Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 241: Trump Goes Coup-Coup

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Wait so Turkey is already blindly attacking the Kurds in Syria before the US Troops have even left?

This is why you cant just do this shit without a plan and timetable

He did have a plan, the one he blatantly told Turkey about in advance.
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1181412923979304960?s=21

Ahhh I see this might be why the right wing specifically is so mad at Trump here

Turkey will not only attack Kurds but also CHRISTIANS.

TRUMP WILL LOSE HIS MANDATE FROM GOD
---

Leafeon13N posted...

Corrik is making an argument

That's usually the cue to tune him out.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

That's usually the cue to tune him out.

Then block me. Not hard.

---

Speaking of fucking pathetic prostration to China:

https://kotaku.com/blizzard-suspends-hearthstone-player-for-hong-kong-supp-1838864961

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Speaking of fucking pathetic prostration to China:

https://kotaku.com/blizzard-suspends-hearthstone-player-for-hong-kong-supp-1838864961

Hopefully this and the NBA incident serves as a good wake up call.
China's abuses are nothing new. But now even non-Chinese are getting punished for exercising their right of free speech in their own country.

They are a sign of things to come as China spreads its economic influence.
---

what the ****

red13n posted...

They are a sign of things to come as China spreads its economic influence.

Unfortunately, probably.
---

Trump blocked Sondland from testifying (which an innocent person would totally do)

---

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1181569389063221248?s=21

---

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/1181542760739934208?s=21

File this one under impeachment guarantees Trumps re-election

---

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1181566493059891201

"malicious Captain Kangaroo"

---

More:

Sondland called Trump between receiving Bill Taylor's text and sending the "no quid pro quo" cover-your-ass text:
https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1181561848375791616

Sondland, Volker, and Taylor also used WhatsApp to communicate, and no one will care because 2016 never happened:
https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1181615617713020928

DoJ argues that Congress should not have access to the Mueller grand jury articles, saying that the court decision to give Congress the Watergate 'roadmap' in 1974 was wrongly decided. The judge responds "wow, okay."
https://twitter.com/hsu_spencer/status/1181602530826035200

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sondland called Trump between receiving Bill Taylor's text and sending the "no quid pro quo" cover-your-ass text:
https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1181561848375791616

This seems huge.
---

On one hand, it's a smoking gun

On the other hand, there have already been like 5 smoking guns proving this same quid pro quo

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/numbersmuncher/status/1181542760739934208?s=21

File this one under impeachment guarantees Trumps re-election

35% of Americans think Trump is ethical? That's really high. I don't think Trump is ethical. SephyG doesn't think he's ethical. As far as I can tell Corrik and Muffin think he is ethical, so that's 50% among conservatives here.

If 35% of Americans think Trump is ethical despite all the evidence to the contrary, they are probably going to vote for him no matter what. Trump just needs 12 or so out of the other 65 to get to his 47 in the popular vote and a win in the EC. That's less than 20%, and really it's much less than that because Trump ultras are going to have massive turnout.

Last election, Trump crushed it with people who disliked both him and Hillary.
---

Also, I bet a lot of that 20% who decided they want impeachment are Republicans who want to see a trial in the Senate to exonerate the president.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

On one hand, it's a smoking gun

On the other hand, there have already been like 5 smoking guns proving this same quid pro quo

We can't see all the smoking guns because there's too much smoke. Meanwhile, the Trump administration says not to investigate the smoke because it's definitely unrelated to anything they've done.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

On the other hand, there have already been like 5 smoking guns proving this same quid pro quo

I think Trump could literally have said "This is Quid Pro Quo. Either you give me dirt on my political opponent for me to use in the election, or your country will not get the aid promised." and his supporters would still say it's not Quid Pro Quo.
---

No, they would just say it doesnt matter and he was fine to do a quid pro quo.
---

Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and he wouldn't lose any support.

The Democrats need to focus on gaining support. Give people a reason to vote for them, rather than thinking they will vote against Trump. Between Trump and the Democratic Party in its present form, everyone has already decided who is the greater evil.
---

Trump was turned down by Trey Gowdy. Ouch.

https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1181648423487000576?s=21

---

From Wikipedia:

In March 4, 2014, Gowdy introduced the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 (H.R. 4138; 113th Congress) into the House.[42] The bill would give the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate both the standing to sue the President of the United States in a federal district court to clarify a federal law (that is, seek a declaratory judgment) in the event that the executive branch is not enforcing the law.

This could have come in handy. Too bad the bill died on Harry Reid's desk.
---

https://politics.theonion.com/gop-lawmakers-watch-silently-as-trump-strangles-each-of-1838885386

---

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1181682119090823168
---

SgtSphynx posted...

