The Trump Presidency: Part 18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
I agree that it should probably have been a slam-dunk case. But, according to the article, there were 'no noted dissents' to taking the case, so for some reason the more Liberal judges also think there are valid reasons rule on it.
Click to expand...

I read that. But I've been reading every other report and that is the only story that says that. And I was under the impression is that is not how it works. An appeal is made to the full court. There are hundreds even thousands of such appeals. They don't vote on them. A minimum of 4 Justices must declare they want to accept a case and rule on it.
 
theprestige said:
Who would start it? What side would the military take? Who would win?
Click to expand...
Who would I shoot?

If things devolve to that point maybe I do need a gun, but mainly to protect my stuff or steal someone else's. Everyone armed with no established command structure would be a mess.
 
acbytesla said:
I read that. But I've been reading every other report and that is the only story that says that. And I was under the impression is that is not how it works. An appeal is made to the full court. There are hundreds even thousands of such appeals. They don't vote on them. A minimum of 4 Justices must declare they want to accept a case and rule on it.
Click to expand...
I don't have any special insight into how the justices work. But I do have an idea of how journalists work, and it's very common to ignore "details" like that. Even when they offer significant clues to the thinking behind a decision.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't have any special insight into how the justices work. But I do have an idea of how journalists work, and it's very common to ignore "details" like that. Even when they offer significant clues to the thinking behind a decision.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure (almost positive) they don't publish a vote on the acceptance of a case. So no dissents would ever be listed.

Only when the case is finally decided.


But perhaps an actual attorney could weigh in on this.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweeted

My Approval Rating in the Republican Party is 95%, a Record. Thank you! #
Click to expand...


Fivethirty eight has him at an overall disapproval rating of 53.2%/ 41.9% approval. Funny now he ignores 11% more Americans disapprove of him than approve.

Poll numbers have gone through the roof in favor of No Impeachment, especially with Swing States and Independents in Swing States. People have figured out that the Democrats have no case, it is a total Hoax. Even Pelosi admitted yesterday that she began this scam 2 1/2 years ago!
Click to expand...

Another Trump lie. Notice that Trump did not identify that poll he claims shows a 95% approval rating

The overall change since the late-September launch was an increase of 9.2 points in support for impeachment. Among independents, whom Trump identified specifically, support is up 8.8 points. More dramatically, net support for impeachment among both groups rose by double digits, with respondents overall now supporting impeachment more than they oppose it.
Click to expand...

It’s also possible that Trump is referring to polls conducted by his campaign or — like the ones that consistently show him with 95 percent approval among Republicans — ones he may well have made up. In which case, sure, they’re going through the roof, in the same way that you can win a footrace against Usain Bolt anytime you want if you get to pick who plays Usain Bolt.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f-thanks-impeachment-define-roof/?arc404=true

So why isn’t he citing the source on these polls? Perhaps they’re internal, like the polls his 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale referenced obliquely back in January. Parscale claimed Trump was at “his highest national approval rating since I started tracking,” despite public polls all showing Trump flailing during the government shutdown.

Maybe he’s citing something that isn’t really a poll, like one of those useless online surveys he likes. When Trump was talking about being at 93 percent approval earlier this year, we determined that the 93 percent number had come from a poll done at a conservative political conference, rendering it about as scientific as astrology.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ublicans-is-nowhere-near-where-he-says-it-is/
 
Stacyhs said:
Melania's defense is that Barron isn't "an activist who travels the globe giving speeches".

Somehow, in her mind, that justifies her bully of a husband mocking a teenager on the autism spectrum. Trump wasn't replying to anything Thunberg had said or done. He was attacking her because she was chosen to be Time's Person of the Year and he wasn't. Just Be Best, Donnie!
Click to expand...
That was Grisham's language, though I would imagine Melania signed off on it. Grisham is vicious. Worse than Huckabee-Sanders or Spicer. Or better, from Trump's point of view. Almost a parody.

I am not as hard on Melania as some people. She scored points with me by flicking Trump's hand away once and a few other things that made me think she might be trolling Trump.
 
acbytesla said:
I read this and concluded democracy has died in America. The court should have just passed on taking the case. There is nothing new in this case that hasn't been ruled on countless times before. The ONLY reason the court took up the case was political partisanship. It's clear that they are protecting Trump.

The AMERICAN experiment is over.
Click to expand...



