Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

Well, obstruct up to the point where they're willing to compromise, or where they set "nuke" precedents that can be used against them when they predictably get voted out of office.

"Compromise" here is basically "no, we're not going to cut trillions of future dollars of tax revenue right the fuck now so that we'll have an excuse to cut the budget by equally many trillions later this year, no, we're not going to abolish or implode entire government agencies in a matter of weeks, yes, we're going to fund things that the law says we have to fund." Things like that.

Obstruction that prevents the country from reaping the negative consequences of Republican policies is a mixed bag, because it insulates the country from those consequences at the same time that it protects us. On some level, I suspect that America as a whole needs to experience some degree of the same problems that have resulted in Kansas governor Sam Brownback having an 18% approval rating in a deeply red state.

Most Kansans are still willing to vote for Republicans after such experiences. Most Americans aren't.

So I honestly think it is necessary, in addition to being the right thing to do as the loyal-to-the-country opposition, to permit government to function while allowing the country to experience many of the negative consequences of the dominant party's policies.

I would agree if most Americans understood enough of the situation without things like the official WH and apparent GOP position on like half the shit going on and being reported is that it's "fake news". As it is I don't think a majority of Americans have enough information to even know what the fuck is really going on.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, obstruct up to the point where they're willing to compromise, or where they set "nuke" precedents that can be used against them when they predictably get voted out of office.

"Compromise" here is basically "no, we're not going to cut trillions of future dollars of tax revenue right the fuck now so that we'll have an excuse to cut the budget by equally many trillions later this year, no, we're not going to abolish or implode entire government agencies in a matter of weeks, yes, we're going to fund things that the law says we have to fund." Things like that.

Obstruction that prevents the country from reaping the negative consequences of Republican policies is a mixed bag, because it insulates the country from those consequences at the same time that it protects us. On some level, I suspect that America as a whole needs to experience some degree of the same problems that have resulted in Kansas governor Sam Brownback having an 18% approval rating in a deeply red state.

Most Kansans are still willing to vote for Republicans after such experiences. Most Americans aren't.

So I honestly think it is necessary, in addition to being the right thing to do as the loyal-to-the-country opposition, to permit government to function while allowing the country to experience many of the negative consequences of the dominant party's policies.

I think we want to be very careful about allowing the Republicans to push through their agenda, knowing it will hurt the voters (including our voters), in the hopes that it will "teach the voters a lesson" (which seems to basically be what you're saying). Not only is that both patronizing and callous, but it's going to hurt us with our own base.

A lot of the Left is very, very sick of weak, compromising Centrist Democrats. Now, I'm not saying we have to go extremist like the Tea Party- I do think we should operate within the parameters of the legal and democratic process, and that there is a place for compromise with an opposition that is prepared to negotiate in good faith (hint: a lot of Republicans aren't).

But anything that smacks of "Surrendercrats" is going to be more trouble for us than its worth, I suspect. Although we may have to reserve our political capital for the big fights at times, and the ones we can realistically hope to win (and I do think the Trump budget is one of those lines in the sand).

Otherwise, agreed.

Edited for clarity.

[Simon_Jester]

I would agree if most Americans understood enough of the situation without things like the official WH and apparent GOP position on like half the shit going on and being reported is that it's "fake news". As it is I don't think a majority of Americans have enough information to even know what the fuck is really going on.

A majority of American voters voted against Trump on election day and narrowly one despite Electoral College fuckery. Trump has been getting less popular since then, not more. The congressional Republicans- I don't know what their popularity looks like. But the squabble over trying to sink the ACA suggests that many congressional Republicans have very real concerns about their popularity for one reason or another. And some of the ones from 'purple' states appear to be honestly concerned about what happens if the ACA gets repealed and millions lose their health insurance.

In other words, they're worrying about what happens if the presently dominant faction of their own party wins. I have to assume they're worried for a reason.

As to the unaligned voters, frankly a lot of them stay out of elections because they don't think they have a dog in this fight, or because they're disgusted with both sides. The latter is something that can be fixed by nominating a candidate that does not inspire disgust (something we should do anyway). And the former is something that can be fixed by showing people otherwise. By showing them that decisions have consequences, that policy matters, and by being able to say in 2020 "are you better off now than you were four years ago" when the answer is very obviously "no."

I think we want to be very careful about allowing the Republicans to push through their agenda, knowing it will hurt the voters (including our voters), in the hopes that it will "teach the voters a lesson" (which seems to basically be what you're saying). Not only is that both patronizing and callous, but it's going to hurt us with our own base.

