Octopus Overlords

Rip wrote:Man, you guys are really going to be disappointed when he doesn't lay a glove on Trump. The entire thing is on the verge of falling apart.

The "entire thing" being Republican talking points to Trumpslain the investigation as a "witch hunt" or "nothing burger."

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:06 pm

Rip wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:48 am Man, you guys are really going to be disappointed when he doesn't lay a glove on Trump. The entire thing is on the verge of falling apart.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/the-trump ... ollapsing/

Got a source to back up your claim that isn't the NY Post?

There are plenty but they are generally just as useless a source.

Is there a good credibility index that one can use? I've seen a chart that shows which way these organizations lean, but I'm talking strict journalistic integrity.

Something I've liked about NPR in this all is that they've been very "hands-off" with any kind of pushing an agenda about how they feel and simply report the facts and let you come to the conclusion about the pants-on-head-insanity of the Trump Whitehouse. Lately they seem to be struggling with that, though, and are more frequently letting in people who are blatantly anti-Trump. The downside is that they often have sound bites of the President speaking, which triggers and involuntary reflex to change the channel and start screaming obscenities. Presidential Tourette Syndrome, I call it.

The media is struggling because at one point, party lines were a matter of policy degree. You could bring on Political Supporter A who believes in tax cuts because he believes this economic theory, and Political Supporter B who doesn't believe in tax cuts because of this economic theory.

Now the divide is so wide, to be "balanced' they'd have to give fair and equal time to people who are clearly wrong and living in some alternate universe. It's almost equivalent to Neil deGrasse Tyson having to bring flat-earthers onto COSMOS to remain "fair." At some point you have to draw the line and stop peddling bullshit to the masses.

And let's not forget, Trump started this war. The minute he decided to claim anything critical of his administration was "FAKE NEWS" media outlets had no choice but to defend themselves.

If Trump Fires Mueller, Republicans Won’t Object.

A good column about the Republican party's continued movement towards just supporting whatever Trump says or does. I strongly doubt that the GOP Congress will do anything when and if Trump fires Mueller. The big question mark is that I assume (hope) that Trump firing Mueller would trigger street protests, and those can move things in unpredictable directions.

Bannon

Bannon will testify for the first time Tuesday to the House Intelligence Committee as it probes Russian interference in the U.S. presidential campaign, an investigation that has cast a long shadow on Trump’s tenure.

Bannon’s testimony, which he is delivering behind closed doors, has been hotly anticipated since this month’s publication of “Fire and Fury,” a book by Michael Wolff about Trump’s first year in the White House.

And more Bannon

Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon was subpoenaed last week by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the federal probe into Russian interference in the election, The New York Times reported Tuesday.
...
The revelation came as Bannon was appearing behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee to testify in that committee’s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He reportedly recently retained Bill Burck, of the law firm Quinn Emanuel.

That's one big open question right now - what the hell is Bannon going to do now. His planned insurgency seems to be mostly DOA, and he seems to be persona non grata in his own movement these days. He certainly has a valid axe to grind against Trump, and probably knows a lot of shit, but Trump's the most likely person to carry out his vision. So will he talk?

Will his testimony cause more chaos? If so, then he'll sing like a bird. If not, he'll keep the information and use it at a later date.

I think they need to have something come out soon or people are just going to start assuming they aren't finding anything. Hell nobody pushes back when Trump says the Dems already said there is no collusion. They should be flipping out anytime he says that, but nope silence.

Octavious wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:58 pm I think they need to have something come out soon or people are just going to start assuming they aren't finding anything. Hell nobody pushes back when Trump says the Dems already said there is no collusion. They should be flipping out anytime he says that, but nope silence.

Stuff is coming out all the time. It's just that "everyone says that there's no evidence of collusion" is way simpler and more memorable than "Trump associate X met with [Russian name] in [location] to discuss the campaign", and the like.

That said, presumably Mueller is aware that there is a 1% chance each day of Trump waking up and deciding to try to fire him. So if I were him, while an investigation of this scope and prominence would probably take until 2019 to complete, I would plan on having everything wrapped up as best as possible by this summer at the latest.

I also wonder whether the discussions about interviewing Trump are an indication that Mueller is reasonably close to his end game. I would assume that you would do that last, both to gather as much information as possible to use for the interview, and because those discussions are likely to put him in Trump's frontal lobe more, elevating the risk of a firing confrontation.

I'm under the assumption that the odds of the Republicans remaining in control of any impeachment process are directly proportional to Mueller's continued employment. If it looks likely the Dems take control of that I expect the axe to fall that minute Trump is told. Otherwise I doubt he much gives a shit because he has all the protection he needs.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:10 pm If Trump Fires Mueller, Republicans Won’t Object.

