The Swamp

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 10:24 am**

Ok, I had to read that. That didn't make sense to me. He isn't dissolving anything and combining power.

He's immediately putting every seat in Parliament up for election.

He ran exactly on that and he got 73% of the vote.

I was like, "I know this dude's a comedian, but this shit isn't funny."

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 11:49 am**

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 7:27 pm I can't wait to be retired so badly.

This was the thread that I read about this guy:

How do you think his SEAL team members, who are the guys who reported him, are feeling about all this?

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 11:53 am**

I don't even know. Way back when SEALs did their job and kept their mouths shut, never getting involved with politics or worrying book deals.

But our current climate of everything injects people like them into the middle of it as if they are more suited to act on behalf of the military.

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 11:59 am**

I have to imagine turning in a member of your own platoon would literally be one of the hardest things for a soldier to do, maybe even harder than engaging with the enemy (at least they're trained for that).

I guess I don't understand the rush to pardon this guy. Why not let the trial play out? Most military trials are weighted in favor of the plaintiff (this is one of the reasons why basically no one was punished at all for My Lai and why the soldiers involved in Abu Gharib got slaps on the wrist for "dereliction of duty").

If this guy is convicted in a military court, it seems likely that he's definitely guilty and should be sentence to life in a military prison.

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 12:15 pm**

brian wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:59 amI guess I don't understand the rush to pardon this guy.

I take it as a message to the type of person who would fight on the side of a dictator. Legit one of the worst things that's happened under this admin.

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 12:27 pm**

mister d wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:15 pm
brian wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:59 amI guess I don't understand the rush to pardon this guy.
I take it as a message to the type of person who would fight on the side of a dictator. Legit one of the worst things that's happened under this admin.

I think it’s as simple as that Trump is a vicious racist and Islamophobe who truly does not think there’s anything wrong with slaughtering civilians in the Muslim world. Didn’t he explicitly say during the campaign that we should kill the innocent family members of terrorism suspects? Also, he’s repeatedly shown that his default approach to politics is to fall back on racism against Latinos or Muslims.

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 12:32 pm**

This 100%

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 4:42 pm**

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:27 pmI think it’s as simple as that Trump is a vicious racist and Islamophobe who truly does not think there’s anything wrong with slaughtering civilians in the Muslim world. Didn’t he explicitly say during the campaign that we should kill the innocent family members of terrorism suspects? Also, he’s repeatedly shown that his default approach to politics is to fall back on racism against Latinos or Muslims.

I think so, too. It's the same mentality as bemoaning the fact that cops are no longer supposed to slam black kids' heads into the door frame when putting them in a squad car. Or bemoaning the fact that those five kids in Central Park weren't getting executed.

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 6:35 pm**

Posted: **Mon May 20, 2019 6:36 pm**

That is amazing!

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 10:28 am**

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 11:01 am**

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 6:35 pm

Garland is the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, but that is mostly an administrative position. Cases are assigned to random panels of three judges in the order they are filed. So there's no reason to think he would get the case.

(Plus, I think if the case were assigned to him, he'd probably have to recuse.)

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am**

Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 11:43 am**

A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.

Yeah, I doubt he'd have to recuse, but it's pretty unlikely he'd be named to the panel that hears the appeal though like Steve said.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:34 pm**

brian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:43 am
A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.
Yeah, I doubt he'd have to recuse, but it's pretty unlikely he'd be named to the panel that hears the appeal though like Steve said.

You don't think his impartiality could reasonably be called into question? I certainly do. The Republican Party fucked him over. I can't imagine he doesn't want to fuck them back.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:47 pm**

I mean ...

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:48 pm**

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:34 pm
brian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:43 am
A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.
Yeah, I doubt he'd have to recuse, but it's pretty unlikely he'd be named to the panel that hears the appeal though like Steve said.
You don't think his impartiality could reasonably be called into question? I certainly do. The Republican Party fucked him over. I can't imagine he doesn't want to fuck them back.

