More on Trump's manifest unfitness for office

[Rockfish1]

Jack Goldsmith on Trump's incomprehension of his own office:

Trump does not remotely understand his role, status, and duties as President and Chief Executive, and this failure infects or undermines just about everything he does. It is an amazing state of affairs: A President of the United States who does not at all grasp the Office he occupies, and who thus entirely lacks the proper situation sense, or contextual knowledge, in which a President should exercise judgment or act. Let that sink in, and then imagine all of the decisions a President must make, all that he is responsible for. This reflection is the main reason why I have come to believe that the President does not deserve a presumption of regularity in his actions—not just by courts with respect to the immigration executive orders, but by the public more generally with respect to “everything the Executive does that touches, however lightly, the President.”
​

Obviously I agree with Goldsmith that Trump's vast (and IMO incurable) ignorance is disabling. He profoundly doesn't know what a president does and does not do. As a result (among other things) he has blithely obstructed justice.

The real problem isn't Trump, though. The real problem is that Trump's supporters don't know or don't care about this. Thus, John Cornyn could walk out of the Comey hearing and say this:

“I do not believe there is” any evidence that that president obstructed justice, Cornyn told reporters, referring to the questions Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) asked Comey.

“You heard Senator Risch ask about the expression of hope,” Cornyn said. “That’s not an order.”
​

Reasonable people could disagree about whether known facts are sufficient to establish the commission of a crime, but Cornyn claims there's no evidence of obstruction. That's an astounding claim. Trump both pressured Comey to end the FBI's investigations, then urged others to exert similar pressure. After Comey failed to comply, Trump fired him, then (after lying about it) all but admitted that he'd done so over the investigations. Maybe that isn't sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's abundant evidence of obstruction.

What we're seeing here isn't smoke. It's fire. I wonder how much higher the flames will get before Trump's enablers admit there's smoke.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Jack Goldsmith on Trump's incomprehension of his own office:

Trump does not remotely understand his role, status, and duties as President and Chief Executive, and this failure infects or undermines just about everything he does. It is an amazing state of affairs: A President of the United States who does not at all grasp the Office he occupies, and who thus entirely lacks the proper situation sense, or contextual knowledge, in which a President should exercise judgment or act. Let that sink in, and then imagine all of the decisions a President must make, all that he is responsible for. This reflection is the main reason why I have come to believe that the President does not deserve a presumption of regularity in his actions—not just by courts with respect to the immigration executive orders, but by the public more generally with respect to “everything the Executive does that touches, however lightly, the President.”
​

Obviously I agree with Goldsmith that Trump's vast (and IMO incurable) ignorance is disabling. He profoundly doesn't know what a president does and does not do. As a result (among other things) he has blithely obstructed justice.

The real problem isn't Trump, though. The real problem is that Trump's supporters don't know or don't care about this. Thus, John Cornyn could walk out of the Comey hearing and say this:

“I do not believe there is” any evidence that that president obstructed justice, Cornyn told reporters, referring to the questions Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) asked Comey.

“You heard Senator Risch ask about the expression of hope,” Cornyn said. “That’s not an order.”
​

Reasonable people could disagree about whether known facts are sufficient to establish the commission of a crime, but Cornyn claims there's no evidence of obstruction. That's an astounding claim. Trump both pressured Comey to end the FBI's investigations, then urged others to exert similar pressure. After Comey failed to comply, Trump fired him, then (after lying about it) all but admitted that he'd done so over the investigations. Maybe that isn't sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's abundant evidence of obstruction.

What we're seeing here isn't smoke. It's fire. I wonder how much higher the flames will get before Trump's enablers admit there's smoke.

They'll be dead from smoke inhalation while denying any flames are there.

 

[37Hoosier]

They'll be dead from smoke inhalation while denying any flames are there.

What I also find unbelievable is how the deputy press secretary can utter the words "the president is not a liar", when he has proven that is about all he is with any consistency....about, well, anything.