Hyperboyle much?
 
alfaniner said:
I wish that after all the time I invested in having the hearing on yesterday, I had seen the final moments. I simply had to watch something else for a while, and missed it.
Click to expand...
You can still see it. I'm only sorry you subjected yourself to so much crap.
acbytesla said:
I'm pretty sure (almost positive) they don't publish a vote on the acceptance of a case. So no dissents would ever be listed.

Only when the case is finally decided.


But perhaps an actual attorney could weigh in on this.
Click to expand...
I used to expect someone to leak Trump's financials. It kind of baffles me that no one has. It wouldn't have to be the government. Lots of people would have seen those documents.

Some people hope for lost tribes of sane voters. I hope for a Wikileaks-scale document dump that would moot the hell out of this case.

I also expected the unredacted Mueller Report by now.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Hyperboyle much?
Click to expand...

You think? Hey, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

It's just that the sycophants have been anxious to get in line to plant big wet ones on the big Orange man's big brown one.

Trump has made the argument that the House cannot investigate. Only the DOJ can. This would handcuff any chance at oversight not only of this President, but any future Presidents. This would guarantee the Executive branch unchecked power. Anyone with any knowledge of political history knows that such power is an anathema to democratic principles.
 
dudalb said:
Hyperboyle much?
Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying that? I thought he was being unduly pessimistic, but I thought you were pretty much in the same space.

The weird thing is, I am usually not an optimist at all.
 
acbytesla said:
Trump has made the argument that the House cannot investigate. Only the DOJ can. This would handcuff any chance at oversight not only of this President, but any future Presidents. This would guarantee the Executive branch unchecked power. Anyone with any knowledge of political history knows that such power is an anathema to democratic principles.
Click to expand...
Maybe justices want expedited review to get the info out sooner rather than later. Even if they are doing it to help Trump, would they want to risk giving a Democratic executive that much power?

Seriously, I'm NOT an optimist, but I haven't written the Supreme Court off. What, is everyone in Russia's pocket?
 
The most disapointing and even shocking thing is when the GOP claim that Democrats have "no case" and "no evidence" that Trump did anything wrong.

Are they blind? Deaf? Or simply hypnotized by blind loyalty.
 
acbytesla said:
You think? Hey, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

It's just that the sycophants have been anxious to get in line to plant big wet ones on the big Orange man's big brown one.

Trump has made the argument that the House cannot investigate. Only the DOJ can. This would handcuff any chance at oversight not only of this President, but any future Presidents. This would guarantee the Executive branch unchecked power. Anyone with any knowledge of political history knows that such power is an anathema to democratic principles.
Click to expand...

CT INCOMING...

Is it possible that McConnell and scum know something the rest of us don't? Maybe they have a foolproof plan for electoral manipulation that guarantees Republican wins in the future. After all, they'd be fools to cede unchecked power to the executive branch otherwise.
 
Minoosh said:
Maybe justices want expedited review to get the info out sooner rather than later. Even if they are doing it to help Trump, would they want to risk giving a Democratic executive that much power?

Seriously, I'm NOT an optimist, but I haven't written the Supreme Court off. What, is everyone in Russia's pocket?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine the court agreeing with that argument. Except in my nightmares.

There has always been one very important principle of American jurisprudence and government. And that is, you can't rule on your own case. The Executive administers the DOJ, it is unreasonable to believe that the DOJ can fairly investigate the Executive.

To deprive Congress from the ability to investigate the Executive would run counter to its role in impeachment and oversight. The idea that Article 2 says the Executive can do whatever he wants also runs counter to our system of checks and balances.

I keep waiting, expecting that people are going to do the right thing. And the reality seems to be that it's never going to happen. Big money owns the process and the rest of us are just puppets on strings.
 
Minoosh said:
You can still see it. I'm only sorry you subjected yourself to so much crap.
...
Click to expand...

I hit the mute button a lot. Mostly when the Republicans came on and I was actively listening. The numerous votes/roll calls also called for muting. I admit that no one had anything much new to say today.

But, when I nap I like to have something not too interesting on in the background. This fit the bill nicely.
 
dudalb said:
Where do the "Trump supporters who would support Mickey Mouse If he were a Republican" come in?
Click to expand...

I think we need to rethink that expression. After all, M. Mickey is a cheerful and clever. He treats women with respect. Dogs like him. He is very much a step up from our current POTUS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom