The Former Trump Presidency Thread

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:43 am

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:Don't see why he would. It would be more expedient to just pardon anyone at risk in the investigation.

No point in having a pardon pad if you don't use it when doing so will serve you.
You're totally embracing that "corrupt as fuck," aren't you?

Well, obviously, because HRC is evil so having Trump in the WH is the bestest evar regardless of any treason he may have committed/be in the process of committing.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:47 am

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:Don't see why he would. It would be more expedient to just pardon anyone at risk in the investigation.

No point in having a pardon pad if you don't use it when doing so will serve you.
You're totally embracing that "corrupt as fuck," aren't you?

Seriously.

But I'd think from Trump's perspective, it would be better to can Meuller sooner rather than later. Why wait until the damning evidence and possible criminal charges come out? And you know the GOP Congress will at least look the other way, if not justify the firing, and the right-wing media machine will kick into gear to smear Meuller and defend the move. Plus, it's still a long time until Nov 2018 and memories can be depressingly short.

What's the "check" if he fires Meuller? I can't see one with the GOP in charge.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:02 pm

Kraken wrote: They will stampede for the lifeboats only if and when the wingnuts turn against Trump in sufficient numbers to endanger his sycophants. There's no sign of that happening yet and it's hard to imagine what will turn the tide.

There are actually some signs of that. Trump's approval rating has been dropping fairly rapidly - looks to have lost 6 or 7 points in four months. His "strongly support" and "strongly oppose" numbers are moving quickly against him as well - IIRC his "strong support" numbers among his supporters is down from 32% to 22%. And the special election results are troubling for Republicans so far, as democrats (while in mostly super conservative districts) have been outperforming the partisan lean of the districts by a lot thus far. It's worth bearing in mind that Trump can hold onto his wingnuts and still be in trouble - there are lots of Republicans who disliked Trump plenty but also hated Clinton and/or wanted a conservative SCOTUS justice.

What's troubling is that there has yet to a correlating sign of weakness in actual GOP congressional support for Trump, or any signs of genuine concerns about investigating Trump. One worry is that the GOP agenda is genuinely unpopular in many areas (taxes, health care, etc.) so there is a strong incentive to not do anything on Trump at least until they are done with much / most of their unpopular agenda.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:03 pm

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:Don't see why he would. It would be more expedient to just pardon anyone at risk in the investigation.

No point in having a pardon pad if you don't use it when doing so will serve you.
You're totally embracing that "corrupt as fuck," aren't you?

I'm simply embracing reality rather than swimming in the kool-aid pools created by anti-Trump hysteria. The time would be better served by preparing and supporting an adequate opponent to him. The only thing that will fall him is someone as an alternative that he can't defeat. Quit wasting your time.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:05 pm

Trump has proven adequate isn't necessary anymore. We just need white, male and angry. Someone get Don Rickles on the phone.

Wait...what? He's dead? Ah well, we'll go with him anyway. He can't possible be any worse than what we have now.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:06 pm

hepcat wrote:Trump has proven adequate isn't necessary anymore.

Fine, just run Hillary again.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:07 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:Trump has proven adequate isn't necessary anymore.
Fine, just run Hillary again.

Russia won't allow us to. They just want their guys to run.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:15 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:Trump has proven adequate isn't necessary anymore.
Fine, just run Hillary again.

Russia won't allow us to. They just want their guys to run.

SO it is true, Russia does run the Democrat Party.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:17 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:Trump has proven adequate isn't necessary anymore.
Fine, just run Hillary again.

Russia won't allow us to. They just want their guys to run.
SO it is true, Russia does run the nation.

ftfy

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:24 pm

Rip wrote:
SO it is true, Russia does run the Democrat Party.

Russia fears the Dems, so they're trying.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:31 pm

Ivanka Trump: "There's a level of viciousness that I wasn't expecting."

In a Monday interview with “Fox and Friends,” Ivanka Trump talked about her surprise of the harshness of Washington, D.C.