A lot of the Left is very, very sick of weak, compromising Centrist Democrats. Now, I'm not saying we have to go extremist like the Tea Party- I do think we should operate within the parameters of the legal and democratic process, and that there is a place for compromise with an opposition that is prepared to negotiate in good faith (hint: a lot of Republicans aren't).

But anything that smacks of "Surrendercrats" is going to be more trouble for us than its worth, I suspect. Although we may have to reserve our political capital for the big fights at times, and the ones we can realistically hope to win (and I do think the Trump budget is one of those lines in the sand)...

I know I just pushed some of your triggers and I recognize what you're saying and appreciate your restraint in not trying to dump on me for being a weakling or whatever. My point is basically this.

I think the Democrats should reserve frantic last-ditch obstructionism for the really toxic stuff, and the stuff that may be irreversible or near-irreversible. The Gorsuch nomination was a good example of the latter. Repealing the ACA is the former. Merely undermining the ACA could fall under the former category, depending on details; it does not fall under the latter.

But I'm saying this for two reasons.

One: It is a normal part of how American politics is supposed to work that the dominant party gets to set an agenda and pursue it. The loyal opposition (loyal to the country, not to the current leader personally) will try to resist and limit the success of this agenda insofar as they consider it dangerous, but they do not shut down the state as a result. If the voters do not like the consequences, they will begin to vote accordingly and future public policies will change as a result.

I am not saying this purely to be callous. There are excellent examples of why this can happen.

For instance, consider the Vietnam War. By 1972, opposition to continued US presence in Vietnam was so great that even pro-war politicians had to at least pretend to be planning to end the war. In the 1976 and subsequent elections, "Vietnam syndrome" was a huge force pushing against allowing the US to become heavily, permanently entangled in any military adventures. And this sentiment remained in play at least up through 2000; Bush was only able to ignore it because the September 11th attacks shook up the Etch-a-Sketch so drastically. So for roughly a quarter-century, Americans remained on the whole opposed to wars of foreign occupation, because it had been tried and failed. The lesson was not learned permanently, but it was learned for a long enough time that there are one hell of a lot of Gen-Xers who didn't have to get drafted or traumatized or maimed or killed as a result of it.

Or consider the Depression. In the same way, the experience of Americans during the Depression caused a massive shift in our attitudes toward government involvement in the economy and government aid to the citizenry. We'd seen what it looked like when the government left the economy unregulated and didn't do much for poor citizens. It wasn't pretty. FDR was our only three-term president for precisely this reason; he was widely loved and trusted by Americans who saw him as being willing to make the government look out for them. And members of the opposing party in most parts of the country had to make concessions to that as well. It was not until roughly 35-40 years later that any serious opposition arose to "big government" and its social programs for the poor, and not until roughly 45-50 years later that anyone was able to rise to high federal office on a platform of "small government, less help for the poor."

So in general, yes, it is a normal part of the electoral process for bad things to happen, bad ideas to be revealed, and for the public to swing away from those bad ideas. I would argue that "small government" has flourished this long in the post-Reagan era as a political doctrine in America in large part because much of the nation has been shielded from it.

Two: As noted, political capital is an issue. I want the Republicans to have an incentive to actually start thinking in terms of "THIS is a bill we can get passed without overriding a filibuster, THIS is a bill we can't get passed." Historically they have not needed to do this in the recent past.

Under Obama it didn't matter because Obama would veto any stupid bills they passed anyway, so they could afford to play stupid childish games. They're not accustomed to it actually mattering what they try to pass and having to think seriously about whether this hill in particular is the one they want to die on. Because there was never any danger, no reputations were harmed in the past if the bills didn't pass. Blame Obama!

I think I recall at least one occasion on which the House Democrats managed to embarrass the Republican majority by just abstaining from votes on a budget the House Republicans wanted to propose but didn't actually want passed... Because suddenly Republicans had to go "oh crap wait this could PASS?" and start backpedaling. Could be wrong, I remember being told about it.

And I think one of the big fundamental reasons their ACA repeal attempt failed was because they're used to playing politics with (metaphorical) paintball guns instead of live ammunition. They're not used to having to actually sit down and count the votes and think "When the chips are down, who will really back us on this? Who thinks they can't afford to do it? How do we assuage their concerns?"

But for us to teach the congressional Republicans a healthy respect for live-ammo politics, there has to be the option of passing bills they'll like... Just not bills they'd like as much as the one they wanted. We need them to end up repeatedly scratching their heads and saying stuff like "you know, if we could have gotten the Senate Democrats to just not filibuster this tax cut, we'd have gotten credit for actually doing it."