I suppose that's a matter of possible debate, but federal judges are assumed to be impartial regardless of the circumstances of a case and you know as well it would be very uncommon/unlikely to successfully question a judge's integrity if the judge elects not to recuse themselves. Gay judges hear cases about gay marriage and black judges hear cases about civil rights. It would be hard to see how this is any different. Like someone said, it's not like Trump specifically had anything to do with Merrick Garland. By the rationale that he feels aggrieved at the Republican Party it would be impossible for him to hear almost any case that might come up in his court.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 12:49 pm**

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:34 pm
brian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:43 am
A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.
Yeah, I doubt he'd have to recuse, but it's pretty unlikely he'd be named to the panel that hears the appeal though like Steve said.
You don't think his impartiality could reasonably be called into question? I certainly do. The Republican Party fucked him over. I can't imagine he doesn't want to fuck them back.

So a DC Circuit Appeals Court Judge should have to recuse himself from every case with political implications? That's a very steep burden. Sure, if he rules against Trump some people will cry foul, but a majority of cases in the DC Circuit could have an argument made the Republicans would prefer one outcome, and Garland is getting revenge. Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself on a case that his wife served on the Board of one of the parties in the case.

I've seen dozens of people celebrate that this case is before Garland's Circuit, but Garland isn't some Liberal messiah who will deliver us from Trump. It seems like Liberals keep latching on to saviors, but Garland is a center-right Judge with integrity. I expect he will follow his interpretation of the law, and not serve any Liberal agendas.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:22 pm**

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:49 pm
Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:34 pm
brian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:43 am
A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.
Yeah, I doubt he'd have to recuse, but it's pretty unlikely he'd be named to the panel that hears the appeal though like Steve said.
You don't think his impartiality could reasonably be called into question? I certainly do. The Republican Party fucked him over. I can't imagine he doesn't want to fuck them back.
So a DC Circuit Appeals Court Judge should have to recuse himself from every case with political implications? That's a very steep burden. Sure, if he rules against Trump some people will cry foul, but a majority of cases in the DC Circuit could have an argument made the Republicans would prefer one outcome, and Garland is getting revenge. Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself on a case that his wife served on the Board of one of the parties in the case.

I've seen dozens of people celebrate that this case is before Garland's Circuit, but Garland isn't some Liberal messiah who will deliver us from Trump. It seems like Liberals keep latching on to saviors, but Garland is a center-right Judge with integrity. I expect he will follow his interpretation of the law, and not serve any Liberal agendas.

Not every case with "political implications." But a case that goes to the very heart of the balance of power between the Republicans and Democrats.

The vast, vast majority of cases have no significant political implications. And most of the cases with political implications don't directly involve the political actors themselves.

Suppose a case went before Garland where Mitch McConnell was one of the parties. I think recusal would clearly be required. It's a very small step from McConnell to Trump.

The fact that Republican Supreme Court Justices don't follow these rules doesn't mean that Merrick Garland won't, or shouldn't.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:36 pm**

Is there precedent for self-recusal over perception of political bias versus actual conflict of interest or would this just be caving to the right (probably now and in the future)? I can just imagine how quickly "GARLAND MUST RECUSE!" would turn to "if Garland recused over such a weak connection, how can _______ not recuse over _______???"

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm**

I guess my thought is if he were one of the ones to hear it, the GOP will absolutely call for his recusal. And he should refuse, stating that with so little time before the next election, it is imperative that the court makes a decision on this president before the end of his term. Also, recusing after GOP complains will look like and be touted as a huge win by the GOP.

ETA: I know it lacks a "lame duck" aspect, but to insinuate as much would be petty and fun.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm**

If he recuses himself it'll probably be because he doesn't want the drama more than some moral standard of duty.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:44 pm**

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:32 pm This 100%

So surely Trump must have some high level military advising him on these War Criminal pardons, right?

...Never mind...

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:46 pm**

Pete Hegseth is the epitome of the worst traits a veteran can ever have. He's a level of human dogshit exactly no one should ever associate with.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:51 pm**

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:22 pm
The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:49 pm
Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 12:34 pm
brian wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:43 am
A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 11:36 am Why would he have to recuse? The Trump Admin didn't keep him from his seat.
Yeah, I doubt he'd have to recuse, but it's pretty unlikely he'd be named to the panel that hears the appeal though like Steve said.
You don't think his impartiality could reasonably be called into question? I certainly do. The Republican Party fucked him over. I can't imagine he doesn't want to fuck them back.
So a DC Circuit Appeals Court Judge should have to recuse himself from every case with political implications? That's a very steep burden. Sure, if he rules against Trump some people will cry foul, but a majority of cases in the DC Circuit could have an argument made the Republicans would prefer one outcome, and Garland is getting revenge. Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself on a case that his wife served on the Board of one of the parties in the case.

