Page 210 of 218

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:27 pm UTC
by Diemo
To be fair, he lies all the time though

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:48 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
He also said that he does try to tell the truth, when he can. I.e., when he can see no good reason to lie.

I'm inclined to think that he was telling the truth when he said of the emergency declaration "I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster." Why would he lie about that, when it undercuts his own emergency declaration? Apparently he just didn't see why that truth might come back to bite him.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:53 pm UTC
by idonno
ucim wrote:If it's not veto-proof, the question dies in Mitch's hands on the overrule attempt, which will never come to a vote.

Apparently, at least according to Jake Tapper on the late show, that isn't actually true. If the House passes it, the Senate has to vote on it within 18 days.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:58 pm UTC
by ucim
idonno wrote:If the House passes it, the Senate has to vote on it within 18 days.
Yes. But if the president vetoes it, it's not clear that the 18 day rule apples for a vote to overrule the veto.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:21 pm UTC
by idonno
Yeah but it obviously has to be veto proof after a veto no matter what Mitch does. There are a lot of people that don't want to have to vote one way or the other. Once they have to weigh in things become a real shit show for them if they don't do anything about it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:40 pm UTC
by sardia
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... all-225164
Well at least someone agrees with me that Democrats might lose the emergency declaration case.

I'm hoping for political damage against the Republicans, but other than securing expansion of Democratic executive power, this case seems bad for Democrats. Trump's poll numbers are higher than expected so I'm guessing opposition to the emergency is falling down to partisan levels.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:46 pm UTC
by cphite
Eomund wrote:What is really scary about this is that I am fully convinced that Trump does not believe this is an emergency yet he's declaring one anyway. The system was built with checks and balances and some situations require them to be bypassed. But when they are bypassed just because you don't like them, well, then it just looks like a dictatorship.


The term "state of emergency" is a bit misleading. It's basically any circumstance that the executive believes requires a response outside of the norm. For example, he declared one this past November which was "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua" - it'd be hard to make the case that the situation in Nicaragua constitutes an "emergency" for the United States. If you look at the other 30 that are still active, very few of them are anything that most people would consider an "emergency" from the perspective of the US.

The worrisome aspect of this declaration is that it's specifically intended to bypass Congress. Most are declared with an understanding that they represent actions that would normally be taken with Congressional consent, but which require more expedience and flexibility than an act of Congress would allow. In other words, when we want to block the property of certain persons in Nicaragua, we don't want weeks or months of debate and procedure giving those persons time to circumvent our actions.

I'm not saying it is a dictatorship but it is a big step in that direction.


It's certainly a step in the wrong direction; and it's certainly an abuse of the office. He is, unfortunately allowed to do it under our system; but there are checks in place. Congress could intervene - which is unlikely. The courts can intervene - and there are already 16 states suing to block the declaration itself on various grounds, not to mention the inevitable suits that will be filed by landowners where the wall is to be built, by environmental groups, by civil rights groups, etc.

While the ability to declare an emergency is no doubt a very powerful tool - and one which carries a huge potential for abuse - it's doesn't give the president absolute power. He can and will be challenged on this from a great number of angles.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:05 pm UTC
by orthogon
LaserGuy wrote:Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.

You say that as though Global Warming isn't a national emergency. (I suppose that, strictly, it's an international emergency, but still.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:55 am UTC
by gd1
cphite wrote:
It's certainly a step in the wrong direction; and it's certainly an abuse of the office. He is, unfortunately allowed to do it under our system; but there are checks in place. Congress could intervene - which is unlikely. The courts can intervene - and there are already 16 states suing to block the declaration itself on various grounds, not to mention the inevitable suits that will be filed by landowners where the wall is to be built, by environmental groups, by civil rights groups, etc.


He's also allowed to ask for an ally to be put in charge of an investigation into Cohen. It's just that it might be obstruction of justice.

In fairness, Trump says he didn't do that.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:49 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
orthogon wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.

You say that as though Global Warming isn't a national emergency. (I suppose that, strictly, it's an international emergency, but still.)
God, the fact that Republicans actually brought this up as something they're worried about ("but now this possibly justifies a Democratic president declaring global warming an emergency!") really tells you everything you need to know about the Republican party, right now.

"What if the Democrats use this to address a real, actual emergency?!"

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:42 pm UTC
by cphite
orthogon wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.

