Robert Mueller appointed special counsel
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
First, I'm not really even talking about his agenda. Wink, wink. I do think getting good things done through him will require Congressional Republicans to give way to him on certain things. But I think that will be well worth it.
Second, Gorsuch is only one judge. Honestly, I suspect that him replacing Scalia may well result in a slight shift left. I do not share the CW that Gorsuch is just like Scalia (of course, I also think the CW on Scalia -- from critics and admirers alike -- is inaccurately one-dimensional).
Third, I agree with you about Trump's role viz the political establishment. Despite my (tepid) support for him, I am ultimately an establishmentarian. But I also think the establishment has been much in need of a correction and basically brought Trump upon themselves because of it.
Lastly, I personally am far, FAR more interested in actual policy outcomes than the personalities in office at any given point in time. And that's the target I'm keeping my eye on. The signal-to-noise ratio in DC right now extremely faint -- but that's because of all the noise, the signal is still what it always is...and it's ultimately what matters most.
Well, please understand that I'm being a bit mischievous here. I realize that the Senate had no intentions, anyway, of saying that presidents can lie under oath without fear of substantive repercussion.
But that was the folly of their action. It really doesn't matter what they did or didn't intend. Because it was plainly obvious to everybody that he did lie under oath -- even to the point where he accepted a settlement that included, among other things, his disbarment -- their acquittal, whether they intended to or not, did actually establish a problematic precedent.
My point here has nothing to do with Trump. It's really more of a slam at the Senate -- they shouldn't have done what they did there. I understand why they didn't want to. And I'm sure a lot of the Senators at least gave a cursory consideration to what their acquittal would mean going forward. But, ultimately, the vote once again just fell down (pretty close, anyway) along partisan lines.
And I think in that they -- unintentionally, I'm sure -- caused some harm to the country that wasn't evident then, and might not even be yet. The message from that episode is clear enough -- so long as a president maintains enough friends in Congress who value his agenda more than their duty to faithfully uphold the Constitution and their duty as proscribed by it, he probably has nothing to worry about....at least to a further extent than existed prior to 1998.
I'm not cheering this, BTW. I'm scolding the Senate for having done it...even if they didn't intend to.
Jury nullification in the Simpson murder trial is exactly what we have going on in almost all votes in the Senate and House now. Right, wrong, good and bad for the country no longer matters. They're no Tip O'Neills and Reagans out there.
Wrong. All of the things you mentioned ARE huge things. Don't you think there's a reason beyond just taking down Trump?
Trump is by far the most incompetent president- and it goes far beyond him having an R next to his name. He's a danger to our security, and to our very fabric as a nation.
I'm glad to see that Republicans are starting to see that this about more than just politics. History will look kindly upon those R's that are jumping ship now. And the longer other R's stay on board, the worse they will be judged by history.
In other words, don't confuse previous take downs of democractic politicians will the very real threat Trump poses to our country. The R's did everything in their power to take down Hillary and Obama. This is different. On multiple levels.
I'm glad you're coming around, but it amazes me that it took this long.
Once again, projecting what you think on everyone else. It's all about Trump. If he didn't go in breaking every single precedence set, perhaps the Dems wouldn't have a case. Personal accountability, remember?
They are resisting Trump. If this has been another, qualified nominee, that had not admitted to sexual harassment, there would have been no march. This is much more against Trump than it is pro Hillary. But once again, I'm sure you know best what the protestors are thinking, saying and marching for. Hillary's name is rarely spoken at any of the recent gatherings I've seen or been part of.This has everything to do with Hillary.
The largest march in the history of the United States was the Women's March on Washington. People marched in every state and every city. This was the Hillary supporters response to Trump. The "Resist!" slogan originated there, Hillary joined the resistance as did millions of others.
Not sure I agree with that, depending on what is found. I think Clinton would have been driven from office without the public support, most of whom agreed they could care less about the charges.
Do you think any of this has anything to do with the type of person Trump is? Maybe he shouldn't leak secrets to Russia? Maybe he shouldn't try to influence an investigation? Maybe he shouldn't have invited Russia to hack Hillary's emails? Maybe he shouldn't brag about sexual harassment? Maybe he shouldn't have done all the things in his lifetime that leaves him wide open for pressure, blackmail etc? Nah....let's blame his behavior on the media that reports it.
I dunno. I can't imagine this kind of march if Trump had beaten Martin O'Malley.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
while you're probably correct here, this kind of crapola didn't start with the Dems, and the Dems just finally realized that unilateral civility was a losing strategy.
i see no end in sight to this strategy going forward, from either direction.
Last edited:
There would have been . It has little to nothing to do with who he beat and everything about who he is. That you don't understand that is why you will never understand a large number of women's utter disdain for Trump and everyone that voted for him.
I think a lot of the GOP is waiting to speak out on Trump to see what their districts think. During the Clinton impeachment, he had a lot of support, even from some of the GOP base that felt the proceedings were just a distraction and not based on anything very significant. If the public had turned on Bill, I think more of the politicians would have and he would have been forced out of office.
Right....but none of that should be relevant. Lady Justice is blind, etc. etc.
