Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Knife]

And, unlike Clinton who got impeached for a blow job, there are real crimes here.

[The Romulan Republic]

And, unlike Clinton who got impeached for a blow job, there are real crimes here.

In point of fact, Clinton was impeached for perjury about a blow job. But still not as bad as Trump's obstruction, violation of the emoluments clause, and violation of campaign finance law, just for a start.

[The Romulan Republic]

Congressman Schiff is considering fining Trump officials 25,000 dollars for every day they fail to comply with subpoenas:

https://www.axios.com/dems-flirt-with-f ... 43372.html

[Ralin]

Congressman Schiff is considering fining Trump officials 25,000 dollars for every day they fail to comply with subpoenas:

https://www.axios.com/dems-flirt-with-f ... 43372.html

Because the people who haven't been arrested for not complying with Congress's subpoenas will totally pay fines because Congress says to?

[The Romulan Republic]

Congressman Schiff is considering fining Trump officials 25,000 dollars for every day they fail to comply with subpoenas:

https://www.axios.com/dems-flirt-with-f ... 43372.html

Because the people who haven't been arrested for not complying with Congress's subpoenas will totally pay fines because Congress says to?

I mean, if they refuse to pay the fines, couldn't the courts order their assets seized to pay them? Or even imprison them until they pay up, theoretically.

[Ralin]

I mean, if they refuse to pay the fines, couldn't the courts order their assets seized to pay them? Or even imprison them until they pay up, theoretically.

If they can do that then why wouldn't they just skip the middleman and arrest them now?

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, if they refuse to pay the fines, couldn't the courts order their assets seized to pay them? Or even imprison them until they pay up, theoretically.

If they can do that then why wouldn't they just skip the middleman and arrest them now?

Because it makes their case look stronger if they show that they made every possible effort to reach a reasonable solution first.

[bilateralrope]

Congressman Schiff is considering fining Trump officials 25,000 dollars for every day they fail to comply with subpoenas:

https://www.axios.com/dems-flirt-with-f ... 43372.html

So, how many weeks will it take before the fine it large enough to force a bankruptcy ?

[The Romulan Republic]

Congressman Schiff is considering fining Trump officials 25,000 dollars for every day they fail to comply with subpoenas:

https://www.axios.com/dems-flirt-with-f ... 43372.html

So, how many weeks will it take before the fine it large enough to force a bankruptcy ?

Depends on the individual. Some of Trump's cabinet are literally billionaires (though IIRC Barr isn't). They'd have to be fined millions a day to hurt them more than defying Dickless Donald would.

[FireNexus]

The entire Republican Party lashing out at Burr is a little weird. Why are they so worried about his subpoena? He informed trump of the fucking FBI investigation, and controls the committee. What has them so spooked by this?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I honestly don't think they have a motivation more nuanced than acting out of spite for the Democrats.

[The Romulan Republic]

The entire Republican Party lashing out at Burr is a little weird. Why are they so worried about his subpoena? He informed trump of the fucking FBI investigation, and controls the committee. What has them so spooked by this?

Because NO deviation is permitted from absolutely loyalty to the Fuhrer.

[bilateralrope]

The entire Republican Party lashing out at Burr is a little weird. Why are they so worried about his subpoena? He informed trump of the fucking FBI investigation, and controls the committee. What has them so spooked by this?

Because NO deviation is permitted from absolutely loyalty to the Fuhrer.

That. Or they are worried about the questions the Democrats on the committee will ask.

[Knife]

The entire Republican Party lashing out at Burr is a little weird. Why are they so worried about his subpoena? He informed trump of the fucking FBI investigation, and controls the committee. What has them so spooked by this?

Because NO deviation is permitted from absolutely loyalty to the Fuhrer.

That. Or they are worried about the questions the Democrats on the committee will ask.

We're still pretty far out, but it is getting closer to a bunch of Senate elections in 2020 as well. It will stat to put some pressure on some Republicans. Not all, but some.

[The Romulan Republic]

Things are heating up: Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler is evidently sick of Pelosi dragging her feet, and has reportedly privately challenged her to hold a contempt vote on Barr and a vote on beginning an impeachment Inquiry as soon as the House returns from their current break, specifically proposing June 4th. as the date for a vote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4454 ... tempt-vote

There is growing daylight between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) over the best strategy for combating a Trump administration that is flouting a flurry of congressional subpoenas at nearly every turn.