It may not be possible to achieve this, but I don't want us to get so locked into the mindset of "RESIST!" that we forget it's a thing that can happen.

[Flagg]

I would agree if most Americans understood enough of the situation without things like the official WH and apparent GOP position on like half the shit going on and being reported is that it's "fake news". As it is I don't think a majority of Americans have enough information to even know what the fuck is really going on.

A majority of American voters voted against Trump on election day and narrowly one despite Electoral College fuckery. Trump has been getting less popular since then, not more. The congressional Republicans- I don't know what their popularity looks like. But the squabble over trying to sink the ACA suggests that many congressional Republicans have very real concerns about their popularity for one reason or another. And some of the ones from 'purple' states appear to be honestly concerned about what happens if the ACA gets repealed and millions lose their health insurance.

In other words, they're worrying about what happens if the presently dominant faction of their own party wins. I have to assume they're worried for a reason.

As to the unaligned voters, frankly a lot of them stay out of elections because they don't think they have a dog in this fight, or because they're disgusted with both sides. The latter is something that can be fixed by nominating a candidate that does not inspire disgust (something we should do anyway). And the former is something that can be fixed by showing people otherwise. By showing them that decisions have consequences, that policy matters, and by being able to say in 2020 "are you better off now than you were four years ago" when the answer is very obviously "no."

Since I was talking about all Americans, as opposed to the half who bother to vote in Presidential elections, the results of the 2016 fucktastrophe don't really concern me. The only people who truly care that President Pussygrabber graduated from Donnie Douchebag despite losing the popular vote are the ones who voted for Hillary Clinton and all too many of them have decided that despite reality she was a horrible candidate and all of the shenanigans (some of which will always remain a subject of debate due to them being almost impossible to prove like Wikileaks, Snowden, and Vlad Barechest getting involved and others that are so obvious and undemocratic that some of those who participated should be in cells next to Charles Manson and Ted Kazinsky like those behind Super Important Congressional Investigations by the GLOP that don't seem to matter to them much anymore and future inductee to the Tanya Harding Lead Pipe To The Kneecap Hall of Fame James Comey) don't matter even though nothing will change the fact tha she was the most qualified candidate in modern history.

In any case, you didn't actually respond to what I posted. Mainly that right now (not 3.5 years from now when we could easily have a President Pussygrabber with 80% approval due to occupying the WH when some unifying event ala 9/11 could have happened or Bowie help us, President Pence) so much bullshit is floating in the air obfuscating reality that whoever is hated more will take the blame regardless of the results. If the Radical Fuckwits manage to cow the Less Radical Fuckwits and the ACA is gutted the Democrats will probably get blamed by their own base for not doing what they can't actually do as usual.

Basically, this is a congressional matter which since it involves more than 2 people the Beltway Bastards will simplify it into fiction and since President Pussygrabber will rubberstamp whatever Eddie Munster and Mitch the Turtle send his way, it's their party and the best result will be the one that hurts the least amount of people. Sure, it may give me a momentary glint of "that's what you get, fucker" when some shitkicker who would lick Trumpian Taint and consider it a privilege gets kicked from his ACA obtained health insurance since illnesses from huffing paint in his teens is considered a preexisting condition, but his 2 year old son with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome getting the same treatment shouldn't bring anyone any amount of pleasure for any amount of time.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh... Flagg, I would genuinely like to respond to what you say, but the combination of very long sentences and LOTS of imagery is making it difficult for me to do so. The sheer inventiveness of your cussing-out of all that is rotten in the world is impressive, but it's causing my brain to trip up. Like, your first paragraph is two sentences, and about 70-80% of it is all one sentence. I'm not even sure how to reply to that.

Would you mind giving me a compact, invective-free summary of your point, so that I can respond meaningfully?

[FaxModem1]

The Hill

Trump: US ‘needs a good shutdown’
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY AND JORDAN FABIAN - 05/02/17 09:12 AM EDT 2,162
2,597
3.6K


President Trump on Tuesday called for a "good shutdown" in September to fix the "mess” in government.

He also expressed frustration that legislation needs 60 votes in the Senate because of the filibuster, saying it would be necessary to elect more Republicans or "change the rules."

"The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there! We either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good 'shutdown' in September to fix mess!" he wrote in a series of tweets.
Congress is poised this week to approve a deal to fund the government through September, the first major bipartisan legislation of Trump's presidency.

The measure will spare the president a damaging government shutdown, but it left out many of his biggest policy requests.

It does not include funding for Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border or include language stripping federal money from so-called sanctuary cities, both of which the White House demanded at the outset of negotiations.