When asked if it was harder than she thought to get things done in Washington, the presidential advisor admitted that it left her surprised at the rancor in the city.

“It is hard,” she began. “There is a level of viciousness that I wasn’t expecting. I was not expecting the intensity of this experience.”

Your father's entire campaign was built on hate, spite, and divisiveness, and now you're surprised that people don't like you? Get bent, princess.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:33 pm

That was my exact thought when I read that earlier today. That's like punching a cop and then being surprised when you're arrested.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:43 pm

She managed to pull the wool over my eyes between November and December but it quickly became clear she's socialite and power broker. She just has a better sense for not looking a like a complete piece of shit like her father. But when it's all said and done, that's the big difference. The only reason she'd seem like the conscience of the white house is for appearances sake. So yeah, take your faux surprise and "Get bent"

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:56 pm

Holman wrote:Biden would be 78 at his inauguration.

Reagan was 77 when he left office.

+1 - Biden would be an absurdity. Too bad the Clinton machine spent a decade building a party around Hillary instead of around people.

Edit: Bonus tweet - he is truly mentally ill.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:21 pm

Travel ban shot down again. So much winning!

I await the twitter storm.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:21 pm

Holman wrote:Biden would be 78 at his inauguration.

Reagan was 77 when he left office.

I missed this earlier. Now my day is ruined. Thanks...thanks a lot.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:33 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote: They will stampede for the lifeboats only if and when the wingnuts turn against Trump in sufficient numbers to endanger his sycophants. There's no sign of that happening yet and it's hard to imagine what will turn the tide.
There are actually some signs of that. Trump's approval rating has been dropping fairly rapidly - looks to have lost 6 or 7 points in four months. His "strongly support" and "strongly oppose" numbers are moving quickly against him as well - IIRC his "strong support" numbers among his supporters is down from 32% to 22%. And the special election results are troubling for Republicans so far, as democrats (while in mostly super conservative districts) have been outperforming the partisan lean of the districts by a lot thus far. It's worth bearing in mind that Trump can hold onto his wingnuts and still be in trouble - there are lots of Republicans who disliked Trump plenty but also hated Clinton and/or wanted a conservative SCOTUS justice.

What's troubling is that there has yet to a correlating sign of weakness in actual GOP congressional support for Trump, or any signs of genuine concerns about investigating Trump. One worry is that the GOP agenda is genuinely unpopular in many areas (taxes, health care, etc.) so there is a strong incentive to not do anything on Trump at least until they are done with much / most of their unpopular agenda.

Yeah, you can't expect to peel away many of his core supporters because it's tribal with them. Maybe their enthusiasm is flagging, but they aren't going to desert their Dear Leader, no matter what. Mainstream Republicans, OTOH, didn't buy into all this crap and they are certainly more prone to change their minds. These are the voters who figured Trump would straighten up and fly right once he took office. Burn!

So maybe we are moving toward a tipping point. If so, congressional Republicans will turn when they sense that their own hides are at risk. The mainstream (R) voters who are fleeing from Trump are the same ones who like that unpopular agenda, though, so maybe Trump's taint won't rub off on their representatives. That's what congress is betting on, even as they nervously eye those special election results.

As I've said, if we do reach that tipping point the consensus is going to change rapidly.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:36 pm

WTF? There is something deeply wrong here. So gross.

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/874304875202572288

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:40 pm

Profiles in cowardice just got a whole lot of updated entries.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:48 pm

msteelers wrote:
Newcastle wrote:I dont think anyone can fire a Special Counsel. Can they?
They absolutely can. I don't know whether it can come directly from the president, or if it has to come from the Justice Department, but a special counsel can absolutely be fired.

Brian Kilmeade was making the case for firinga Mueller on his radio show a few minutes ago.

If/when it happens, look for the Justice department to make the move, and claim that the president had nothing to do with the decision.