I know Paul Ryan is officially a eunuch and all, but his attempt to brush this off as "he just isn't used to this" & he will do better...the Orange One just doesn't understand protocol?? Really...does the GOP leadership have anyone, anyone at all, with any honor or dignity left? Do they even care anymore about the country? This is like a real life House of Cards...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I know Paul Ryan is officially a eunuch and all, but his attempt to brush this off as "he just isn't used to this" & he will do better...the Orange One just doesn't understand protocol?? Really...does the GOP leadership have anyone, anyone at all, with any honor or dignity left? Do they even care anymore about the country? This is like a real life House of Cards...

For me it goes to Rumsfeld's "known unknown" idea. Trump does not seem to conceive of something he doesn't know. It is hard to learn when you know everything (just ask anyone who has tried to teach me).

 

[iuwclurker1]

What I also find unbelievable is how the deputy press secretary can utter the words "the president is not a liar", when he has proven that is about all he is with any consistency....about, well, anything.

I know Paul Ryan is officially a eunuch and all, but his attempt to brush this off as "he just isn't used to this" & he will do better...the Orange One just doesn't understand protocol?? Really...does the GOP leadership have anyone, anyone at all, with any honor or dignity left? Do they even care anymore about the country? This is like a real life House of Cards...

Even Melania knows he's a liar. After the lewd sex tape, Melania said on TV that he had apologized and she accepted his apology. Then a day or two later, in the debate with Hillary, he said he didn't apologize. There's no one he won't throw under the bus.

 

[Ladoga]

Jack Goldsmith on Trump's incomprehension of his own office:

Trump does not remotely understand his role, status, and duties as President and Chief Executive, and this failure infects or undermines just about everything he does. It is an amazing state of affairs: A President of the United States who does not at all grasp the Office he occupies, and who thus entirely lacks the proper situation sense, or contextual knowledge, in which a President should exercise judgment or act. Let that sink in, and then imagine all of the decisions a President must make, all that he is responsible for. This reflection is the main reason why I have come to believe that the President does not deserve a presumption of regularity in his actions—not just by courts with respect to the immigration executive orders, but by the public more generally with respect to “everything the Executive does that touches, however lightly, the President.”
​

Obviously I agree with Goldsmith that Trump's vast (and IMO incurable) ignorance is disabling. He profoundly doesn't know what a president does and does not do. As a result (among other things) he has blithely obstructed justice.

The real problem isn't Trump, though. The real problem is that Trump's supporters don't know or don't care about this. Thus, John Cornyn could walk out of the Comey hearing and say this:

“I do not believe there is” any evidence that that president obstructed justice, Cornyn told reporters, referring to the questions Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) asked Comey.

“You heard Senator Risch ask about the expression of hope,” Cornyn said. “That’s not an order.”
​

Reasonable people could disagree about whether known facts are sufficient to establish the commission of a crime, but Cornyn claims there's no evidence of obstruction. That's an astounding claim. Trump both pressured Comey to end the FBI's investigations, then urged others to exert similar pressure. After Comey failed to comply, Trump fired him, then (after lying about it) all but admitted that he'd done so over the investigations. Maybe that isn't sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's abundant evidence of obstruction.

What we're seeing here isn't smoke. It's fire. I wonder how much higher the flames will get before Trump's enablers admit there's smoke.

Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I'm right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong

Posted in its own thread is an oped by Dershowitz that draws the exact opposite conclusion from yours. No obstruction. You take your view and I'll take Dershowitz'. Your opinion legally, would not make a pimple on Alan Dershowitz' ass.

 

[mohoosier]

Jack Goldsmith on Trump's incomprehension of his own office:

Trump does not remotely understand his role, status, and duties as President and Chief Executive, and this failure infects or undermines just about everything he does. It is an amazing state of affairs: A President of the United States who does not at all grasp the Office he occupies, and who thus entirely lacks the proper situation sense, or contextual knowledge, in which a President should exercise judgment or act. Let that sink in, and then imagine all of the decisions a President must make, all that he is responsible for. This reflection is the main reason why I have come to believe that the President does not deserve a presumption of regularity in his actions—not just by courts with respect to the immigration executive orders, but by the public more generally with respect to “everything the Executive does that touches, however lightly, the President.”
​

Obviously I agree with Goldsmith that Trump's vast (and IMO incurable) ignorance is disabling. He profoundly doesn't know what a president does and does not do. As a result (among other things) he has blithely obstructed justice.

