POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

I don’t know if this is just in the twitter world or if it’s all over the news too but everyone seems to be talking about Elizabeth Warren’s plan to forgive student loans. What does the 8th think?

I don’t really believe we can turn the train around here. I think the best you could hope for are incremental changes to the system. There’s truth to the stories painted by both sides. At the end of the day though I personally can’t get around the personal responsibility angle for taking on the debt (I fully acknowledge I’ve been very fortunate and that for profit schools raping the poor is maybe a different problem with a different solution). Why not just forgive all outstanding credit card debt accrued while the borrowers were between 18 and 22. They couldn’t have known better.

 

May I now be excused from answering for other 20+ year old sound bites?

Ah, well, if the Dems agree with 1996ish Lindsey Graham, and believe that Trump’s actions fit that narrative, they should move to impeach him.

I’d gently offer that a lack of possessing or absence of the perceived “qualities of office”, be it for protection of office or otherwise, is so ambiguous as to almost guarantee two things:

1. You’ll never actually impeach anyone, by that broad standard, and

2. Those same parameters + that precedent will be sufficient for any oppositional party controlling the House to attempt the same of every subsequent POTUS, and forever.

It will be a jagged blade wielded by and ham-fisted drunkard, both in this instance, and all that follow, IMO. But the Dems own the House, and such is certainly well within their rights to do. It doesn’t take a great deal of high-level analysis to see where that road will lead, should they choose to take it, but can be quickly deciphered with the simplest of arithmetic.

Luckily(?), both parties have a knack for rarely being dissuaded by the reality that the same weapons which they unleash today, will someday be used against them, in much the same fashion (see how dearly the Dems have now suffered, themselves, after they originally reduced Judicial votes to a simple majority vote in the Senate - and which directly lead to Kavanaugh’s nomination and appointment).

 

I agree it seems an oddly murky standard. But of course impeachment is a political process. And there will always be political consequences.

 

They no more have the grounds to impeach him, than they do the votes.

Even if they get it out of the House, a feat unto itself, you then want to face the math of the GOP-controlled Senate?

What does it matter if you don’t remove him - and at what will be a fantastically exorbitant and dear cost they’ll have to pay for what will inevitably end as little more than a political stunt?

I’m honestly surprised that President Trump is exercising a modicum of restraint in not openly daring them into doing it. Perhaps it won’t last, but has held up thus far. Especially given that he’s raised more donated funds than the combined total of the top 2-3 Dem candidates since the release of the Mueller Report. This would easily best that, and a windfall of donated monies to his campaign wouldn’t make the Top 25 things the Dems would be worried about, at that point, IMO.

 

Any thoughts on the legal hypothesis that Mueller determined because he could not indict that he could also not charge because he could offer no due process for the defendant as there could be no court given no indictment?

I honestly couldn’t say if it has legs or is hogwash. Basic idea is Mueller boxed himself into two possible answers. Not guilty. Not not guilty.

Collusion - Not Guilty (or exonerated)

Obstruction - Not not guilty (or not exonerated)

If Mueller does testify in front of Congress, I would personally like to see him answer the question of would it have been appropriate given legal standards as you applied them to charge the president of any offense even if presented direct evidence?

 

The People gave the Dems control of the House, and for very many and good reasons. It is well within their rights and duties to manage that majority as they see fit, and for as long as they enjoy it.

 

Dershowitz - that right wing nut job - wrote a good piece last week on the innate linking between obstruction and a non-existent criminal charge, and how even this is impacted by a Chief Executive fulfilling is constitutional duties. Can’t recall where I saw it, but it was an interesting read.

 

I am sincerely offering this:

Who gives a shit what Bob Mueller thinks, be it to charge or not to charge (any decision to charge will first have to overcome his own report)?

That decision is left at the sole discretion of the House, and which the Dems control. They don’t need Bob Mueller to decide what they want to do, or at least, they shouldn’t.

 

I am looking forward to watching them step on their [Richards] fora few more years.

 

You are right that the call is Congress’. Starr did lay out the case for impeachment but I don’t recall the form. This is trickier because this isn’t a Congressional independent counsel.

But this is a political process.

When the administration is pumping the Mueller report as saying no collusion, no obstruction (e.g., Game Over), it can impact the political consequences and therefore the political process.

In this sense, the question of could the Mueller report have charged obstruction is relevant.

You yourself asked me at least three times whether the Mueller report charged Trump with obstruction. Yes or no. Are you in the habit of asking insignificant questions that you don’t give a shit about? (Don’t answer that.....)

 

That any portion of the decision to impeach Trump might in any way be predicated on what he posts on Twitter, and how Dems view it, speaks volumes as to the substance of the matter, or lack thereof.

Mueller didn’t recommend that Trump should be charged with anything. You’re squinting to find it, but it still isn’t there.