A good column about the Republican party's continued movement towards just supporting whatever Trump says or does. I strongly doubt that the GOP Congress will do anything when and if Trump fires Mueller. The big question mark is that I assume (hope) that Trump firing Mueller would trigger street protests, and those can move things in unpredictable directions.

This piece talks about some of the pressures on Democracy here by authors of the book 'How Democracies Die'. The discussion focuses on American democracy right now. The interviewees are basically of the opinion that the Courts have held up well but Republicans have been truly scary. I would have liked to see the authors pressed on the blitz to load up the courts with unqualified candidates in light of all this norm smashing.

Anyway if they fire Mueller and people take to the streets then I am concerned about what will happen. Will he roll in tanks? No - I agree with the authors. Will something happen with the police? That is a totally different animal.

Was this a negotiated subpoena or not? All the other witnesses have negotiated interviews, right? My guess is that there were similar discussions and Bannon asked Mueller to subpoena him so he can say he had no choice. I'm hoping he sings like a motherfuckwr.

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:10 pmAnyway if they fire Mueller and people take to the streets then I am concerned about what will happen. Will he roll in tanks? No - I agree with the authors. Will something happen with the police? That is a totally different animal.

I don't think he will fire Mueller, but if he does, I would personally be more concerned by people NOT taking to the streets. That indeed, would be the death knell, the true sign that we just don't care enough to save our country from ourselves.

Man, that reads dramatic. Too much?

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:10 pmAnyway if they fire Mueller and people take to the streets then I am concerned about what will happen. Will he roll in tanks? No - I agree with the authors. Will something happen with the police? That is a totally different animal.

I don't think he will fire Mueller, but if he does, I would personally be more concerned by people NOT taking to the streets. That indeed, would be the death knell, the true sign that we just don't care enough to save our country from ourselves.

Man, that reads dramatic. Too much?

Maybe not enough...

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:10 pmAnyway if they fire Mueller and people take to the streets then I am concerned about what will happen. Will he roll in tanks? No - I agree with the authors. Will something happen with the police? That is a totally different animal.

I don't think he will fire Mueller, but if he does, I would personally be more concerned by people NOT taking to the streets. That indeed, would be the death knell, the true sign that we just don't care enough to save our country from ourselves.

Man, that reads dramatic. Too much?

I don't think so. It is a reasonable fear nowadays. People are far too passive.

And to amplify what I was talking about...That 'rolling out the tanks' is a discussion piece straight from the article. Not my idea. That said I don't know how the police will react to mass protests - I don't think that is an outlandish concern after Ferguson. If it was only NYC - it'd be no problem. They can handle it. Elsewhere and everywhere? I don't know.

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:35 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:10 pmAnyway if they fire Mueller and people take to the streets then I am concerned about what will happen. Will he roll in tanks? No - I agree with the authors. Will something happen with the police? That is a totally different animal.

I don't think he will fire Mueller, but if he does, I would personally be more concerned by people NOT taking to the streets. That indeed, would be the death knell, the true sign that we just don't care enough to save our country from ourselves.

Man, that reads dramatic. Too much?

I don't think so. It is a reasonable fear nowadays. People are far too passive.

And to amplify what I was talking about...That 'rolling out the tanks' is a discussion piece straight from the article. Not my idea. That said I don't know how the police will react to mass protests - I don't think that is an outlandish concern after Ferguson. If it was only NYC - it'd be no problem. They can handle it. Elsewhere and everywhere? I don't know.

Police violence in response to mass protests would, if nothing else, be a political disaster for Trump and the Republicans - that would be the easiest way to ensure a democratic Congress. At least, as long as the protestors were white, I suppose.

I’d do my part.

I figure you always have to worry about masked anarchists starting problems.

In other fun news:

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 6334964736

Please hold him in contempt of Congress, PLEASE. Would love to see that sloppy piece of shit do 30 days or so.

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:47 pm I figure you always have to worry about masked anarchists starting problems.

In other fun news:

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 6334964736

I felt that coming or possibly lovey dovey talk about Trump coming. It didn't feel like big revelations coming to me.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:53 pm Please hold him in contempt of Congress, PLEASE. Would love to see that sloppy piece of shit do 30 days or so.

Cruel and unusual punishment.

The DTs would kill him.

Probably just lean back on good ol executive priv like Obama's water carriers did.

LordMortis wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:56 pm

I felt that coming or possibly lovey dovey talk about Trump coming. It didn't feel like big revelations coming to me.