The pair of powerful Democrats clashed in recent days over whether to launch impeachment proceedings against President Trump and how soon to hold a contempt vote against Attorney General William Barr.

Nadler, spurred by frustrated Judiciary Committee members, has been privately pushing leadership for both an impeachment inquiry, and a contempt vote immediately after lawmakers return from their weeklong Memorial Day recess.

Pelosi is still urging a go-slow approach, concerned that Democrats have not yet swayed public opinion about why such aggressive tactics are necessary. The Speaker is also pointing to a string of court victories over the Trump administration and business entities, bolstering Democrats’ arguments that the law is on their side as they methodically probe the president.

The Judiciary Committee “has to make a stronger public case for moving forward with contempt in a way that would persuade the public, that is disciplined enough to persuade the public, and box in the Republicans and really elevate their level of complicity in the president’s wrongdoing and his campaign of obstruction,” said a senior Democratic source tracking the fight playing out in the 235-member caucus.

“Trump has just given us a gift and we have to use it to our advantage,” the source said. More public outreach “needs to be done before you take a vote on contempt or impeachment.”

In a closed-door emergency caucus meeting this week, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a Pelosi ally, made a point many saw as pushing back at the pressure from Nadler and others on Judiciary, who are increasingly frustrated by the administration’s stonewalling.

Welch stood up and said that while Democrats may eventually have to move forward with impeachment, they should not do so just because of pique within the Judiciary Committee.

It seems it’s “just the Judiciary Committee that’s getting dissed” by the Trump administration, Welch said, according to a source in the room. Democrats, he added, cannot let that dictate the actions of the entire Congress.

Pelosi has consistently sought to tamp down calls for impeaching, believing the party is better off competing with Trump in the 2020 election over healthcare and other issues.

Polls bolster her position. Only 28 percent of Americans said starting impeachment proceedings should be a top priority for Congress, according to a recent Morning Consult/Politico poll.

Nadler, under pressure to show his committee is winning its war with Trump, has assumed a more aggressive posture in recent days.

In a private meeting with Pelosi and her top lieutenants this week, Nadler explained that the majority of his committee members were clamoring for an impeachment inquiry against Trump and that he, too, thought this was the best course of action now, sources familiar with the meeting said.

But Pelosi and others rebuffed him — a development Nadler later reported back to Democrats on his Judiciary panel during in a separate, closed-door gathering, committee members said.

Nadler has also challenged Democratic leaders on moving quickly to a contempt vote on the floor for Barr, who is refusing to testify to his committee.

During a Democratic whip’s meeting, he said the House should vote on June 4, according to Budget Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who attended that meeting.

Top Democrats were surprised that Nadler was floating a specific date when Pelosi and others had not yet settled on a strategy. Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who’s panel is nicknamed the “Speaker’s committee” because it works so closely with the Speaker, told The Hill it would be “odd” for lawmakers to vote on contempt as their first act after being away from Washington for 12 days.

The broader 235-member caucus needs to have more debate and discussion before taking such a serious step, he said, adding that Pelosi had not signed off on the June 4 vote.

Pelosi's office declined to comment, but the Speaker told colleagues this week she has “great admiration and respect” for Nadler.

Nadler declined to comment about the contempt vote or impeachment as he left the Capitol for the long recess. His aides declined to comment for this story.

But appearing on MSNBC on Thursday night, Nadler confirmed earlier reporting by the Washington Post that he had pressed Pelosi to act more swiftly on starting impeachment proceedings.

“I urged the Speaker to speed things up and consider an impeachment inquiry,” Nadler told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, though he conceded that Democrats’ recent court victories had made his argument for impeachment “much weaker.”

The 14-term New York lawmaker is backed by an overwhelming majority of his fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) called it a “good sign” that Nadler is aggressively pushing for a contempt vote on June 4. The House plans to adjourn again on June 5 to allow for lawmakers to fly to France to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy.

“We have to work with urgency. You can’t let people ignore subpoenas, obstruct justice, obstruct the American people getting the truth,” Dean told The Hill. “We have to act with the urgency that that demands.”