The White House also backed off a threat to withhold ObamaCare subsidy payments to insurance companies.

Trump did secure increased military spending in the 2017 budget deal.

The comments are likely to irk top Republican lawmakers, who have been frustrated by Trump’s repeated attempts to intervene in the legislative process.

The businessman-turned-president, in turn, has vented frustration with the slow pace of work on Capitol Hill.

“I’m disappointed that it doesn’t go quicker,” Trump told Fox News last week when asked about the Republican effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Democrats seized on Trump's comments to fire back at the president.

Ironically, the Trump posted this on Twitter a few days ago: link

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks - Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

Our country's leader, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump lies and contradicts himself.

In other news, water is wet.

[FaxModem1]

The Advocate

Trump Reportedly Will Issue 'License to Discriminate' Order Thursday
Donald Trump
He has invited religious right leaders to the White House and is expected to unveil the "religious liberty" order, enabling discrimination against LGBT people and others.

BY TRUDY RING
MAY 02 2017 3:42 PM EDT
54.1K SHARES Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Donald Trump’s long-rumored “religious liberty” executive order, allowing a broad license to discriminate against LGBT people and others, is coming Thursday, Politico reports.

Several leaders of the religious right have been invited to the White House that day, which is the National Day of Prayer, and they expect the president to unveil the order then, according to Politico. “Two senior administration officials confirmed the plan, though one cautioned that it hasn’t yet been finalized, and noted that lawyers are currently reviewing and fine-tuning the draft language,” the site reports.

A draft of the order was obtained by The Nation in February. “The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions [from antidiscrimination laws] for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act,” the progressive magazine reported at the time.

It also “construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers ‘any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,’ and protects ‘religious freedom” in every walk of life: ‘when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments,’” The Nation noted in February.

Trump administration officials have been cagey about the existence of the order, but religious right activist Ken Blackwell, who was a member of Trump’s transition team, has said such an order is definitely coming. Far-right leaders such as Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage have pushed for such a measure.

If the language of the original draft is retained, the order would be similar to the First Amendment Defense Act, which is pending in Congress — and would be a shortcut to writing such discrimination into law.

The American Civil Liberties Union quickly issued a press release saying it will see Trump in court. “The ACLU fights every day to defend religious freedom, but religious freedom does not mean the right to discriminate against or harm others,” said deputy legal director Louise Melling. “If President Trump signs an executive order that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or LGBT people, we will see him in court.”

GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis denounced the plan as well. “If this possible executive order is similar to February’s draft, it would do nothing except give a national license to discriminate, and endanger LGBTQ people and their families,” she said in an emailed statement. “President Trump is trying to create an America where my children could be turned away if a pediatrician doesn’t accept my wife and I. Nothing could be more un-American.”

Good to know I'm heading back to Second Class Citizen status in the US thanks to Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Presuming the judiciary doesn't shoot it down right away like they have so much of Trump's bull shit.

Of course, that only lasts until he gets to put more of his cronies on the Supreme Court, so hopefully impeachment or electoral defeat comes first.

[FireNexus]

According to CNN, Trump fired Jim Comey today. Countdown to "Official Confirmation of Russian Smoking Gun" in 5... 4... 3...

[Flagg]

Uh... Flagg, I would genuinely like to respond to what you say, but the combination of very long sentences and LOTS of imagery is making it difficult for me to do so. The sheer inventiveness of your cussing-out of all that is rotten in the world is impressive, but it's causing my brain to trip up. Like, your first paragraph is two sentences, and about 70-80% of it is all one sentence. I'm not even sure how to reply to that.

Would you mind giving me a compact, invective-free summary of your point, so that I can respond meaningfully?

Most people either didn't vote and or don't care that President Pussygrabber lost the popular vote. The ones who do are those who voted for Clinton, who despite being the single most qualified presidential nominee in modern history has already had many who voted for her call her the worst candidate ever.

In 3.5 years, some unifying event (that like with Bush II is probably due to his own negligence) could have happened that gives Donald the Talking Rectum 80% approval ratings or we could have President Pence.

Even talking about President Pussygrabber as anything but a rubber stamp is a waste of time on this issue since it's a legislative excercise involving more than 2 people and the lazy Beltway media hacks don't know how to actually cover the story so like all terrible political journalists they will invent a narrative divorced from reality.

While inbred Cletus finally cast his first vote for Trump after having his multiple convictions for statutory and date rape expunged should rightly suffer getting booted from Trumpcare since his liver cirrhosis is a pre existing condition and it's only fair he suffer the consequences of his vote, his 2 year old kid with fetal alcohol syndrome shouldn't have to start life with no healthcare because less than half of the half of lazy ass Americans who vote, voted for Donnie Douchebag.