You say that as though Global Warming isn't a national emergency. (I suppose that, strictly, it's an international emergency, but still.)


The sad thing is, declaring Global Warming a national emergency could, potentially, be counter-productive. Because a declaration of emergency does not give the president authority to allocate funds - he is stuck spending unobligated money that is already available - and does not change law in any permanent way. So the actual response would be limited. And once the declaration is made, opponents would use that as political leverage against legislation that might address climate change - "Why do we need to pass this bill? The president already declared an emergency to deal with it..."

Which is as it should be. The system isn't supposed to allow an executive to make broad, sweeping change.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:12 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The general perspective of rank and file Republicans isn't that Climate Change isn't real, but that 1) the doomsday scenarios are mostly crazy nonsense and 2) the media is exaggerating our impact but intentionally underreporting the impact from other countries, especially China. It's not actually wrong, in that China literally produces more than twice as much CO2 as the US, and it's only getting worse in China while the US has actually cut down emissions by around 1/6th in the past decade or so and continues to decline. What makes it incredibly murky is little facts such as the US not producing a single television for consumer use for decades and thus US production of CO2 is undercounted in that regard, said TV's being internationally shipped in Panamax cargo ships which use bunker fuel (a fuel so dirty that including sulfur and other crud make each ship the equivalent of millions of cars), but on the other hand things like NATO spending where the US's military spending and CO2 waste is done on behalf of European powers such that their numbers are significantly underreported.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:52 pm UTC
by Tirear
cphite wrote:Most are declared with an understanding that they represent actions that would normally be taken with Congressional consent, but which require more expedience and flexibility than an act of Congress would allow.

Isn't that pretty much what Trump said?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:57 pm UTC
by ijuin
The issue at hand here is that Trump is using the emergency as a method for overriding Congress when Congress has rejected his demands for funding.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:22 pm UTC
by freezeblade
And the problems he cites for the emergency are completely made up, like the drug argument; evidence is crystal clear that the vast majority of drugs come over at ports of entry, not where he's requesting walls be built.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:47 pm UTC
by Tirear
ijuin wrote:The issue at hand here is that Trump is using the emergency as a method for overriding Congress when Congress has rejected his demands for funding.

Congress may have previously rejected his demends, but Trump insists that he totally could convince them eventually, he's just calling an emergency because it is faster. Or at least, that's what I hear when he says "I didn't need to do this". So this emergency is completely in line with why emergencies are normally declared, aside from the fact that Trump is delusional. And the question of whether or not speed is critical in this case. And the question of whether or not it should be done at all. But if you ignore those, we have a project that would have been passed by Congress except that we couldn't afford the time to go through the normal process.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:05 pm UTC
by freezeblade
That implies that it is something that would eventually get passed, which is a pretty bold assertion looking at how the votes played out.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:16 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
freezeblade wrote:That implies that it is something that would eventually get passed, which is a pretty bold assertion looking at how the votes played out.


It's not that they would get passed, but that Trump himself believes they would get passed. Because, y'know, delusions of grandeur and all.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:20 pm UTC
by freezeblade
that's fine and all, but how can anyone defend that stance without eroding the values of our democracy?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:22 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
You can't. That's part of why I'm furious at the decision to use emergency powers for a non-emergency, whether or not I want the wall. Even during an emergency, those powers are incredibly dangerous for historical reasons.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:27 am UTC
by gd1
CorruptUser wrote:...those powers are incredibly dangerous for historical reasons.


Why not for hysterical reasons?

Also, it appears that McCabe has weighed in on his opinion.

McCabe told Anderson Cooper that he believes Trump is a Russian asset [YouTube clip]

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:37 am UTC
by KittenKaboodle
gd1 wrote:[quote="CorruptUser]
Also, it appears that McCabe has weighed in on his opinion.

McCabe told Anderson Cooper that he believes Trump is a Russian asset [YouTube clip][/quote][/quote]


Well, you know what Trump says about McCabe; "liar" "deranged" "a disgrace to the country"
Since Trump is clearly an expert in all those areas, I'm confused, on one hand Trump lies a lot, but he doesn't always lie, so one can't simply assume the opposite of what he says is the truth.

Since McCabe is not trying to sell books or anything there no reason he would be making stuff up for publicity... oh, wait..., but on other hand Trump lies a LOT, praises Putin, and seems to be trying the destroy the United States standing internationally...