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1181682119090823168

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1181681915415404544

---

Well that's sure a take. I'm guessing they want to stall it out and let it be challenged in court. Either the stolen court will take the administration's side, or if they don't it will have been so long that the public no longer cares.
---

I can't imagine the Supreme Court taking Trump's side here. I would be pretty surprised if even a single Justice did (and I don't exactly have a lot of faith in the conservative justices in general). Agreeing to this is to say that the President is above the law, full stop.

It also makes obstruction a slam dunk impeachable offense (if it wasn't already). Stalling for time is the only possible benefit, but I really doubt the WH is making this decision strategically. This is just Trump's instinct: fight accountability like hell no matter what.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I can't imagine the Supreme Court taking Trump's side here. I would be pretty surprised if even a single Justice did (and I don't exactly have a lot of faith in the conservative justices in general). Agreeing to this is to say that the President is above the law, full stop.

It also makes obstruction a slam dunk impeachable offense (if it wasn't already). Stalling for time is the only possible benefit, but I really doubt the WH is making this decision strategically. This is just Trump's instinct: fight accountability like hell no matter what.

I believe that stating you are waiting for a ruling is a defensible position and wouldn't fall under obstruction. I know their strategy is to not submit to any subpoena's until an actual vote is held, whether or not that is legal or not I suppose would fall to the judicial branch.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Agreeing to this is to say that the President is above the law, full stop.

Which means that piece of shit Kavanaugh is basically confirmed to take his side. Remember all of the stuff about his past work and record indicating that when he was nominated?

George, it's time to take a step back. Trump is getting to you. If that letter was an impeachable offense, practically every president has committed impeachable offenses.

If the House wants to impeach the President, it should just do it. The House alone decides what is and what is not an impeachable offense, and the President has absolutely no duty to help the House impeach him.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I believe that stating you are waiting for a ruling is a defensible position and wouldn't fall under obstruction. I know their strategy is to not submit to any subpoena's until an actual vote is held, whether or not that is legal or not I suppose would fall to the judicial branch.

Technically it's legal, but is easily enough for Congress to rule they are in contempt. At which point it becomes illegal and Congress is allowed to jail people for obstructing Congress. So it is effectively illegal, though Congress so far has chosen to not make arrests and instead just compile it as evidence of obstruction.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

I believe that stating you are waiting for a ruling is a defensible position and wouldn't fall under obstruction. I know their strategy is to not submit to any subpoena's until an actual vote is held, whether or not that is legal or not I suppose would fall to the judicial branch.

Technically it's legal, but is easily enough for Congress to rule they are in contempt. At which point it becomes illegal and Congress is allowed to jail people for obstructing Congress. So it is effectively illegal, though Congress so far has chosen to not make arrests and instead just compile it as evidence of obstruction.

And how is Congress going to arrest people? Congress doesn't have a big police force, and the law enforcement agencies controlled by the executive report to the President. Unless people walk into the Capitol building, or Congress can convince a court to take their side, Congress isn't going to be able to arrest them. And even if a court issues arrest warrants, if the President instructs his DOJ to place those warrants on lowest enforcement priority - like Obama did for the DACA people - it seems doubtful any arrests will happen.

The truth is the Constitution only really gives Congress one remedy to deal with a President who it alleges is acting like a King - impeachment. Well, actually, 3. Congress can also pass a law (say, creating a congressional police agency, although it would be questionable constitutionally and might get struck down the courts) over the president's veto or propose a constitutional amendment. But all 3 of the methods require a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
---

"impeach" you say, but what they are obstructing is the attempts to collect the necessary information and evidence for the impeachment.
---

Nixon was impeached in the House for failing to produce the documents requested. The White House's refusal is grounds for impeachment in and of itself
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

"impeach" you say, but what they are obstructing is the attempts to collect the necessary information and evidence for the impeachment.

Then they should impeach him for that. They don't need his permission to do it.
---

The response to "we are not going to cooperate with any impeachment inquiry" should be "okay, then you're impeached"

this should be pretty easy

Yes. This is why the White House refusing to answer subpoenas is arguably worse than illegal - it's a constitutional crisis. The constitution both gives Congress the authority to use the executive branch against itself and gives the executive branch arguments against this, depending on your interpretation.

Impeachment resolves this. That is why the letter is impeachable.

---

Congress's enforcement mechanisms for contempt are twofold here.

The typical way they handle it these days is to refer it to DOJ, but obviously DOJ can just kill it there if they want.

