Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

[Johnnie]

That doesn't even seem real. Like it was someone dressed up as Judge Napolitano making a reasonable case with many specific examples.

Quick, I need Judge Pirro to make this right and gaslight me.

[Johnnie]

We need a Brazzers logo.

[sancarlos]

We are all Virginia Cavalier fans today.

[Joe K]

And we are not 49ers or Buckeyes fans:

[Johnnie]

Amazing how quick someone changes their political time when it's financially advantageous.

Bosa is suddenly woke to Kaep's position now that he has to be held accountable for his statements and tweets.

[EdRomero]

[brian]

The mass psychosis by tens of millions of Americans that this guy is actually not crazy or even mildly smart should be studied for millennia.

[EnochRoot]

The mass psychosis by tens of millions of Americans that this guy is actually not crazy or even mildly smart should be studied for millennia.

We'll get a better understanding of tribalism.

It's not just his racism. It's deeper than that.

[Joe K]

The mass psychosis by tens of millions of Americans that this guy is actually not crazy or even mildly smart should be studied for millennia.

Either he’s an ignorant moron or he’s intentionally engaging in the type of inflammatory rhetoric that gets doctors killed. Or both.

[Johnnie]

I'm going to have to set aside some time and read this from Ben Wittes:

Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

Cliff's Notes:

The president committed crimes.

The president also committed impeachable offenses.

Trump was not complicit in the Russian social media conspiracy.

Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.

The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.

[Nonlinear FC]

The mass psychosis by tens of millions of Americans that this guy is actually not crazy or even mildly smart should be studied for millennia.

I was looking for a quote from AOC this weekend and got down the rabbit hole of a few conservative message boards. It is absolutely amazing the parallel universes we are living in. Countless posts about how dumb she is, with tons and tons of quotes attributed to her that are obviously made up (and not all of them are just memes, a lot are clearly done to make her sound insane and/or ignorant.)

[Nonlinear FC]

I'm going to have to set aside some time and read this from Ben Wittes:

Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

Cliff's Notes:

The president committed crimes.

The president also committed impeachable offenses.

Trump was not complicit in the Russian social media conspiracy.

Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.

The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.

I'm not a fan of Bill Maher, for a variety of reasons. But, sometimes he really knocks it out of the park. His take down on the most recent episode of Meuller is spot on. Creating a trail of bread crumbs for Congress when Meuller knew Trump commited crimes before winning and then well after taking office isn't going to amount to fuck-all.

We have a literal criminal sitting in the Oval Office and Meuller KNOWS that this cult of bullshittery in the Senate isn't going to act. Fuck DoJ policy. Indict the fucker.

[Jerloma]

The mass psychosis by tens of millions of Americans that this guy is actually not crazy or even mildly smart should be studied for millennia.

I don't think there's any mystery to it. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance combined with the internet's ability to let people live in echo chambers, having their delusions constantly reinforced, and not having to live up to any sort of journalistic standards. Our tribal nature has been the bane of our existence for some time now.

[brian]

This picture is awesome. I don't know if Baylor said anything about it, but I 100 percent guarantee you the university forced them to be there. I would bet my life on it.

[Pruitt]

Probably the worst day of his presidency considering who he has to be around.

[DaveInSeattle]

This picture is awesome. I don't know if Baylor said anything about it, but I 100 percent guarantee you the university forced them to be there. I would bet my life on it.

Where's the table full of cold, congealing fast food?

[A_B]

You joke, but...

[Johnnie]

[Pruitt]

What a fucking dick.

[Johnnie]

[brian]

What a fucking dick.

It was almost maybe cute for one time during the government shutdown. Now it’s just being a dick.

[Pruitt]

Well, to be fair (which this batch doesn't deserve), they are coming at it under the "protection of the president/executive branch" which every president has done going back to the 50s and 60s.

So suing a bank so it doesn't respond to a subpoena will work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ee8e169105

[Nonlinear FC]

Well, to be fair (which this batch doesn't deserve), they are coming at it under the "protection of the president/executive branch" which every president has done going back to the 50s and 60s.

So suing a bank so it doesn't respond to a subpoena will work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ee8e169105

Well, look, I'm not saying these dunderheads have the law on their side, I'm just saying that every president since forever fights tooth and nail about almost everything that is perceived to be chipping away at presidential authority/power.

As for the merits of this particular law suit, let's ask a Stanford law professor.

“This isn’t a close legal question,” said David Alan Sklansky, a professor at Stanford Law School. “I’m quite confident there has never been a situation where a congressional subpoena has been quashed without a finding that it violates a constitutional right.”

The claim that there is no legitimate need for the subpoena, or that it is politically motivated, is a “frivolous argument, even if it’s true,” he said. “That is not a basis for quashing a subpoena.”

[Pruitt]

Well, to be fair (which this batch doesn't deserve), they are coming at it under the "protection of the president/executive branch" which every president has done going back to the 50s and 60s.