“I think the right strategy is to move on all of it as quickly as possible,” added Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), another Judiciary member. Trump is “melting down and the world is starting to see that he just doesn’t intend to allow Congress to do its job; he just simply refuses to accept that there’s a separate and co-equal branch of government at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

That sentiment for speedy action is also shared by many fellow Judiciary members, including Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Val Demings (D-Fla.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.); Lieu and Raskin are lower-ranking members of Pelosi’s leadership team.

“I support doing [contempt] at the earliest possible date,” Raskin, who also serves on the Rules panel, told The Hill.

But Judiciary Democrats are not unanimous. Some are deferring to the strategy detailed by Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) this month: wait until Democrats have identified a group of individuals who are defying congressional subpoenas, then vote on multiple contempt citations all at once in one big package. That would also clear floor time so Democrats could pursue other legislative priorities.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a Judiciary member who has called for the start of an impeachment inquiry, described waiting on contempt as a “strategic move.” He pointed to other House committees that are also pushing for documents and weighing contempt citations for those refusing to honor subpoenas.

Raskin, a former constitutional law professor and unabashed liberal, downplayed the disagreements over impeachment and contempt as simply a family discussion about the best way to proceed.

“The whole caucus is in a discussion about which strategy is going to move us forward to counter the lawlessness of the administration,” Raskin said in a phone interview with The Hill on Friday.

“I don’t see us in any way divided or polarized,” he continued, adding that “all of the tools in constitutional toolkit are on the table now.”

Note that Nadler is not some fringe newcomer like Ocasio-Cortez or Tlaib. He is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and a 14-term Congressman.

Also, Pelosi and her people haven't "settled on a strategy" yet? If that's true, that's fucking pathetic. Carefully building your case and considering your actions is one thing. That's prudent, especially when the stakes are this high.

Dithering, and not having a plan, is something else entirely.

[Tribble]

So, here is the latest "surprise" move from Mitch McConnell:

In reversal from 2016, McConnell says he would fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy in 2020

(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs during next year's presidential election, he would work to confirm a nominee appointed by President Donald Trump.
That's a move that is in sharp contrast to his decision to block President Barack Obama's nominee to the high court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.
At the time, he cited the right of the voters in the presidential election to decide whether a Democrat or a Republican would fill that opening, a move that infuriated Democrats.
Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky, McConnell was asked by an attendee, "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, "Oh, we'd fill it," triggering loud laughter from the audience.

David Popp, a spokesman for McConnell, said the difference between now and three years ago, when McConnell famously blocked Judge Merrick Garland's ascension to the Supreme Court, is that at that time the White House was controlled by a Democrat and the Senate by Republicans. This time, both are controlled by the GOP.
McConnell's remarks were viewed by CNN on the website of WPSD TV in Paducah.
McConnell hinted at this position during an October appearance on Fox News Sunday when host Chris Wallace pressed the senator on whether he would fill a vacancy should one occur in 2020.
"We'll see whether there's a vacancy in 2020," McConnell replied without directly answering what he would do.
McConnell has made the confirmation of federal judges a key part of his Senate legacy and a highlight of his stump speech in Kentucky where he is running for a seventh term.
At the lunch, he said overhauling the judiciary is the best way to have a "long-lasting positive impact" because "everything else changes."

"I remember during the tax bill, people were agonizing over whether one part of the tax bill was permanent or not. I said, 'Look, the only way the tax bill is permanent depends on the next election,' " McConnell said. "Because people have different views about taxes in the two parties and they approach it differently when they get in power."
"What can't be undone is a life time appointment to a young man or woman who believes in the quaint notion that the job of the judge is to follow the law," he said. "That's the most important thing we've done in the country, which cannot be undone."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics ... index.html


Well its obviously not a surprise to anyone that's exactly what McConnell plans to do. What I find interesting is how he is confident enough to say so openly, and (if you watch the video) with such an obvious sense of self-satisfaction and smugness. All that Democrat whining and outrage must be music in his ears!

[The Romulan Republic]

A conspiracy theorist might think that he has reason to believe there will be a vacancy in the next year and a half...