Tangentially related, one hears complaints that talking about the 25th amendment is some sort of coup attempt, but the 25th is an amendment to... the US Constitution, some of these people have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. In any case, section 4 starts with "Whenever the Vice President ..." so it is just idle talk, not a "coup". Anyway, if Trump's misbehavior seriously rose to the level of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" then impeachment, criminal trial and prison would seem to be the better option, since even the 25th needs 2/3 of both houses (unless Trump fails to object)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:34 am UTC
by sardia
KittenKaboodle wrote:
gd1 wrote:[quote="CorruptUser]
Also, it appears that McCabe has weighed in on his opinion.

McCabe told Anderson Cooper that he believes Trump is a Russian asset [YouTube clip][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Well, you know what Trump says about McCabe; "liar" "deranged" "a disgrace to the country"
Since Trump is clearly an expert in all those areas, I'm confused, on one hand Trump lies a lot, but he doesn't always lie, so one can't simply assume the opposite of what he says is the truth.

Since McCabe is not trying to sell books or anything there no reason he would be making stuff up for publicity... oh, wait..., but on other hand Trump lies a LOT, praises Putin, and seems to be trying the destroy the United States standing internationally...

Tangentially related, one hears complaints that talking about the 25th amendment is some sort of coup attempt, but the 25th is an amendment to... the US Constitution, some of these people have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. In any case, section 4 starts with "Whenever the Vice President ..." so it is just idle talk, not a "coup". Anyway, if Trump's misbehavior seriously rose to the level of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" then impeachment, criminal trial and prison would seem to be the better option, since even the 25th needs 2/3 of both houses (unless Trump fails to object)[/quote][/quote][/quote]

The problem with the 25th amendment is that in order to organize any sort of coup you have to get a bunch of the cabinet members on board , but the president can't find out about it. The president can snuff out any coup attempt by firing anyone who tries to oust him via this method.

Anyway, Trump is full of shit, but none of the Republicans can call him out on it until they can't nominate judges anymore. Then they can go full Bush/Nixon on him.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:46 pm UTC
by sardia
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tr ... unpopular/
This is bad for the country. Unpopular executive actions were only repealed after widespread opposition. If only Independents and Democrats oppose it, that provides cover for the GOP maybes to fall in line behind Trump. Qa

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:29 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
KittenKaboodle wrote:Well, you know what Trump says about McCabe; "liar" "deranged" "a disgrace to the country"


Significant pot/kettle problem there.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:20 am UTC
by ijuin
As the saying goes, it takes one to know one.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:24 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL D. COHEN
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 27, 2019


I would post some highlights, but it's really worth reading the whole thing. 20 pages.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:58 pm UTC
by Link
Dayum! I wish we could see the evidence, because that looks pretty damning for the Cheeto.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:41 pm UTC
by freezeblade
Listened to a bit on the way to work. It's really disheartening that the republicans all line up behind the orange asshole and as a result only seem to have an interest in attacking Cohen's credibility, not in what he has to say.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:08 pm UTC
by Plasma_Wolf
What I absolutely hate about all this, the same Republicans defended him completely and totally when he was working for Trump. Everything Trump says is true, so everything Cohen says to defend him is true.

Then he gets arrested and it's basically 'how dare the FBI with its evil Democrat agenda arrest Cohen in a way that is worse than Bin Laden was handled?'

Cohen flips and suddenly it's "he's a dirty liar and the fact that he has lied before means that now he cannot possibly be telling the truth, even though what he is saying will have the absolute opposite effect of what his lies for Trump did before"

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:00 pm UTC
by Mutex
And you have to ask yourself why someone who got a three year sentence last time he lied to Congress would willingly come back, just because he was invited, and spend several hours telling a bucket of fibs. He have to be *insane*. How many years would be added to his sentence if it turned out his testimony was all lies?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:22 pm UTC
by sardia
Mutex wrote:And you have to ask yourself why someone who got a three year sentence last time he lied to Congress would willingly come back, just because he was invited, and spend several hours telling a bucket of fibs. He have to be *insane*. How many years would be added to his sentence if it turned out his testimony was all lies?

Cohen doesn't have a lot of physical evidence about the really damning stuff which is disappointing. You can see the GOP playbook. Attack the man, not the substance of the allegation. Same with Comey, McCabe, and now Cohen. You'll see it happen again when/if Stone flips.
By the way, it's very hard to prove that the threats against him are witness intimidation.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:38 pm UTC
by Link
Plasma_Wolf wrote:
What I absolutely hate about all this, the same Republicans defended him completely and totally when he was working for Trump.