The real problem isn't Trump, though. The real problem is that Trump's supporters don't know or don't care about this. Thus, John Cornyn could walk out of the Comey hearing and say this:

“I do not believe there is” any evidence that that president obstructed justice, Cornyn told reporters, referring to the questions Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) asked Comey.

“You heard Senator Risch ask about the expression of hope,” Cornyn said. “That’s not an order.”
​

Reasonable people could disagree about whether known facts are sufficient to establish the commission of a crime, but Cornyn claims there's no evidence of obstruction. That's an astounding claim. Trump both pressured Comey to end the FBI's investigations, then urged others to exert similar pressure. After Comey failed to comply, Trump fired him, then (after lying about it) all but admitted that he'd done so over the investigations. Maybe that isn't sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's abundant evidence of obstruction.

What we're seeing here isn't smoke. It's fire. I wonder how much higher the flames will get before Trump's enablers admit there's smoke.

^^^^^^^^

 

[toastedbread]

Jack Goldsmith on Trump's incomprehension of his own office:

Trump does not remotely understand his role, status, and duties as President and Chief Executive, and this failure infects or undermines just about everything he does. It is an amazing state of affairs: A President of the United States who does not at all grasp the Office he occupies, and who thus entirely lacks the proper situation sense, or contextual knowledge, in which a President should exercise judgment or act. Let that sink in, and then imagine all of the decisions a President must make, all that he is responsible for. This reflection is the main reason why I have come to believe that the President does not deserve a presumption of regularity in his actions—not just by courts with respect to the immigration executive orders, but by the public more generally with respect to “everything the Executive does that touches, however lightly, the President.”
​

Obviously I agree with Goldsmith that Trump's vast (and IMO incurable) ignorance is disabling. He profoundly doesn't know what a president does and does not do. As a result (among other things) he has blithely obstructed justice.

The real problem isn't Trump, though. The real problem is that Trump's supporters don't know or don't care about this. Thus, John Cornyn could walk out of the Comey hearing and say this:

“I do not believe there is” any evidence that that president obstructed justice, Cornyn told reporters, referring to the questions Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) asked Comey.

“You heard Senator Risch ask about the expression of hope,” Cornyn said. “That’s not an order.”
​

Reasonable people could disagree about whether known facts are sufficient to establish the commission of a crime, but Cornyn claims there's no evidence of obstruction. That's an astounding claim. Trump both pressured Comey to end the FBI's investigations, then urged others to exert similar pressure. After Comey failed to comply, Trump fired him, then (after lying about it) all but admitted that he'd done so over the investigations. Maybe that isn't sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's abundant evidence of obstruction.

What we're seeing here isn't smoke. It's fire. I wonder how much higher the flames will get before Trump's enablers admit there's smoke.

excuse me? We will be dead from an asteroid by the time they act. The democrats need to stop being PC and call these enablers exactly what they are. Animals. They have no conscious. Every single action today's republican party takes is about power. They don't care how many innocent Americans are harmed. In fact, the more non-white christians hurt the better. They don't believe in democracy. Only power.

 

[Rockfish1]

Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I'm right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong

Posted in its own thread is an oped by Dershowitz that draws the exact opposite conclusion from yours. No obstruction. You take your view and I'll take Dershowitz'. Your opinion legally, would not make a pimple on Alan Dershowitz' ass.

Every time you link something you don't understand -- and couldn't express in your own words -- I'm reminded of this exchange from "A Fish Called Wanda":

Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: [superior smile] Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!​

For what it's worth, I honestly don't understand the Dersh's argument here. Everyone agrees that the President has the authority to fire the FBI director. That's why, no matter what happens, Comey will stay fired. But this does not mean that it's impossible for the president to abuse his authority. For example, Trump has the lawful authority to allow anyone access to the White House. But if Steve Bannon shows up soaked in blood, holding a bloody knife and asking to clean up and hide out for a few days, that may be a problem.

I suspect there's more to the Dersh's point than is explained in the bit you linked, but he seems to be arguing the Nixonian claim that "If the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Needless to say, that is not the law. Maybe you can explain, in your own words, what the Dersh means.

By the way, I've said that I don't know if a jury would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime, and that reasonable people could differ on this point. Thus, you're making a fool of yourself. Again.