Yeah, suggests that Bannon is not 'flipping' on Trump, at least. Though that wouldn't rule out him doing that later to Mueller if Mueller has dirt on him.

Rip wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:02 pm Probably just lean back on good ol executive priv like Obama's water carriers did.

For the tanned suit incident?

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:22 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:02 pm Probably just lean back on good ol executive priv like Obama's water carriers did.

For the tanned suit incident?

The Grey Poupon.

Holman wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:29 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:22 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:02 pm Probably just lean back on good ol executive priv like Obama's water carriers did.

For the tanned suit incident?

The Grey Poupon.

He probably meant when they filmed Fast and Furious in the White House.

Bannon still thinks he has a chance to boot lick his way back into the good graces of his co-opted movement?

Good luck with that, Steve. You created Adam one stormy night and he wrecked your lab, stole your things and locked you out of your house.

He's just messing with the establishment. I don't think he seriously believes he and Drumpf have anything left to say to each other.

This is him giving the middle finger to Washington insiders.

The more Bannon protects Trump's secrets and pisses off the political establishment, the more he becomes a martyr to his cause. He'll go down just to piss everyone off, make a point to Trump and rally his base.

Odds are that Trump or Pence will pardon him anyway.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:25 pm The more Bannon protects Trump's secrets and pisses off the political establishment, the more he becomes a martyr to his cause. He'll go down just to piss everyone off, make a point to Trump and rally his base.

Odds are that Trump or Pence will pardon him anyway.

I haven't really heard much specific to indicate that there's a ton of evidence implicating Bannon in crimes, FWIW. He doesn't seem terribly corrupt generally (just an ideologically minded asshole, mainly). As head of the campaign (for awhile), I would imagine that he had some knowledge of the Russia collusion while it was happening, but the question would be how directly involved he was (and what exactly he knew at the time).

hepcat wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:13 pm Bannon still thinks he has a chance to boot lick his way back into the good graces of his co-opted movement?

Good luck with that, Steve. You created Adam one stormy night and he wrecked your lab, stole your things and locked you out of your house.

THOOPERDOOPER!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 64211.html

FBI agents reportedly showed up at Mr Bannon's home in Washington, DC last week with the subpoena, only to find out that the former White House employee had secured the legal representation of William Burck hours earlier, according to reports.

Those agents then sent the subpoena they had intended on delivering to Mr Bannon to Mr Burck, who is also representing two other witnesses in Mr Mueller's probe.

So he got a courtesy leak?

I don't know. I was trying to make sense of it but it really sticks out to me.

Certainly possible, although after all this Fire and Fury blowup, including quotes in the book on "treasonous" collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Bannon would have been expecting Mueller to knock on his door regardless.

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:10 pm I would have liked to see the authors pressed on the blitz to load up the courts with unqualified candidates in light of all this norm smashing.

The vast majority of Trump's court nominees have been rated as qualified by the ABA:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ju ... gs-2017-11

The courts are not being "loaded up" with unqualified nominees. I'll also note that a number of these also look like they will not be approved.

"Attempted" is a better word then. And more broadly - those candidates are part of an "attempted attack" on the courts which was my point. In a real way they definitely dragged their feet on qualified Dem appointments including one SCOTUS nominee. That was to free up spots for "purists" when they had control. That much is obvious. I see it as part of a pattern of Republicans trying to take control of every lever of power.

malchior wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:41 pm "Attempted" is a better word then. And more broadly - those candidates are part of an "attempted attack" on the courts which was my point. In a real way they definitely dragged their feet on qualified Dem appointments including one SCOTUS nominee. That was to free up spots for "purists" when they had control. That much is obvious. I see it as part of a pattern of Republicans trying to take control of every lever of power.

Sort of. Basically the GOP dragged its feet as much as possible on Obama judicial nominees so as to have the maximum number of vacancies for a possible Republican president to fill, so that the president could load up the court system with conservative-minded judges. My understanding is that it looks like that's what's happening. There are a few super clear hacks in there, although my understanding is that most are qualified, just with conservative-leaning philosophies / ideologies.

Basically (as far as I know), there's not much evidence that Trump is loading up the court system with judges that will then rubber stamp authoritarian policies, as opposed to judges that would be more favorably inclined to strike down left-wing oriented laws. On that score, the main thing that really matters is whether Gorsuch (or one of his conservative colleagues) will stand up to Trump if it comes to that.

I don't necessarily think a rubber stamp on authoritarianism is the concern we should be worried about. At least my thinking has evolved after some reading lately. The more important concern is are the conditions for authoritarianism more likely. Combine Republican purist jurists--say that three times fast--with the continuously worsening political environment and I think there is an argument to be had that it is problematic.