The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

[Ziggurat]

- Declaring a national emergency where none exists on order to further his own political career.
- Banning people from certain countries exclusively on the basis of their religion.
- Sympathising with with white nationalists and white supramacists

You really don’t know US history, do you? Wilson and FDR did far, far worse, on every count.

Who by, and when?

Federal courts have ruled against Trump multiple times. He has abided by their rulings.

A strawman; I didn't say he was, I'm saying that the methodology is similar

Only in the most shallow and trivial ways.

I guess you can lead a blind horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Irony, thy name is smartcooky.

 

[smartcooky]

Congress doesn’t rule, it legislates.

Rubbish! What is "legislation" if it isn't making laws and rules?

And it has not legislated any such thing.

Wrong again

When a House of Government does not give a National Leader the money he wants to carry out a project, that body is legislating against carrying out that project.

And you have the temerity to call ME ignorant.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Another investigation into actions of the Trump administration, this time involving nuclear power and Saudi Arabia.

From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47296641
A Democratic-led House panel has launched an inquiry over concerns about the White House plan to build nuclear reactors across the kingdom. Whistleblowers told the panel it could destabilise the Middle East by boosting nuclear weapons proliferation. Firms linked to the president have reportedly pushed for these transfers.

Did everyone miss this? This strikes me as considerably more important than the border "emergency" or non-emergency or whatever quibbling about a stupid wall. Hell, this strikes me as worse than actually building the damn wall.

 

[newyorkguy]

I agree but in the present situation people are on overload. To keep up with all the crappy stuff the pile of garbage at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is cooking up, I'd have to quit my job, stay home and monitor news sites all day!

 

[Stacko]

Did everyone miss this? This strikes me as considerably more important than the border "emergency" or non-emergency or whatever quibbling about a stupid wall. Hell, this strikes me as worse than actually building the damn wall.

Not everyone.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I agree but in the present situation people are on overload. To keep up with all the crappy stuff the pile of garbage at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is cooking up, I'd have to quit my job, stay home and monitor news sites all day!

Seeing what the Saudis managed to do to us with just four airplanes, I'd really hate to see what they could accomplish with a bunch of nukes.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Did everyone miss this? This strikes me as considerably more important than the border "emergency" or non-emergency or whatever quibbling about a stupid wall. Hell, this strikes me as worse than actually building the damn wall.

Rachel Maddow is talking about this as I type. Yes, it's very bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

When a House of Government does not give a National Leader the money he wants to carry out a project, that body is legislating against carrying out that project.

Nope. In the most trivial example, if the government can do it for free, then a lack of appropriations is obviously no impediment.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rubbish! What is "legislation" if it isn't making laws and rules?

Oh, and I shouldn’t have to point out such an obvious mistake, but you’re mixing up the verb and noun forms of “rule”.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope. In the most trivial example, if the government can do it for free, then a lack of appropriations is obviously no impediment.

Only in Zigguratsville

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uh-huh.

And folks are aligning against Sanders.

As expected.

Again, all I can say is that Dolt 45 is the actual opponent. If Bernie Sanders is the candidate, fine. If it's Kamalah Harris, get out and vote. Corey booker, or whoever else...better than that trash we have as president now.

ETA: This is your time to start raising objections to other candidates...

This is why there are so many Democratic hats in the 2020 ring, Trump is anything but a sure win.

 

[Aridas]

I realize that politics are divisive, but can we please join together in harmony to agree we shouldn't be invited to visualize a nude Trump?

Mmm. Suddenly, I'm thinking of a Kanye West music video. I wonder why?

Everyone keeps bringing up Trump's Rose Garden admission that "I didn't need to do this." But in that same 'speech' he also said, "The only reason we're here is because of the election." To me that screams political emergency, not national emergency. Yet another vocalazing of his inner dialogue.

Not just a political emergency. An admission that he simply wouldn't have done it if the Democrats hadn't had overwhelming victory and the GOP still controlled the House.

The sky isn't falling, Trump isn't going to become a dictator, and it was the Democrats who were considering packing the courts.

Hmm? Perhaps you should actually read that article before citing it as if it backed up the claim that you made?

With that said, it is true that there has been discussion about whether the Democrats should pack the courts or not, though without any meaningful answer so far. Chances are rather slim that it'll be done, whether it should be or not.

The big thing that you're pointedly trying to sweep under the rug, though, is that these discussions have occurred as a direct response to Republicans breaking the appointment norms to try to steal judge positions. What they did to Merrick Garland is a shining example, but that was just the most memorable of the shenanigans that they pulled. In other words, Republicans have been playing dirty to pack the courts with right-wingers, more than a few of whom have been distinctly unqualified (Trump's rate of nominating unqualified judges even earned the unprecedented rating).

Prior to Trump being elected, you pretty much had 43 presidents (I exclude Nixon) who could, for the most part, be trusted NOT to abuse their powers, and even in the event that they did, you always had the two houses of the Legislative branch, who would do what is right for the country, to bring the president into line, and failing that, an impartial judiciary as a last resort. You no longer have these constraints.

Andrew Johnson could be trusted not to abuse his powers?

Did everyone miss this? This strikes me as considerably more important than the border "emergency" or non-emergency or whatever quibbling about a stupid wall. Hell, this strikes me as worse than actually building the damn wall.

Not so much missed as... it's just one of the far, far too many rather serious things that the Trump Administration and the Republicans in Congress have done or tried to do. Also, this can be considered an update on a story that's been known since... Flynn. So... nice to know that Flynn's plots to increase nuclear presence in the Middle East for personal gain didn't end with him.



In other news, there's another update to the North Carolina voter fraud situation. Dowless Instructed Workers To Fill Out Absentee Ballots With GOP Candidates.