​

 

[mohoosier]

excuse me? We will be dead from an asteroid by the time they act. The democrats need to stop being PC and call these enablers exactly what they are. Animals. They have no conscious. Every single action today's republican party takes is about power. They don't care how many innocent Americans are harmed. In fact, the more non-white christians hurt the better. They don't believe in democracy. Only power.

o m g

 

[iuwclurker1]

excuse me? We will be dead from an asteroid by the time they act. The democrats need to stop being PC and call these enablers exactly what they are. Animals. They have no conscious. Every single action today's republican party takes is about power. They don't care how many innocent Americans are harmed. In fact, the more non-white christians hurt the better. They don't believe in democracy. Only power.

Truth.

 

[Univee2]

excuse me? We will be dead from an asteroid by the time they act. The democrats need to stop being PC and call these enablers exactly what they are. Animals. They have no conscious. Every single action today's republican party takes is about power. They don't care how many innocent Americans are harmed. In fact, the more non-white christians hurt the better. They don't believe in democracy. Only power.

I don't know, and you don't know, if the "enablers" are conscious ..

... but whether or not they have a conscience is a whole different ballgame. Maybe when you leave the U.S., seeing as how your head is about to explode over the U.S. being the most dangerous country in the world, you can learn the difference in "conscious" and "conscience".

 

[hoosboot]

I don't know, and you don't know, if the "enablers" are conscious ..

... but whether or not they have a conscience is a whole different ballgame. Maybe when you leave the U.S., seeing as how your head is about to explode over the U.S. being the most dangerous country in the world, you can learn the difference in "conscious" and "conscience".

I would have put more emphasis on his alarmist hyperbole and less on his spelling errors, but I guess you gotta go with the one you feel more strongly about.

 

[toastedbread]

I would have put more emphasis on his alarmist hyperbole and less on his spelling errors, but I guess you gotta go with the one you feel more strongly about.

It's hardly alarmist. Recent leaks suggest that the Russians may have hacked our voting systems. I'd argue that this alone means the current President and Congress lack legitimacy. No one knows (except the Russians) if the reported results accurately reflect votes cast. Why is the republican party only interested in pursuing leakers, while ignoring the content? If the results were illegitimate, then the entire Congress lacks standing. If not for these leaks, we would have no idea what the Russians were up to. These leakers are heroes. Why do Republican refuse to investigate Russian interference in the election?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

It's hardly alarmist. Recent leaks suggest that the Russians may have hacked our voting systems. I'd argue that this alone means the current President and Congress lack legitimacy. No one knows (except the Russians) if the reported results accurately reflect votes cast. Why is the republican party only interested in pursuing leakers, while ignoring the content? If the results were illegitimate, then the entire Congress lacks standing. If not for these leaks, we would have no idea what the Russians were up to. These leakers are heroes. Why do Republican refuse to investigate Russian interference in the election?

If you're telling me Russia COULD have hacked votes, and STILL allowed Maxine Waters to get reelected, then - if I'm Trump - I'm mad. If I'm paying for election tampering, somebody owes me one HELL of an explanation. Ditto Pelosi.

 

[toastedbread]

If you're telling me Russia COULD have hacked votes, and STILL allowed Maxine Waters to get reelected, then - if I'm Trump - I'm mad. If I'm paying for election tampering, somebody owes me one HELL of an explanation. Ditto Pelosi.

We don't know what they may/may not have done. According to the leaks, they were at a minimum attempting to hack election supervisors. Why would anyone be opposed to an investigation/autopsy of the entire electoral process and Russia's actions?

We already know how easy it is to hack voting machines.

As for Waters, I doubt they would spend resources on non-competitive seats.

 

[Rockfish1]

For me it goes to Rumsfeld's "known unknown" idea. Trump does not seem to conceive of something he doesn't know. It is hard to learn when you know everything (just ask anyone who has tried to teach me).

I've previously compared Trump to Chauncey Gardiner. Cliff Clavin would work too.

 

[Rockfish1]

Everyone agrees that the President has the authority to fire the FBI director. That's why, no matter what happens, Comey will stay fired. But this does not mean that it's impossible for the president to abuse his authority. For example, Trump has the lawful authority to allow anyone access to the White House. But if Steve Bannon shows up soaked in blood, holding a bloody knife and asking to clean up and hide out for a few days, that may be a problem.

Law professor Paul Campos was thinking on similar lines:

Even the Liberal Alan Dershowitz is spouting a bunch of nonsense about how, since the POTUS has the legal authority to fire the director of the FBI, exercising that authority can’t be obstruction of justice by definition.

This makes about as much sense as arguing that since the president has the legal authority to command the armed forces, ordering the army to kill his political opponents can’t be murder.​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I've previously compared Trump to Chauncey Gardiner. Cliff Clavin would work too.

Cliff was likable. But I could see Trump losing Jeopardy like Cliff did.

 

[Optimist13]

Strange day.

 

[RBB89]

Cliff was likable. But I could see Trump losing Jeopardy like Cliff did.

22,000 BIG ONES!!!

 

[mohoosier]

It's hardly alarmist. Recent leaks suggest that the Russians may have hacked our voting systems. I'd argue that this alone means the current President and Congress lack legitimacy. No one knows (except the Russians) if the reported results accurately reflect votes cast. Why is the republican party only interested in pursuing leakers, while ignoring the content? If the results were illegitimate, then the entire Congress lacks standing. If not for these leaks, we would have no idea what the Russians were up to. These leakers are heroes. Why do Republican refuse to investigate Russian interference in the election?

ToastedBread you might want to fact ck yourself

 

[UncleMark]

Really...does the GOP leadership have anyone, anyone at all, with any honor or dignity left? Do they even care anymore about the country?

I thought maybe McCain might end up being the one to eventually play the Baker/Goldwater role, but after today he's shown he puts party over country and is senile to boot.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I thought maybe McCain might end up being the one to eventually play the Baker/Goldwater role, but after today he's shown he puts party over country and is senile to boot.

We knew that during the election. He backed the same draft-dodging pussy who mocked him for being a POW.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's hardly alarmist. Recent leaks suggest that the Russians may have hacked our voting systems. I'd argue that this alone means the current President and Congress lack legitimacy. No one knows (except the Russians) if the reported results accurately reflect votes cast. Why is the republican party only interested in pursuing leakers, while ignoring the content? If the results were illegitimate, then the entire Congress lacks standing. If not for these leaks, we would have no idea what the Russians were up to. These leakers are heroes. Why do Republican refuse to investigate Russian interference in the election?

Baloney. As I explained before, vote tabulating machines are not on line. They are kept under very secure protocols. My client spent a couple of million in compliance. This is all federal law. The weak leak are dishonest election workers, (like Chicago in 1960 where dead people voted and Detroit 2016 where Hillary got more votes than ballots cast in some precincts ) not the Russians.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Law professor Paul Campos was thinking on similar lines:

Even the Liberal Alan Dershowitz is spouting a bunch of nonsense about how, since the POTUS has the legal authority to fire the director of the FBI, exercising that authority can’t be obstruction of justice by definition.

This makes about as much sense as arguing that since the president has the legal authority to command the armed forces, ordering the army to kill his political opponents can’t be murder.​

I think Dershowitz opined that Trump has the constitutional authority to shut down the investigation. Thus even if he did order Comey to stop that isn't obstructing. In theory, I think Trump could obstruct justice if he deliberately destroyed evidence, like wiping a server, or something like that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Baloney. As I explained before, vote tabulating machines are not on line. They are kept under very secure protocols. My client spent a couple of million in compliance. This is all federal law. The weak leak are dishonest election workers, (like Chicago in 1960 where dead people voted and Detroit 2016 where Hillary got more votes than ballots cast in some precincts ) not the Russians.

Look up the followup reports, Clinton's votes were math errors.

As to hacking, I showed a story of people proving machines can be hacked. Your car can be hacked and it isn't on the network. Granted, hacking one voter machine at a time is difficult, and I do not think it happened, but it is wrong to suggest it is impossible.

 

[Rockfish1]

I think Dershowitz opined that Trump has the constitutional authority to shut down the investigation. Thus even if he did order Comey to stop that isn't obstructing. In theory, I think Trump could obstruct justice if he deliberately destroyed evidence, like wiping a server, or something like that.