What you've been saying in this thread is what I'm getting at in using the term "butthurt" regarding the feelings some have about Trump's presidency and its legitimacy. It doesn't so much matter what he did or didn't actually do, or what the law has to say about that, it just matters that he is who he is and he is how he is and, because of that, not only does he need to be thrown out of office by any means necessary, but you feel perfectly righteous in declaring "utter disdain" not just for him, but even for ordinary American people who voted for him. Which would include me (yay me!).
And why limit your spokesmanship to women? Seems to me like there are plenty of men who have utter disdain for me too. Don't leave them out.
And once Mr. Mueller turns up nothing incriminating on Trump and Russia -- which I'm guessing he will -- what are you going to do then?
Here's my guess: continue being and acting butthurt.
He won -- deal with it and move on with your life.
One of the few bipartisan efforts in modern politics is the crapola.
Ted Kennedy:
"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management."
[QUOTE="He won -- deal with it and move on with your life.[/QUOTE]
Your "how to live your life" advice is not wanted. It's patronizing.
It's not about being butthurt. It's Russia, Flynn, firing Comey, Yates, Rosenstein, his interview with The Economist, the Lester Holt interview, threatening Comey, asking for Comey's loyalty, asking Comey to go easy on Flynn, Trump's lawyers' letter about his finances, the disclosing of top secret information to the Russians (in front of Russian media w/o American media) in the Oval Office, his ridiculous speeches at Liberty and Coast Guard Academy, and the multiple stupid tweets. And that just covers the past 10 days. We have a POTUS that is doing damage to our country, so many sane people are choosing to make an issue out of it. So f_ck you very much for the "move on with your life" sh!t.
Your "how to live your life" advice is not wanted. It's patronizing.
It's not about being butthurt. It's Russia, Flynn, firing Comey, Yates, Rosenstein, his interview with The Economist, the Lester Holt interview, threatening Comey, asking for Comey's loyalty, asking Comey to go easy on Flynn, Trump's lawyers' letter about his finances, the disclosing of top secret information to the Russians (in front of Russian media w/o American media) in the Oval Office, his ridiculous speeches at Liberty and Coast Guard Academy, and the multiple stupid tweets. And that just covers the past 10 days. We have a POTUS that is doing damage to our country, so many sane people are choosing to make an issue out of it. So f_ck you very much for the "move on with your life" sh!t.
That seems fair... but accurate. Although, I think Trump is tied to big oil.
Again with the condescension. Thanks, but I'll decide what to do with my life. You can guess all you want what Mueller will turn up, but you truly have no clue. There is so much out there , some related to the investigation some not, my guess is they will turn up plenty. But no idea whether it will be enough for impeachment. But I'm certainly not banking on it, which is why I'm continuing to do something about it, making phone calls, donating money, working at Dem headquarters, etc to ensure that the Trump agenda ( whatever the hell that is) only has two years with a GOP house.
Anyone hear Donald's press conference today? Seemed to actually parse his words for once, to separate himself from others, likely Flynn and Manofort. When asked about collusion, his response was that he certainly hadn't but he couldn't speak to anyone else. That's what I've assumed all along. Of course he didn't, the people that worked for him would have.
I don't think he realized that what he said actually conceded the possibility.
I frankly don't believe there was any overt collusion between the campaign and the Russians (although I still want to know who and how the Republican platform plank on Ukraine got changed).
His handling of the Flynn appointment and attempt to quash the FBI investigation is what's going to sink him.
Collusion would be stupid and unnecessary. If Trump were minimally smart he would have avoided it. But Trump is a moron so he might have done it anyway. More likely, in the process of investigating connections between Trump and Russia myriad criminal interactions will emerge unrelated to the Russian hacking of the DNC e.g., money laundering or establishing quid pro quos for delivering policy changes in return for enriching Trump's enterprises. It is those criminal enterprises that will best explain Trump's catering to the Russians. My guess would be that those activities are the real reason for Trump's concern.
Perhaps. They always say "Follow the money", don't they? Still, at this point in time, that's way more speculative and conspiratorial than I'm willing to be.
Perjury isn't even perjury since Clinton according to posters from the port side on this board, is it?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...ssian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele
So much has come since then, I'd almost forgotten about the dossier. I think it was somewhat dismissed, due to one of the allegations proven false ( Cohen in Prague). This is a long article, but at the least, the timeline , who all has seen the dossier, and what has been done with it is interesting.
So much has come since then, I'd almost forgotten about the dossier. I think it was somewhat dismissed, due to one of the allegations proven false ( Cohen in Prague). This is a long article, but at the least, the timeline , who all has seen the dossier, and what has been done with it is interesting.
Please don't put words in our mouths. You don't speak for any of us, much less all of us as a group.
not a huge BC fan, but i've never bought the "perjury" thing.
no idea how other generations translate the phrase, but BC is a member of my generation, and my generation had a specific, not general or vague, definition of 'have sex".
it meant sexual intercourse, and only sexual intercourse.. not sexual contact, or oral, or anything else between 1st and home plate.
i have plenty of issues with BC, but his parsing of words over something that's no one else's business anyway, isn't one of them.