When the Democrats retake power, we're going to have to either stack the court, or start impeaching Justices for being Trump appointees. I'm honestly not sure which option is worse, but one or the other. Because there has to be a penalty for this flagrant abuse.

[Tribble]

A conspiracy theorist might think that he has reason to believe there will be a vacancy in the next year and a half...

When the Democrats retake power, we're going to have to either stack the court, or start impeaching Justices for being Trump appointees. I'm honestly not sure which option is worse, but one or the other. Because there has to be a penalty for this flagrant abuse.

Well yes, IIRC one of the Republican appointed judges was thinking of retiring next year, so the Republicans obviously want to be the ones to replace him.

Expect Republicans to refuse to appoint judges if they retain the Senate and a Democrat wins the White House.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder if at some point, if we hold the Presidency while they held the Senate long enough, we will get to a point where there is no Supreme Court, because all the Justices have died or retired with the Republicans refusing to confirm any Democrat-appointed replacement.

[Tribble]

I wonder if at some point, if we hold the Presidency while they held the Senate long enough, we will get to a point where there is no Supreme Court, because all the Justices have died or retired with the Republicans refusing to confirm any Democrat-appointed replacement.

They’d probably prefer that over another Democrat being appointed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democratic House Whip says he believes the House will impeach Trump, but they want to build their case first:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... p-democrat

House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn predicted Sunday that the House of Representatives will impeach President Donald Trump — just not yet.

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Clyburn said House Democrats are moving methodically to build the type of impeachment case against the president that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called “ironclad.”

“We’re trying to take our time and do this right,” Clyburn said. “I don’t see this as being out of whack with what people’s aspirations are.”

When asked by Tapper if he felt that Trump will eventually face impeachment, Clyburn did not mince words.

“Yes, that’s exactly what I feel,” he said.

Although a number of Clyburn’s colleagues in the House have long advocated for impeachment, those calling for impeachment gained new energy last week after special counsel Robert Mueller said in a press conference that his investigation had not cleared Trump of obstruction of justice. His report, in fact, details several instances in which the Trump administration may have obstructed his federal investigation.

While Mueller did not clear Trump of obstruction, his report also did not recommend the Department of Justice pursue a case against the president, which, in essence, punted the question of Trump’s criminality to Congress.

Events proceeding Mueller’s press conference also led to increased fervor for impeachment. Recently, the White House instructed Don McGahn, former White House counsel, to ignore a Congressional subpoena. Early in May, a House committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after he refused to release an unredacted Mueller report; the vote has yet to go to the full House.

Now Democrats outside of Washington are putting pressure on their representatives to begin formal impeachment proceedings. California Democrats met Speaker Nancy Pelosi with chants of “Impeach!” at the party’s convention in her hometown of San Francisco Saturday. Pelosi acknowledged the growing frustration from the public on the House’s seeming inaction.

“We will go where the facts lead us,” Pelosi said. “President Trump will be held accountable for his actions — in the Congress, in the courts and in the court of public opinion.”

Across the country, Democrats are facing increasing pressure to impeach President Trump at town halls, according to a report from The Hill’s Cristina Marcos.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who represents a swing district in Arizona, met with frustrated constituents who asked her why the Mueller report wasn’t enough on its own to impeach Trump.

“I think it is,” Kirkpatrick told them. “I know it’s a little frustrating because people want something to happen right away.”

Kirkpatrick’s colleague, Rep. Donna Shalala, who represents a swing district in Florida, likewise met with impassioned calls for impeachment.

“I understand what you guys are doing with these bills, and that’s great,” one constituent told Shalala. “But you can’t fix the roof if the house is on fire, so it’s not acceptable that we’re ignoring this.”

Democrats maintain that it is important to carefully gather evidence and conduct investigations so the public sees impeachment as due process and not a political witch-hunt.

“If the public ever feels that we are being political with this, we will have done a tremendous harm to the country, to the Constitution, and to the people that we are sworn to serve,” Clyburn said Sunday.

According to a CNN poll, 76 percent of Democrats support impeaching Trump.

As questions about potential obstruction from Trump pile up, Democrats remain fearful of the divisiveness of an impeachment trial. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen reported, Democratic leaders don’t just worry that the Republican-controlled Senate would kill impeachment proceedings, but that voters might punish Democrats in 2020:

As Vox’s Ezra Klein pointed out, “The founders could have made the impeachment process legal or automatic. Instead, they made it political and discretionary.”