I've seen dozens of people celebrate that this case is before Garland's Circuit, but Garland isn't some Liberal messiah who will deliver us from Trump. It seems like Liberals keep latching on to saviors, but Garland is a center-right Judge with integrity. I expect he will follow his interpretation of the law, and not serve any Liberal agendas.
Not every case with "political implications." But a case that goes to the very heart of the balance of power between the Republicans and Democrats.

The vast, vast majority of cases have no significant political implications. And most of the cases with political implications don't directly involve the political actors themselves.

Suppose a case went before Garland where Mitch McConnell was one of the parties. I think recusal would clearly be required. It's a very small step from McConnell to Trump.

The fact that Republican Supreme Court Justices don't follow these rules doesn't mean that Merrick Garland won't, or shouldn't.

If a case came before Garland that directly involved McConnell, I would think he should recuse. In this case, there is no connection between Garland and Trump or Trump's businesses. If Garland recused for this, the GOP would call for all Dem-appointed Judges to recuse on everything.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 2:56 pm**

A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm I guess my thought is if he were one of the ones to hear it, the GOP will absolutely call for his recusal. And he should refuse, stating that with so little time before the next election, it is imperative that the court makes a decision on this president before the end of his term. Also, recusing after GOP complains will look like and be touted as a huge win by the GOP.

ETA: I know it lacks a "lame duck" aspect, but to insinuate as much would be petty and fun.

He'd recuse himself before anyone even knew his name came up in the lottery. It happens all the time.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 3:21 pm**

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:56 pm
A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:39 pm I guess my thought is if he were one of the ones to hear it, the GOP will absolutely call for his recusal. And he should refuse, stating that with so little time before the next election, it is imperative that the court makes a decision on this president before the end of his term. Also, recusing after GOP complains will look like and be touted as a huge win by the GOP.

ETA: I know it lacks a "lame duck" aspect, but to insinuate as much would be petty and fun.
He'd recuse himself before anyone even knew his name came up in the lottery. It happens all the time.

Steve you gotta get over this "people should do the right thing" bent!

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 3:30 pm**

People should do the right thing for those who would do the right thing in turn or for those without power. That's why you don't defend Franken but would defend recusal calls against Garland.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2019 10:52 pm**

(Choosing not to audit.)

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 9:14 am**

Under mounting pressure from House Democrats, Pelosi holds pivotal impeachment meeting

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 am**

mister d wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:52 pm

(Choosing not to audit.)

The parallels with Watergate have been there in pretty stark relief the whole time. The issue is that with Watergate, the tapes came out and forced everyone's hand. With this batch of electeds, you'd need the pee tape or something of similar magnitude to move the needle. These guys are 1000x more corrupt. The Mueller Report lays out dozens of impeachable offenses and these fuckholes are fully supporting an AG that wants to investigate the investigators.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 9:41 am**

If Fox News existed at the time of Watergate then Nixon wouldn't have resigned.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 9:48 am**

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 9:41 am If Fox News existed at the time of Watergate then Nixon wouldn't have resigned.

Probably not. It helps to have your own Pravda to help germinate mis-direction/information, deflect and hell, even propose new courses of action.

What a warped time we're in.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 10:16 am**

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 9:41 am If Fox News existed at the time of Watergate then Nixon wouldn't have resigned.

That was Roger Ailes' inspiration. He worked for Nixon, and his idea was to create "GOP TV" to help formulate a better media image for Nixon, because he came across so poorly on TV. Then after Watergate, Ailes wanted to create a propaganda machine to make sure they could alter the media narrative.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 10:59 am**

The percentage of the country that watches Fox News is pretty immaterial overall, no? Hannity is Fox's top rated show at 3.3MM; if you pretend that's actually like 3x as many with people not tuning in every night, its still just like 4% of american adults.

Now if you're talking about the overall effect of Fox on the news normalizing the party's actions ...

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 11:12 am**

mister d wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 10:59 am The percentage of the country that watches Fox News is pretty immaterial overall, no? Hannity is Fox's top rated show at 3.3MM; if you pretend that's actually like 3x as many with people not tuning in every night, its still just like 4% of american adults.