Well yeah, that's because being an adherent of the GOP's present-day course and having any sense of integrity are mutually exclusive.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:15 am UTC
by addams
freezeblade wrote:Listened to a bit on the way to work. It's really disheartening that the republicans all line up behind the orange asshole and as a result only seem to have an interest in attacking Cohen's credibility, not in what he has to say.
Yes. What you said.
ObsessoMom wrote:TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL D. COHEN
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 27, 2019


I would post some highlights, but it's really worth reading the whole thing. 20 pages.
Thank you MaMa Bear for the reading material.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:45 am UTC
by ObsessoMom
I've been pretty wary of new Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has struck me as a young hothead, but she really impressed me today. She got SO MANY questions in about Trump's financial dealings, tax evasion, fraud, etc. And whenever Michael Cohen said he didn't know something, she asked, "Who would know? Who should we ask to find out about that?" WOW. Question, question, question, question, then "Thank you very much, I yield the rest of my time to the chair." A refreshing change from all the grandstanding today.

I assume she had some expert help on deciding what to ask, but a very impressive performance regardless.

Here's a 4.5-minute video of her in action (from PBS).

Slate's take: Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Just Lay Groundwork for Democrats to Subpoena Trump’s Tax Returns?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:58 am UTC
by sardia
My thought is that she has good staff/aides, but then I think why don't the other ones ask similar questions? I remember that the analysts noticed a difference between the freshman vs the older politicians in the line of questioning. Maybe look up how a fellow freshman congressman asked their questions?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:18 am UTC
by ObsessoMom
Good point.

No One Was as Tough on Michael Cohen as the Freshmen Congresswomen

This afternoon I was driving around doing errands, and on the radio I only caught part of another first-year Congressmember's racism questions, and her back-and-forth with Republican Representative Mark Meadows, who had earlier produced a black female employee of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as proof that Trump is not racist. (The old "some of my best friends...I mean, some of my best employees...are black" defense.) I'll go back and watch the video clips in this article in the morning. Past my bedtime now.

I think that Trump's racism is despicable, but it's harder to prove criminality with that than it is with the campaign finance and fraud stuff. (And drawing attention to Trump's racism might backfire by making his racist base love him more.) So to me it seems more productive to keep the spotlight on Trump's shady business practices, his habit of treating his supposedly charitable foundation as a tax-free piggy bank, stuff that could support subpoenaing his tax returns, etc.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:31 am UTC
by gd1
Michael Cohen warns people not to follow in his footsteps.

Paraphrasing: You (Republicans defending Trump) are doing the same thing I did for 10 years and it might end the same way for you.

Trump expects loyalty from others, but in the end he is only loyal to himself and maybe his immediate family.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:45 am UTC
by Dauric
sardia wrote:My thought is that she has good staff/aides...


This is actually the sign of good leadership material. The best person to be in charge isn't the one who does everything themselves because there's no way that they can possibly have all the necessary expertise for every situation, but the person who can gather people with the necessary expertise and properly utilize that knowledge.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:01 am UTC
by Sableagle
gd1 wrote:Especially with the proud tradition of the human wall tactic up to this point. Their dedication would almost be admirable if it wasn't so horrifying.
Did anyone drive a car into them, or is it only nazis that do that?

ucim wrote:[stop me before this gets too silly]
Three years too late for that.

The Great Hippo wrote:
orthogon wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.
You say that as though Global Warming isn't a national emergency. (I suppose that, strictly, it's an international emergency, but still.)
God, the fact that Republicans actually brought this up as something they're worried about ("but now this possibly justifies a Democratic president declaring global warming an emergency!") really tells you everything you need to know about the Republican party, right now.
I recently got tired of someone on a discord server denying that there was strong evidence that human activity was responsible for global warming ...

... on the grounds that the proposed response is to make people buy permission to breathe from VP Gore.

Yes, really. He really did refer to "Vice-President Gore" giving people permission to breathe.

Dauric wrote:
sardia wrote:My thought is that she has good staff/aides...


This is actually the sign of good leadership material. The best person to be in charge isn't the one who does everything themselves because there's no way that they can possibly have all the necessary expertise for every situation, but the person who can gather people with the necessary expertise and properly utilize that knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA

Yeah, we're in trouble over here.