It think it would be hard for Mueller to be fired from the Justice Department; Sessions has recused himself and thus shouldn't be able to fire him) and deputy AG Rosenstein appointed Mueller. Of course, Sessions has already shown that recusing himself doesn't mean much (e.g. the firing of Comey). Of course, Trump can fire Mueller and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but then we start getting into Nixon levels of obstruction. I have no doubt that parts of the GOP would turn a blind eye to it, but I can't imagine that doing so wouldn't scare some of the more moderate, less sycophant members of the party.

But even if Trump does fire Mueller, doesn't Rosenstein at least have the power to appoint another investigator?

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
msteelers wrote:
Newcastle wrote:I dont think anyone can fire a Special Counsel. Can they?
They absolutely can. I don't know whether it can come directly from the president, or if it has to come from the Justice Department, but a special counsel can absolutely be fired.

Brian Kilmeade was making the case for firinga Mueller on his radio show a few minutes ago.

If/when it happens, look for the Justice department to make the move, and claim that the president had nothing to do with the decision.
It think it would be hard for Mueller to be fired from the Justice Department; Sessions has recused himself and thus shouldn't be able to fire him) and deputy AG Rosenstein appointed Mueller. Of course, Sessions has already shown that recusing himself doesn't mean much (e.g. the firing of Comey). Of course, Trump can fire Mueller and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but then we start getting into Nixon levels of obstruction. I have no doubt that parts of the GOP would turn a blind eye to it, but I can't imagine that doing so wouldn't scare some of the more moderate, less sycophant members of the party.

But even if Trump does fire Mueller, doesn't Rosenstein at least have the power to appoint another investigator?

Trump fires Rosenstein and hires a replacement who will fire Meuller.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:24 pm

Trollolololol

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:51 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
msteelers wrote:
Newcastle wrote:I dont think anyone can fire a Special Counsel. Can they?
They absolutely can. I don't know whether it can come directly from the president, or if it has to come from the Justice Department, but a special counsel can absolutely be fired.

Brian Kilmeade was making the case for firinga Mueller on his radio show a few minutes ago.

If/when it happens, look for the Justice department to make the move, and claim that the president had nothing to do with the decision.
It think it would be hard for Mueller to be fired from the Justice Department; Sessions has recused himself and thus shouldn't be able to fire him) and deputy AG Rosenstein appointed Mueller. Of course, Sessions has already shown that recusing himself doesn't mean much (e.g. the firing of Comey). Of course, Trump can fire Mueller and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but then we start getting into Nixon levels of obstruction. I have no doubt that parts of the GOP would turn a blind eye to it, but I can't imagine that doing so wouldn't scare some of the more moderate, less sycophant members of the party.

But even if Trump does fire Mueller, doesn't Rosenstein at least have the power to appoint another investigator?
Trump fires Rosenstein and hires a replacement who will fire Meuller.

It seems like they probably already have at least a few senior Trumpworld people dead-to-rights or close to it - at least Flynn, probably Manafort, and possibly Jared Kushner and/or Eric Trump. Hard to say for sure, but they could already have at least a few indictments ready to fire - I wonder whether it might be too late to stop those.

One consolation I have is that there are several democratic state AGs with some resources who are way outside of Trump's control. Especially fortunate that one of those is in New York (Schneiderman), who thus would have jurisdiction to reach a lot of misconduct here.

Relatedly, and sorry if this has already been linked to, but DC and Maryland filed an emoluments clause lawsuit today.

If any one of the emoluments clause suits makes it past the dismissal stage, there's a good chance of getting Trump's tax returns in the process of the litigations.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:00 pm

El Guapo wrote:Relatedly, and sorry if this has already been linked to, but DC and Maryland filed an emoluments clause lawsuit today.

On the same day that ABC is publishing an article about a possible $2 billion deal? Someone grab me my fainting couch!

In what ethics experts are calling a glaring direct conflict of interest, a significant business partner of both President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner is pursuing a $2 billion government contract to build new headquarters for the FBI.

“It creates a huge conflict,” said Rep. Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who sits on the House Oversight Committee. “It’s an enormous project. The exposure here for the Trump administration is very real.”