Britt said that most of the ballots had the congressional race and sheriff’s race filled out, as those were the major elections that topped the ballots. She said that Dowless’ cohort would fill in the empty votes for more minor, down-ballot races.

“Basically what we would do — what I would do — is to submit the vote for whoever was the Republican,” Britt testified.

Britt said that they would tamper with the ballots at Dowless’ home or office.

Also, there's First Amendment news worth mentioning. Clarence Thomas declares war on the very idea of a free press

In criminal cases, moreover, the standard was almost laughably draconian. “Truth traditionally was not a defense to libel prosecutions,” the justice writes. “The crime was intended to punish provocations to a breach of the peace, not the falsity of the statement.” Thus, a journalist (or anyone else with a platform, for that matter) could face criminal prosecutions even if their reporting is 100 percent accurate.

Should I be glad that I've discarded the notion that Republicans in power actually hold to the principles that the Party tells its normal members that it upholds?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Sorry if this was already posted, but this one NY Times article could serve as the basis for impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, today, without even waiting for Mueller's report:

Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him

It summarizes what was already known plus several new items, such as Whitaker's lies to Congress:

As federal prosecutors in Manhattan gathered evidence late last year about President Trump’s role in silencing women with hush payments during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump called Matthew G. Whitaker, his newly installed attorney general, with a question. He asked whether Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, could be put in charge of the widening investigation, according to several American officials with direct knowledge of the call.

Mr. Whitaker, who had privately told associates that part of his role at the Justice Department was to “jump on a grenade” for the president, knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge because Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation. The president soon soured on Mr. Whitaker, as he often does with his aides, and complained about his inability to pull levers at the Justice Department that could make the president’s many legal problems go away.

Trumpers who still cling to the hope that Trump will skate through this **** with "plausible deniability" are headed for a hard collision with reality.

 

[smartcooky]

Andrew Johnson could be trusted not to abuse his powers?

You know, one of the things that really, REALLY pisses me off about this forum (and its a thing that I generally don't find on other forums I participate in) is how frequently posters reply WITHOUT PROPERLY READING AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE REPLYING TO.

Now I have come to expect that from certain posters here, but I didn't expect it from you.

I will now quote the part you replied to, and you can read it again...

"Prior to Trump being elected, you pretty much had 43 presidents (I exclude Nixon) who could, for the most part, be trusted NOT to abuse their powers, and even in the event that they did, you always had the two houses of the Legislative branch, who would do what is right for the country, to bring the president into line, and failing that, an impartial judiciary as a last resort. You no longer have these constraints. "​

... and if you understand what I am talking about and why I am annoyed, please copy and paste the quote, and highlight the parts you failed to read and understand the first time.

I do not expect to have to explain this to you, of all posters.

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry if this was already posted, but this one NY Times article could serve as the basis for impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, today, without even waiting for Mueller's report:

Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him

It summarizes what was already known plus several new items, such as Whitaker's lies to Congress:



Trumpers who still cling to the hope that Trump will skate through this **** with "plausible deniability" are headed for a hard collision with reality.

For anyone who is not allergic to watching video, here is a short (13m) segment about this from today's Rachel Maddow Show.....

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...orts-to-obstruct-investigations-1445191747935

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Did everyone miss this? This strikes me as considerably more important than the border "emergency" or non-emergency or whatever quibbling about a stupid wall. Hell, this strikes me as worse than actually building the damn wall.

It's terrible, but it's not even the worst thing re Trump & Saudi Arabia, and it's not exactly unexpected. I'd say that the most disturbing thing so far was Jared Kushner giving the crown prince highly classified information about dissidents so that he could (and did) begin a purge.

Saudi Arabia is as important as Russia in the whole 2016 election scandal.

 

[TofuFighter]

....

So far, the only unambiguous distinguishing feature of Trump's emergency is the lack of deference to his authority in declaring it. But that's an extrinsic quality, not an intrinsic one.

What exactly are you referring to when you say this? Do you mean court challenges? The spoken opinions of members of the senate or congress? The spoken opinion of Americans in general?

If that's the case, I'm not sure how you can believe a lack of deference in this case distinguishes it from, for example, Obama's declaration expanding DACA.

Sure there are plenty of run-of-the-mill declared emergencies that no one on either side is the US usually give a flying squirrel about (like sanctions on individuals involved in shenanigans in Myanmar, Nicaragua, and a host of African countries) and thus make no loud noises about, but as regards specifically American issues, I'm not sure how you're holding onto the notion that there's been anything even vaguely resembling deference to the president's authority on the matter.

 

[Aridas]

You know, one of the things that really, REALLY pisses me off about this forum (and its a thing that I generally don't find on other forums I participate in) is how frequently posters reply WITHOUT PROPERLY READING AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE REPLYING TO.

Now I have come to expect that from certain posters here, but I didn't expect it from you.

I will now quote the part you replied to, and you can read it again...

"Prior to Trump being elected, you pretty much had 43 presidents (I exclude Nixon) who could, for the most part, be trusted NOT to abuse their powers, and even in the event that they did, you always had the two houses of the Legislative branch, who would do what is right for the country, to bring the president into line, and failing that, an impartial judiciary as a last resort. You no longer have these constraints. "​

... and if you understand what I am talking about and why I am annoyed, please copy and paste the quote, and highlight the parts you failed to read and understand the first time.

I do not expect to have to explain this to you, of all posters.

My apologies for the offense. What I said was more intended to be a somewhat light-hearted poke, not an attempt to undermine your overall point.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What exactly are you referring to when you say this?

I think he's upset that we all don't bow down to his master.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1097992052476989440

New: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross violated his ethics agreement and submitted a financial disclosure form that “was not accurate,” according to the Office of Government Ethics. Ross reported he had sold bank stock that other reports indicate he did not sell.