which he's increasingly not listening to his own staff, for better or worse, I don't think it's at all out of the question. If Mueller comes up with anything particularly big/juicy, which is looking increasingly likely, things could change in a right big hurry.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That depends on how much public opinion turns against Trump. He's doing a few points better on that than he was last summer and fall, but if the electorate were to turn against him hard, the Senate would do it to save their political necks. Given the degree to which he's increasingly not listening to his own staff, for better or worse, I don't think it's at all out of the question. If Mueller comes up with anything particularly big/juicy, which is looking increasingly likely, things could change in a right big hurry.

If Trump's base turns severely against him, maybe.

But here's the thing:

1) If Trump's base hangs with him, any Republicans who cross the aisle to vote to convict, Trump and his supporters WILL target for electoral revenge.

2) Unless a given Senator has political ambitions beyond the Senate, they probably aren't going to take that risk. Tom Cotton voting to convict would probably mean the end of his Senate career, but might give him a platform as a national candidate. I don't think he's a likely candidate to vote to convict, but he's young and ambitious. That's the template.

3) Impeachment, as a concept, is probably irretrievably political in the aftermath of Ken Starr and Bill Clinton. Every President since has either had noises made by members of the opposing party about how they should be impeached, or had members of their own party run on OH NOES DA UDDER SIDE WILL IMPEACH ARE PRESI..PRESI...LEADER GUY ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT THAT in challenging electoral climates.

Once you condition the base to respond that way to accusations of wrongdoing by the other side, it's really hard to get the base of the party currently holding the White House to take impeachment threats seriously.
It's going to get viewed as political (because for the last 20 years, it has been), and so whoever's President would have to seriously piss off their base to give their party's Senators cover to vote to convict.

I mean, I think this is especially true of Donald "I could commit murder in broad daylight and my base would cheer me on" Trump, but I'm under no illusions that the Democratic base would behave any differently.

The other thing, too, is that Trump's spent the last 2+ years conditioning his base to believe that anything mass media reports is "Fake News! Sad!" I mean, there was already conservative distrust of the free press in the 15-20 years Before Trump, but he's cranked that up to 11.

So let's say Mueller sends the Senate a recommendation with something super juicy. Trump is just going to continue to assault Mueller's integrity and complain about how this is all a witch hunt and don't believe anything the media's reporting about what Mueller found because it's all #FakeNews.

And his base will lap that up.

So that's the box Republicans are in. They can't vote to convict in the next seven months to save their majorities, because the base is vanishingly unlikely to turn on Trump to that degree, and the rest of the country will view it as a cynical political play.

If they lose the House, but keep the Senate, Democrats aren't going to send articles of impeachment to the Senate that they know will never be acted upon.

If Republicans lose the Senate but keep the House (and that's less likely than the reverse), they're gonna view sending articles of impeachment to the Senate as handing Democrats a win.

If Democrats somehow win BOTH houses, they aren't going to have the margin to do jack shit without Republican support, and I expect the Senate GOP response to be something like 'if Mueller delivers an impeachable offense, Democrats are going to spin that into grounds to remove Trump as well and that would mean President Pelosi (or whoever) fuck that.' Even if they don't explicitly say that, they're going to recognize that they spent two years giving Trump cover at every turn and doing what they could to protect him, and that turning on him after they've lost the majority isn't going to earn them any brownie points with the public.

Trump isn't getting impeached, let alone removed.

[Thomkal]

So the usual Trump tweets this morning-fake media, no collusion (but now no obstruction (other than fighting back)), he had a new message for Russia:

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

[Thomkal]

Paul Ryan not running for re-election.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So the usual Trump tweets this morning-fake media, no collusion (but now no obstruction (other than fighting back)), he had a new message for Russia:

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

This is going to be an interesting day......I am sure Bolton will calm him down though, oh wait.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Paul Ryan not running for re-election.

Gotta get that cash!!!

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Paul Ryan not running for re-election.

I bet he didn’t like what he saw in polling. Randy ‘The Iron Moustache’ Bryce was about to give him a credible challenge from the D side. I wonder if the confirmed white supremacist Paul Nehlen, who got some minor traction against Paul Ryan in the Republican primary, will step up to face the Iron ‘Stache?

I’d put my money on the seat flipping blue.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

I bet he didn’t like what he saw in polling. Randy ‘The Iron Moustache’ Bryce was about to give him a credible challenge from the D side. I wonder if the confirmed white supremacist Paul Nehlen, who got some minor traction against Paul Ryan in the Republican primary, will step up to face the Iron ‘Stache?

I’d put my money on the seat flipping blue.

Even if he won it looks like he'd be in the minority, and that's no fun. Now's the time to turn that tax cut into a trust fund.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So the usual Trump tweets this morning-fake media, no collusion (but now no obstruction (other than fighting back)), he had a new message for Russia:

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

So...did the Democrats force Russia to partner with a "Gas Killing Animal who kills people and enjoys it?"

[bronconick]

Going a little further back into GOP Speakers: Paul Ryan's retiring. John Boehner's hawking marijuana. Dennis Hastert's in a halfway house after being released from federal prison for charges related to sex crimes, and Newt Gimgrich is at the Vatican as his 3rd wife's + 1. 🙈🙉🙊 https://t.co/RV3G1zeVpr

- Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) April 11, 2018

[mckerney]

....doing things that nobody thought possible, despite the never ending and corrupt Russia Investigation, which takes tremendous time and focus. No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2018

So did he just admit to obstructing justice?

[Atocep]

What other country tells the enemy when we are going to attack like Obama is doing with ISIS. Whatever happened to the element of surprise?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2014

[Thomkal]

Ryan not exactly getting praise for his career:

"Paul Ryan" - Twitter Search