I think you abhor the President, are slowly realizing that he’s going to be easily re-elected, and now see impeachment as the only way to prevent his second term. And that’s perfectly ok to say and admit - maybe I’d feel and want the same, were the situation reversed.

I continue to say that if the Dem-controlled House believes that he has committed an impeachable offense, they should immediately move to do so. Right now. Can’t happen quick enough, IMO.

 

The Dems are obviously like Cajuns and the French in that the crazier the normal people believe them to be, the better they like it.

They don’t understand that being “useful”, “unique”, “feels good” and “is effective” are not always - and in fact, are rarely - synonymous.

They’ll figure it out. It’s cyclical.

 

I’m not even calling for impeachment at this point. You are correct that I abhor the guy - but jumping to conclusions about the rest.

I agree Mueller neither charged or recommended charges. My question for him would be if, for any offense, and specifically obstruction, would it have been appropriate given accepted legal standards by the team to make any conclusive statement other than exoneration when it comes to the president. Specifically, did the team find it legally ace it’s me to either charge the president or to recommend charges against the president.

I am personally trying to dissect the differences between his treatment of the questions of collusion vs obstruction.

Mueller’s answers to those questions would be helpful to me. I imagine I’m not the only voter in that boat. And as you often tell me, your opinions on the matter are irrelevant to that fact.

 

I think it’s clear that you hope that Mueller will testify that he thought it impossible to recommend criminal charges of a sitting POTUS, and hence didn’t, and despite being such being warranted. That all of this is predicated on a persistent and baseless belief (hope? wish?) of Trump’s wrongdoing is self-evident, as the report’s conclusions were clear, at least to most. But it’s also predicated on Mueller’s having a fundamental lack of understanding of both the law, and his role within it, as special counsel.

He’ll soon testify, and can be asked these questions, and any others. As President Trump has steadfastly refused to assert any modicum of Executive Privilege, he’ll certainly be free to answer those questions, and almost any others.

That this doesn’t speak more strongly to you, is concerning. It’s comically amusing, but still, somewhat concerning, too. Specifically as it relates to your critical thinking skills.

And after he has testified, we’ve still not even gotten into the facts of the matter, anymore than we’ve similarly addressed the law.

I am comfortable in saying that the Dems are about to put on a great political theatre, to ratchet up and require what they think is a political toll upon Trump, while making an earnest attempt at nothing more than to fill the their sound byte index for the 2020 race.

They may not like, or can perfectly predict, how that turns out.

They don’t need Mueller, or me, or you to determine what the report says, or what they should now do about it. From a personal and political standpoint, the Dems cannot double, triple and quadruple down on Mueller and his investigation, and the sooner the better. The Dems zeal to overturn the 2016 election and to obstruct and end Trump’s term, cannot be more fully or clearly displayed, for my liking.

President Trump is less concerned by this than I am.

 

I know you think that’s clear I want a certain result or you wouldn’t keep saying it. But I think I’ve had a fair take on the report since it was issued. The different ways the two issues were treated has been a point of interest for me from my first reading. It isn’t me jumping from one branch to the net looking for something. It left me legitimately questioning why. I would like to have that answer.

The truth is I’m concerned about lasting precedent and near term political blowback and want to see a lot of caution here. Removing a president is (with a tip of the hat to Joe Biden) a big [uck fay]ing deal.

I said a long time ago that (as a matter of precedent) I was OK with the house impeaching him on a campaign finance violation but that without very clear intent (emails or recordings of him saying he wants the payoffs to happen because the information getting out would hurt him in the election) that the Senate should never convict on that. You can’t remove a president by guessing what was in his heart. However, my political answer would be different. Knowing that I don’t want a conviction, would it be worth upholding the obligation to impeach? I don’t think so.

I want to mull over a Mueller answer to my question before I move on to what I think the House should do. In a zero consequences world I’m not sold that I want an impeachment here. Had there been shreds of evidence that campaign members had knowingly colluded - and we have these questions of the president’s obstruction - then it becomes much clearer for me. But if Mueller could have recommended charges and did not paired with no evidence of collusion I don’t think I even need to get to my political reasoning before I say as a matter of precedent (protecting the institution), the House should not impeach.

If Mueller were to say that he viewed himself legally hamstrung to offer no conclusion other than exoneration , then my ‘what’s right’ view might change. But I don’t think that it changes my political answer - which is it’s not worth it.

 

Looks like the release of the Mueller report has had no positive effect on Trumps approval rating and has even hurt. Whatever that means.

 

it means nothing. folks hate libs more than they like or hate trump.

 

True

 

Because people focus on the "70% tax rate" or "$1trillion dollar debt relief" programs and instead of more moderate or centrist fixes.

 

but don't care about 0% taxes for the privileged and connected, or off budget infinite spending on other programs.