Trump..... (The Sophistry Thread)

Binaural

Binaural

Eats Squid
pink poodle said:
I'm still bewildered by the M. Report.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not surprising. In its own way, the fact it was short, achieved numerous convictions and remained non-partisan is a great credit to Mueller. There are a bunch of investigations spawned by this and other malfeasance by Trump. The Mueller investigation has spawned IIRC 6 specific investigations by other state and federal bodies.

In the long term it may even be a benefit, as if collusion was alleged (rather than heavily implied but unproven as I suspect the full report will say), since it means the Democrats are off the hook for trying to impeach Trump, which risked their ability to project their own message for 2020.
 
pink poodle

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
That last point is quite a good one. If there was a clear lone to impeachment it really could cloud up the campaign trail and drain energy otherwise needed to push for change. Where as the republicans could just let Trump's presidency fizzle out, cut ties, and run a fresh face.
 
moorey

moorey

call me Mia
Trump instruction all his minions to ignore the subpoenas.
  1. They comply with law and he’s fucked.
  2. They listen to him and they’re fucked...as well as him further obstructing justice.

I love that the moron let McGhan cooperate in the past, and is now trying to say that the 100’s of hours of questioning he participated in fall under client privilege. He really doesn’t understand anything, it seems.
Congress can question McGhan on anything he’s already discussed..which is a lot.
Trumps hourly twitter rampage just highlights how scared he is. Love it.
 
Binaural

Binaural

Eats Squid
moorey said:
I love that the moron let McGhan cooperate in the past, and is now trying to say that the 100’s of hours of questioning he participated in fall under client privilege. He really doesn’t understand anything, it seems.
Click to expand...
Not quite. He's asserting executive privilege, which is a legal doctrine that states that the president may block disclosure of discussions that he or she has had with an advisor. It's not really intended as a privacy rule, but is intended to allow for a president to get unvarnished advice. The problem is that this privilege vanishes under any suspected wrongdoing (otherwise congressional oversight would be impossible). So while under normal circumstances it would protect McGahn despite previously having not been asserted, it would not here.

This is also why you saw Jeff Sessions dancing around the issue in previous congressional testimony. He couldn't invoke presidential privilege (only the president can), but wanted the possibility the president would invoke this privilege to avoid answering certain questions. The problem for him was that once the president invokes privilege, Congress can immediately take him to court to overturn it. Made for some dark comedy, at least.
 
moorey

moorey

call me Mia
He can’t exert executive privilege on information he’s already given permission to be discussed. Rookie error.
 
Binaural

Binaural

Eats Squid
moorey said:
He can’t exert executive privilege on information he’s already given permission to be discussed. Rookie error.
Click to expand...
Not actually true, as far as I've heard. He cannot walk back what's been released already but could block further disclosure if he wanted.
 
moorey

moorey

call me Mia
Binaural said:
Not actually true, as far as I've heard. He cannot walk back what's been released already but could block further disclosure if he wanted.
Click to expand...
I hear differently. If it’s already been released, Congress have free reign.
He’ll do all he can to stop it, but don’t believe he can.
Prepared to be corrected.
 
moorey

moorey

call me Mia
On 10/4, Barr testifies under oath that he didn’t know if Mueller supported Barr’s public summary of the Mueller report.
Except that on 26/3, Mueller both wrote to, and rang Barr, stating angrily that what Barr had released, didn’t correctly summarise the report and was misleading the public.
That letter is about to be released.

It’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the coverup.
 
pink poodle

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
I saw a (fake?) news article today saying the Cohen had a bit of a "it's not fair..!" dummy spit about going to gaol. He feels that he is copping all the punishment while the others involved in the scandal have all pretty gone free.
 
Binaural

Binaural

Eats Squid
Many troubling developments in the US recently. The checks and balances between the executive and the legislative are essentially breaking down. Trump's administration is simply refusing to comply with pretty much any Congressional oversight, including all requests for documents and most requests for people to testify or appear before committees. For example, the attorney general Barr won't appear before the house of representatives when summoned to answer for his bizarre dismissal of all of the obstruction of justice issues raised by Mueller.

What happens when a rogue administration that doesn't believe in the rule of law just decides to ignore legal requests from the legislature? Easy to say Congress should start arresting or locking people up until they comply, but locking people up is an executive function and there's no reason to believe law enforcement would obey Congress if directed to do so. Frankly, I am very worried about the endgame here. The damage Trump is doing to the norms of American democracy just gets worse by the day.
 
pink poodle

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
moorey said:
There in precedent. It’s nearly identical to what Nixon tried...unfortunately, Trump isn’t Nixon.
Click to expand...
Fortunately as well...I'd wager Nixon was a fair bit smarter than Trump.

Even if (USA) Congress sought to reprimand Barr through the legal process, isn't he or his department who they would normally refer such things too? And then would it end up in the Republican stacked supreme court? If so that seems like difficult times.
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Never leave out the calculation of electorate sentiment either. There's not a great deal of support out there for impeachment, neither is there in the Reps. There is also the fringe element and how your Gingrich, Limbaugh, Jones, Posobiec, Falwell, Greenwald and Hannities will respond and the social (physical) damage they can whip up with the MAGAtards.

Whilst the law and its implementation should stand above all of this, impeachment is an act of Congress and comes with consequences. I know that the last few posts aren't focusing on impeachment for criminal behaviour, but that's bascially the end-play here given that a sitting Pres. can't be indicted. I guess it comes down to that there is an electon next year and if Trump is voted out without bringing the system down with him, a lot of this can and will be wound back. However, if he wins, then all bets are likely off as the damage of him remaining in is too great to risk.

Not only is that my thinking but it's somewhat common througout Washington and the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top