Now if you're talking about the overall effect of Fox on the news normalizing the party's actions ...

But they still often drive the narrative, especially when they provide talking points and "issues" that are echoed by members of Congress and the white house. I've heard many stories on NPR and debate questions which were initially promoted by the Fox News machine.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 11:35 am**

Mister D, you're greatly discrediting social media shares of segments from Fox News and the Conservative Outrage Machine Media organizations like OANN, The Blaze..etc.

And the bedrock of Conservative Rage in AM radio with Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh...etc. have been seeping into the public consciousness for the past couple decades.

I promise you, 18 year old me living in Shreveport with the Conservative types that joined the military were absolutely propagandized be talk radio. They sucked Bush's cock at every turn. Then when social media came about at the beginning of Obama, that hysteria manifested the Outage Organizations. So once you have Clinton v Trump in 2016 it was the perfect storm. Some milquetoast schmuck like Jeb or Mitt (Christ, look at their names, ffs) isn't going to work when Trump was the natural evolution. He was the singular intersection of the idiocy of all hysterical media and the White Victimhood Complex of the voting base dying to be recognized.

Fox News is the major league. All others are the minors. But they certainly call up conspiracy theories from time to time to please the base.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 12:01 pm**

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 11:35 am Mister D, you're greatly discrediting social media shares of segments from Fox News and the Conservative Outrage Machine Media organizations like OANN, The Blaze..etc.

And the bedrock of Conservative Rage in AM radio with Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh...etc. have been seeping into the public consciousness for the past couple decades.

I promise you, 18 year old me living in Shreveport with the Conservative types that joined the military were absolutely propagandized be talk radio. They sucked Bush's cock at every turn. Then when social media came about at the beginning of Obama, that hysteria manifested the Outage Organizations. So once you have Clinton v Trump in 2016 it was the perfect storm. Some milquetoast schmuck like Jeb or Mitt (Christ, look at their names, ffs) isn't going to work when Trump was the natural evolution. He was the singular intersection of the idiocy of all hysterical media and the White Victimhood Complex of the voting base dying to be recognized.

Fox News is the major league. All others are the minors. But they certainly call up conspiracy theories from time to time to please the base.

Completely agree with everything you said, just wanted to add that Fox served as an anchor for the GOP to formulate their talking points and keep everyone on an identical message. It's easy for Congressmen to all perpetuate the same lie when Fox is running the message on a loop with 6 different "personalities" repeating the same trope. Fox started 20 years ago convincing their viewers that all MSM sources were Liberal propaganda, which set the table for Trump to label all criticism as fake news.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 12:22 pm**

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 12:01 pm
Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 11:35 am Mister D, you're greatly discrediting social media shares of segments from Fox News and the Conservative Outrage Machine Media organizations like OANN, The Blaze..etc.

And the bedrock of Conservative Rage in AM radio with Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh...etc. have been seeping into the public consciousness for the past couple decades.

I promise you, 18 year old me living in Shreveport with the Conservative types that joined the military were absolutely propagandized be talk radio. They sucked Bush's cock at every turn. Then when social media came about at the beginning of Obama, that hysteria manifested the Outage Organizations. So once you have Clinton v Trump in 2016 it was the perfect storm. Some milquetoast schmuck like Jeb or Mitt (Christ, look at their names, ffs) isn't going to work when Trump was the natural evolution. He was the singular intersection of the idiocy of all hysterical media and the White Victimhood Complex of the voting base dying to be recognized.

Fox News is the major league. All others are the minors. But they certainly call up conspiracy theories from time to time to please the base.
Completely agree with everything you said, just wanted to add that Fox served as an anchor for the GOP to formulate their talking points and keep everyone on an identical message. It's easy for Congressmen to all perpetuate the same lie when Fox is running the message on a loop with 6 different "personalities" repeating the same trope. Fox started 20 years ago convincing their viewers that all MSM sources were Liberal propaganda, which set the table for Trump to label all criticism as fake news.

Ultimately, this is why I don't think Mueller testifying, or impeachment/inquiry hearings, will have much more of an impact than the Mueller Report. Millions of people will be told that witness testimony was great for the President, millions more will be told it proved the President committed crimes, and even more millions will throw up their hands and bemoan all the partisan bickering.

And three weeks later, all the hearings will be forgotten.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2019 1:22 pm**

The Swamp

Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House