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:08 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Relatedly, and sorry if this has already been linked to, but DC and Maryland filed an emoluments clause lawsuit today.
On the same day that ABC is publishing an article about a possible $2 billion deal? Someone grab me my fainting couch!

In what ethics experts are calling a glaring direct conflict of interest, a significant business partner of both President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner is pursuing a $2 billion government contract to build new headquarters for the FBI.

“It creates a huge conflict,” said Rep. Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who sits on the House Oversight Committee. “It’s an enormous project. The exposure here for the Trump administration is very real.”

As a reminder, Jimmy Carter was hounded into selling a peanut farm when he became president.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:18 pm

that's literally peanuts compared to this.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:19 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Relatedly, and sorry if this has already been linked to, but DC and Maryland filed an emoluments clause lawsuit today.
On the same day that ABC is publishing an article about a possible $2 billion deal? Someone grab me my fainting couch!

It seems like they're going to push him to choose between loving his money or loving his power. I'm sure he'll chose both and give the finger to everyone as he struts off unphased, murders a convent of nuns, and then rounds it off by "fixing" global warming by blotting out the sun with a giant sunscreen in space.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:20 pm

El Guapo wrote:As a reminder, Jimmy Carter was hounded into selling a peanut farm when he became president.

Yeah, but that narrowly headed off the Rosalynn Carter Peanut Butter Sandwiches For All Children diktat.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:40 pm

Guys, you really need to stop harping on this. I've been assured that Trump is so wealthy that he's incorruptible, and once he takes office, everything will be above the board and by the book. Besides, Hillary didn't want to release the text of speeches! Can you imagine how corruptible she would be???

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:47 pm

Are you prepared to tell this to Trump himself during tomorrow morning's daily adoration meeting?

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:47 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:WTF? There is something deeply wrong here. So gross.
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/874304875202572288

What in the fukkity-fucking hell was that fuckload of funking sycophantery all about? Fuck!

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:57 pm

tgb wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:WTF? There is something deeply wrong here. So gross.
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/874304875202572288
What in the fukkity-fucking hell was that fuckload of funking sycophantery all about? Fuck!

This is what Nork "field guidance" photo-ops would look like, if Kim Jong-un was too low-energy to go out into the field. Or provide guidance.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:03 pm

tgb wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:WTF? There is something deeply wrong here. So gross.
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/874304875202572288
What in the fukkity-fucking hell was that fuckload of funking sycophantery all about? Fuck!

I caught some of that on CNN this morning. Missed the cabinet praising The Leader but everyone I saw in the room looked like hostages.

From WaPo:
“We thank you for the opportunity and blessing . . . to serve your agenda,” White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said in remarks that were echoed by other senior members of the administration.

Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, also lavished Trump with praise, saying “what an incredible honor it is” to lead his department “at this pivotal time under your leadership.”

They need to send in a SEAL Team to rescue these people.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:18 pm

OMG. Be sure to watch the whole clip. It's 100% Grade-A sycophancy, and he sits there lapping it up like he's hosting Pyongyang Apprentice.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:23 pm

Holman wrote:OMG. Be sure to watch the whole clip.

Depending on your gag reflex, YMMV.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:29 pm

gilraen wrote:
Holman wrote:OMG. Be sure to watch the whole clip.
Depending on your gag reflex, YMMV.

If you can't stomach the whole thing, here's a condensed version from a different angle that's just as disturbing:

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/874371100381196288

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:45 pm

The only thing I can figure out....and I'm only partially kidding.....is that most of the GOP is involved in a gigantic underground child porn ring, and Trump has the ability to blow the lid off the whole thing.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:56 pm

It's at a pizza parlor, I bet.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:40 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:
gilraen wrote:
Holman wrote:OMG. Be sure to watch the whole clip.
Depending on your gag reflex, YMMV.
If you can't stomach the whole thing, here's a condensed version from a different angle that's just as disturbing:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/874371100381196288

Sec of Def: We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our spirits in the tradition of our ancestors . You have our gratitude!

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:45 pm

Ok, that got a genuine laugh from me.