So suing a bank so it doesn't respond to a subpoena will work?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ee8e169105

Well, look, I'm not saying these dunderheads have the law on their side, I'm just saying that every president since forever fights tooth and nail about almost everything that is perceived to be chipping away at presidential authority/power.

As for the merits of this particular law suit, let's ask a Stanford law professor.

“This isn’t a close legal question,” said David Alan Sklansky, a professor at Stanford Law School. “I’m quite confident there has never been a situation where a congressional subpoena has been quashed without a finding that it violates a constitutional right.”

The claim that there is no legitimate need for the subpoena, or that it is politically motivated, is a “frivolous argument, even if it’s true,” he said. “That is not a basis for quashing a subpoena.”

I was confused since I had always thought that a subpoena could not in any circumstance be ignored. But what's the rule of law when you are fighting to make America great?

[Nonlinear FC]

You can ignore congressional subpoenas, and in turn Congress can fine the individual named and/or hold them in contempt of court and possibly throw them in jail. But to get to that point, again, Trump's WH lawyers are going to try and tie that up in court.

And executive privilege is going to be the foundation for pushing back.

But, as that article pretty clearly lays out, it's really difficult to make an exec privilege claim on this particular subpoena.

[mister d]

But, as that article pretty clearly lays out, it's really difficult to make an exec privilege claim on this particular subpoena.

[narrator voice]

[The Sybian]

You can ignore congressional subpoenas, and in turn Congress can fine the individual named and/or hold them in contempt of court and possibly throw them in jail. But to get to that point, again, Trump's WH lawyers are going to try and tie that up in court.

And executive privilege is going to be the foundation for pushing back.

But, as that article pretty clearly lays out, it's really difficult to make an exec privilege claim on this particular subpoena.

And in finding with Trump, a court would essentially be saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to oversee the President, which is pretty much the cornerstone of our entire Constitution.

[Rush2112]

[Steve of phpBB]

This picture is awesome. I don't know if Baylor said anything about it, but I 100 percent guarantee you the university forced them to be there. I would bet my life on it.

I like how the only person smiling in the picture is the older white guy in the background (left of the pic).

[Pruitt]

There was an asshole at the gym this afternoon wearing a MAGA hat.

The reassuring thing is that he was getting sneers all over the place.

[Pruitt]

I must say that I love the fact that their coach - the skinny blonde woman, looks like she is ready to kill someone in both pictures she's in.

[Johnnie]

She wants to speak to a manager, that's for sure.

[Rush2112]

There was an asshole at the gym this afternoon wearing a MAGA hat.

The reassuring thing is that he was getting sneers all over the place.

Our gym has little fitbit things that you can get that show your heart rate and other data on a big screen, there's some fuck that's been there the last 2 weekends with XXXTrump2020(fireemoji) as his UN.

[brian]

I watched the Lorena documentary about John and Lorena Bobbitt and it should probably surprise no one that John Wayne Bobbitt is a big Trump guy. Even has a DJTRUMP license plate.

(Documentary was pretty awesome, by the way. Highly recommended.)

[mister d]

All the hottest beats, truly, the dopest tracks. Everyone is saying it.

[Johnnie]

Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote a previously unknown private letter to the Justice Department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of Mueller’s work that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.

HUH. WEIRD.

[Johnnie]

Apparently this is proof of perjury? And if it is Democrats won't do anything about it.



Edit

Ted Lieu, Shademaster.

[Joe K]

Apparently this is proof of perjury? And if it is Democrats won't do anything about it.

I don’t see how that is anywhere close to perjury if this reporting from the article you posted is accurate:

A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials.

When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

ETA: Here’s another excerpt from that Washington Post article:

“After the Attorney General received Special Counsel Mueller’s letter, he called him to discuss it,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said Tuesday. “In a cordial and professional conversion, the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis. They then discussed whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released.

“However, the Attorney General ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion,” the spokeswoman’s statement continues.

Lack of context is an understandable concern about an attempt to give the top-level conclusions of a 400 page report. But having read the executive summaries that Mueller wrote I don’t see how anything in Barr’s letter can be deemed inaccurate. And I’ve yet to see anyone point out any specific inaccuracies, as opposed to suggesting that he could or should have emphasized different aspects of the report.

[Johnnie]

Yeah, that's why I posed it as a question. I didn't think that was perjury. Seemed too ticky tack.

HOWEVA... It does speak to the original intent of that 4 page memo that context be obscured enough to sew discontent initially. The jump to "well if Mueller had a problem why didn't he say something?" was kinda legit, but as we are seeing weeks later he just went about it through official, professional channels to coffee his concerns as opposed to the media.

[brian]

I think I just saw some kind of small white nationalist/supremacist thing in downtown LV and I’m a little shook. It was just six or seven jerkoffs with American flags in Rhodesian colors in a part of downtown where you’re more apt to see slumming suburbanites like —- well, me —- but still. (If these guys wanted to provoke black people I could have directed them to several alternatives more to their liking).