The other way is inherent contempt which is what they used to do until they started outsourcing it to DOJ. Either house of Congress has the power to arrest, detain, or fine as they deem fit. They send the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the person in question and bring them to the chamber. They are limited in their inability to punish beyond the current session of Congress (which is part of why they set up the DOJ thing, by creating a statutory process as alternate trackline.) But they have always retained inherent contempt even though they haven't exercised it since 1935.

I presume they could also utilize the Capitol Police, which answers to them, to aid in this but I'm not 100% sure.

SCOTUS has historically sided with Congress here, and inherent contempt has been upheld repeatedly, and SCOTUS generally declines to interfere with how Congress goes about this as a political question it has no right to interfere in.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

The response to "we are not going to cooperate with any impeachment inquiry" should be "okay, then you're impeached"

this should be pretty easy

Its basically the same logic they use against catch and release right? They wont show up to court to get deported.

Turns out that was more projection
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump was turned down by Trey Gowdy. Ouch.

https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1181648423487000576?s=21

Looks like this was incorrect... Gowdy is taking the job:
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1181700173346590721

---

Obama set a very helpful precedent with DACA though for Trump - the President is empowered to simply ignore whole classes of crimes by deeming investigating them to be a waste of limited enforcement resources. So he can allocate 10 billion dollars to investigate the Bidens, order the FBI and CIA to put every agent on the search for Hillary Clinton's emails, and announce that there are no resources left to catch people in contempt of Congress.

So yeah, good luck to the Sergeant at Arms.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trump was turned down by Trey Gowdy. Ouch.

https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1181648423487000576?s=21

Looks like this was incorrect... Gowdy is taking the job:
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1181700173346590721

Man, I can't imagine how he would think that being Trump's personal lawyer would be better than being a prominent Congressman. Working for Trump sounds like just about the worst job in the world - where you will be constantly asked to do unethical things and take indefensible positions, and then to take the blame for anything that goes wrong. And, if you aren't paid up front you can pretty much forget about being paid after the work is done.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Man, I can't imagine how he would think that being Trump's personal lawyer would be better than being a prominent Congressman. Working for Trump sounds like just about the worst job in the world - where you will be constantly asked to do unethical things and take indefensible positions, and then to take the blame for anything that goes wrong. And, if you aren't paid up front you can pretty much forget about being paid after the work is done.

Is that really that different than being a GOP Congressman?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Man, I can't imagine how he would think that being Trump's personal lawyer would be better than being a prominent Congressman. Working for Trump sounds like just about the worst job in the world - where you will be constantly asked to do unethical things and take indefensible positions, and then to take the blame for anything that goes wrong. And, if you aren't paid up front you can pretty much forget about being paid after the work is done.

Is that really that different than being a GOP Congressman?

Yeah, as a GOP Congressman you have no accountability. You get paid no matter what. You can get good business deals no matter what. You have great opportunities after you are done.

Working for Trump, there is like a 90% chance you will be fired and thrown under the bus. And you better get a big retainer up front, because if Trump owes you money there is virtually no chance of getting paid. There is a high chance your reputation will be tarnished, and a not insignificant chance of ending up in jail because he's convinced you to go along with something illegal.
---

Why are so many GOP Members of Congress defending Trump's indefensible actions, then? (Or perhaps more saliently, why are so few explicitly saying that they were wrong, and none calling them impeachable?) Do Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham really believe that all of this is very legal and very cool?

---

This is a brilliant move by the Trump team. Delegitimize the inquiry by refusing to play along, then you delegitimize the inevitable impeachment. When the Senate doesn't convict, the only body that looks absolutely silly is the House.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Why are so many GOP Members of Congress defending Trump's indefensible actions, then? (Or perhaps more saliently, why are so few explicitly saying that they were wrong, and none calling them impeachable?) Do Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham really believe that all of this is very legal and very cool?

There's a difference between saying nothing or making political statements and saying the types of things that Trump lawyers or spokespeople have had to say. For example, Mitch McConnell criticized Trump yesterday (for the Kurdistan decision), but managed to do so without naming Trump by name. He did manage to name and criticize Obama by name in that same statement.

On the legal side, the question is, is this legal? It's hard to defend Trump there. On the political side, the question is, is Trump better than the alternative? And it's very easy to say that yes, he's better than letting the Democrats take power.
---

Isn't the language in that letter a reference to the fact that the House hasn't formally voted to start an impeachment enquiry? Incidentally that's an argument I'm currently inclined to agree with, though I'm coming from a position of ignorance as far as how impeachment is supposed to work at a procedural level.
---

The House has oversight powers regardless (hence the fact that they were investigating a bunch of this stuff pre-Ukraine). Then, too, the Trump administration was using bogus assertions of privilege to avoid providing documents.

---