Even though Trump’s 42 percent public approval rating is extremely low, Pelosi and the majority of her caucus only want to move toward impeachment if there’s something so bad that Republicans can also get on board. They remember when Republicans who impeached President Bill Clinton in the 1990s reaped the political consequences in the 1998 midterms, when they lost seats in the House and made few gains in the Senate. Historians later concluded that backlash against Republicans for Clinton’s impeachment resulted in the GOP’s weak showing in the midterms.

That history isn’t lost on Democrats, especially as they stare down a pivotal presidential election in 2020.

“We also have lessons from the Clinton impeachment that when you do impeachment for primarily political reasons, that also causes problems for the country,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told Vox. “This is not something the country can enter lightly, but by the same token, the country cannot have a president that undermines the rule of law.”

A possible alternative to impeachment is formally censuring the president, which would require a simple majority in the House, but would not remove Trump from office. A censure resolution would likely face difficulties passing the Republican controlled Senate, however. Should Congress decide not to act, legal proceedings against Trump could also be pursued once he leaves office.

[Dominus Atheos]

So how much do people in the mainstream and on the left know about the "investigate the investigators" meme that's on the right right now? I make a point to dig into the alt-right bubble as often as possible, and this is getting concerning. Especially because I don't really see any warnings about it in mainstream or leftwing circles, but I do see a lot of dog-whistles by rightwing figures being briefly mentioned and then passed over like everyone else doesn't understand what they mean.

I'm wrong right? Everyone understands what the outcome Barr is shooting for with his "investigate the investigators" kabuki theatre investigation that has been officially started, right?

[The Romulan Republic]

Its being reported on, but not being taken seriously enough. I'm not sure any level of concern could be enough. This is literally the sitting President talking about charging law enforcement officials (and others) with Treason (a death penalty offense traditionally reserved for those who betray the US in a war) for investigating him, and the Attorney General willingly aiding him in it. This is probably the most deadly attack on democracy and the rule of law in America since the South tried to rebel because they were afraid they'd lose their slaves. There is no ambiguity here- this is despotism.

FYI, Roger Stone also just posted (and then quickly deleted) calling for Brennan to be hanged for treason.

I honestly think Comey, McCabe, etc. would be utterly justified at this point in taking their families, fleeing the country, and requesting political asylum on the grounds that they may be imprisoned or executed for political reasons if they remain in the US.

[Dominus Atheos]

Barr could do it, too. If he tried hard enough, he could actually arrest Comey, Mccabe and anyone else he feels like and railroad them with a show-trial in which only he is allowed to present evidence because only he has the authority to declassify any actions that they took, and he can selectively declassify only out-of-context things that make them look bad.

I'm pretty sure that when that happens, our side is going to be blindsided. So I'm warning all 10 people who read this thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Barr could do it, too. If he tried hard enough, he could actually arrest Comey, Mccabe and anyone else he feels like and railroad them with a show-trial in which only he is allowed to present evidence because only he has the authority to declassify any actions that they took, and he can selectively declassify only out-of-context things that make them look bad.

I'm pretty sure that when that happens, our side is going to be blindsided. So I'm warning all 10 people who read this thread.

Barr being allowed to selectively declassify whatever evidence he wants is just such a hideous thing on so many levels. He can potentially use it to rig a trial. He can also certainly use it to spin the media narrative.

He can also selectively declassify anything that Trump wants, say, Russia knowing about. That's right, Trump just gave Barr the authority to leak, say, any potential sources the investigation had in Russia to the Kremlin (along with the rest of the world). Legally.

Edit: What I wonder is, how will the intelligence and law enforcement agencies act if they get orders to start arresting their own for what amounts to lack of loyalty to the Fuhrer over loyalty to country. Will there be any resignations? Or more overt acts of disobedience or rebellion? Or have the people who might have done that already left or been purged, and all that's left are the people who, at the end of the day, will shrug and follow orders? Will the people Comey worked with really be okay with being parties to railroading him through a treason trial to a possible death penalty because he did his fucking job (just like they did)?