I've addressed what I understand of the Dersh's claim above. Perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong. In any event, the House Judiciary Committee disagreed with the Dersh's view when they drafted the following impeachment count against Richard Nixon:

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.​

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I've addressed what I understand of the Dersh's claim above. Perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong. In any event, the House Judiciary Committee disagreed with the Dersh's view when they drafted the following impeachment count against Richard Nixon:

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.​

I hope it works out for y'all

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I've addressed what I understand of the Dersh's claim above. Perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong. In any event, the House Judiciary Committee disagreed with the Dersh's view when they drafted the following impeachment count against Richard Nixon:

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.​

Easy explanation. Apples and oranges. Impeachment is a political process with no judicial role or judicial review. Obstruction is a criminal process with detailed elements of the crime and strong presumptions about burden of proof.

 

[hoosboot]

Easy explanation. Apples and oranges. Impeachment is a political process with no judicial role or judicial review. Obstruction is a criminal process with detailed elements of the crime and strong presumptions about burden of proof.

But, if that's your explanation, the rest of Dershowitz's claims fall flat. If it's all just politics and there is no criminal obstruction possible, then Dershowitz's insistence that the Senate drop this inquiry and focus on Russian hacking doesn't follow logically.

 

[Rockfish1]

Easy explanation. Apples and oranges. Impeachment is a political process with no judicial role or judicial review. Obstruction is a criminal process with detailed elements of the crime and strong presumptions about burden of proof.

Then the Dersh's point is essentially irrelevant, because the risk for Trump (some day) is impeachment, not criminal prosecution.

 

[Rockfish1]

^^^^^^^^

Your insipid drive-by posts suck every single time, but in the golden age of beer it's heinous that your signature glorifies shitty beer. You, sir, are a philistine.

​

 

[twenty02]

I hope it works out for y'all

We're all in this together. We're all better off if Trump is forced out. I've never been a big Pence fan, but he looks like the Thomas Jefferson compared with the current clown.

If I was advising Dems, they'd be better to just let Trump stew in shit for the next 4 years. Dems will end up with total control of govt by 2020....which is exactly what I warned of to my conservative friends all of last year. That Trump would crush the GOP if he was elected, and that the long play way to win actual policy solutions was to not vote for this clown show.

Most didn't listen.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If you're telling me Russia COULD have hacked votes, and STILL allowed Maxine Waters to get reelected, then - if I'm Trump - I'm mad. If I'm paying for election tampering, somebody owes me one HELL of an explanation. Ditto Pelosi.

That's funny. Toasted is full of conspiracy theories. that's humorous too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Then the Dersh's point is essentially irrelevant, because the risk for Trump (some day) is impeachment, not criminal prosecution.

Agree.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Cliff was likable. But I could see Trump losing Jeopardy like Cliff did.

He may not be as smart as Cliff.

 

[Rockfish1]

We're all in this together. We're all better off if Trump is forced out. I've never been a big Pence fan, but he looks like the Thomas Jefferson compared with the current clown.

If I was advising Dems, they'd be better to just let Trump stew in shit for the next 4 years. Dems will end up with total control of govt by 2020....which is exactly what I warned of to my conservative friends all of last year. That Trump would crush the GOP if he was elected, and that the long play way to win actual policy solutions was to not vote for this clown show.

Most didn't listen.

Impeachment is essentially a dead letter unless Democrats take the House in 2018, and that still seems unlikely to me. Probably we're all stuck with Trump until 2020, when I hope the country regains its senses.

 

[toastedbread]

Impeachment is essentially a dead letter unless Democrats take the House in 2018, and that still seems unlikely to me. Probably we're all stuck with Trump until 2020, when I hope the country regains its senses.

As of right now it's 50/50 the Dems take the house.

As for Trump, with his mental state, nothing is certain. He may suddenly resign, or perhaps harm himself.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Your insipid drive-by posts suck every single time, but in the golden age of beer it's heinous that your signature glorifies shitty beer. You, sir, are a philistine.

​

Wait, are you saying Dogfish is shitty beer? The 120 minute is excellent if you have the patience to let it age for a year. I always have 90 minute on hand.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you