[Simon_Jester]

I honestly don't think Trump will be able to get even momentary support from 80% of Americans with a 'unifying event' or whatever. I don't think he has it in him, and I don't think most Americans are inclined to fall for the pretense that uniting behind someone who will lead us into a disaster is a good idea. If nothing else, the Iraq War put a pretty high price tag on "unite behind the leader-man regardless of what he does." And any sudden spikes of support Trumpolini gets, he will bleed away a lot faster than Bush the Younger did... for the simple reason that Trumpo is an utter ass. Dubya was not, while in office, an unmitigated ass.

As regards your general point, I agree that innocents should not suffer, obviously.

I do think, though, that we're about to see one of democracy's most expensive and desperate feedback mechanisms in action: Namely, what happens when the electorate has a collective spasm of screwing-up and elects a bunch of complete lunatics, only to find itself regretting ever letting said lunatics into power on account of elections have consequences. People react negatively to that, on average over time.

It's not what I'd like to have happening right now; in a decentish world President Clinton is doing blah blah instead. But it's what I think will happen.

[Broomstick]

Didn't want to start a new thread for this so I put it here because I think it's part of trend.

Reporter arrested after repeatedly asking questions

Dan Heyman, a reporter for Public News Service, said he was arrested at the West Virginia State Capitol after trying to ask Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price a question about the House-passed healthcare bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

In a press conference held shortly after posting bail, Heyman said he asked Price repeatedly about whether domestic violence is considered a preexisting condition under the new GOP healthcare bill.

According to Heyman's account, he waited for Price to come into the building and then reached past those accompanying Price with his phone and repeatedly asked his healthcare questions, adding that a number of other reporters wanted to bring up the issue of preexisting conditions.

He said capitol police at some point "decided I was just too persistent in asking this question and trying to do my job and so they arrested me."

He couldn't remember how many times he asked the question, he said, but he added that it is his job to ask questions, expressing disbelief that he was arrested.

"First time I've ever been arrested for asking a question. First time I've ever heard of someone getting arrested for asking a question," he said.

Heyman said he asked his questions in a public space and received no warnings that he was in the wrong place or doing other activities to warrant his arrest.

"No police officer told me 'you're in the wrong place,'" he said.

The police "put hands on me, although they didn't hurt me, certainly," he added.

Heyman asked them if he was under arrest, according to his version of events, and they said "yes." He also said he told the police he was a member of the press.

The police didn't immediately read him his Miranda Rights, he added, because they said were not asking him questions.

"It's dreadful. This is my job, this is what I'm supposed to do. I'm supposed to find out if someone is going to be affected by this healthcare law...I think it is a question that deserves to be answered," he added.

Heyman had to pay $5,000 bond and was charged with willful disruption of governmental processes, a misdemeanor.

Now, reporters sometimes can be a pain in the ass, but this combined with firing the FBI director Comey is starting to feel like a trend to silence any who question or oppose or might be a risk to the current administration. Which we've seen hints of for some time, of course.

Trump demands absolute loyalty, but is loyal to no one. He wants no dissent and no questions, and this is seeping into the rest of the government. We've seen some of this with Republican Congressmen refusing questions at "town halls" or trying to control the crowd, even cancelling such meetings when they couldn't impose control. The elected officials are expecting the public to act like good little employees, unquestioning peasantry, and getting pissy when Americans won't cooperate.

[Simon_Jester]

It's a fairly predictable consequence of thinking America should be run like a business.

[The Jester]

Well, you can't blame them for trying something that worked in the past. Problem now is that they don't have anyone else to blame.

[Broomstick]

Of course, firing for asking questions is not limited to reporters

(CNN)After President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, questions immediately arose about the President's motivations for his dismissal -- and for the recent firings of two other then-President Barack Obama-appointees who were in the middle of conducting investigations linked to Trump.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Comey's firing was part of a "deeply troubling pattern from the Trump administration," that appears to be linked to two other high-profile dismissals.
"They fired Sally Yates. They fired Preet Bharara. And they fired James Comey, the very man leading he investigation. This does not seem to be a coincidence," Schumer said shortly after the announcement, calling for a special independent prosecutor into the Trump campaign's ties to the Kremlin.

The FBI director saw his reputation compromised when he became embroiled in the 2016 election campaign. He was first criticized by Republicans when he announced he wouldn't be charging then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over her emails, and then by Democrats for publicly reopening the case days before Americans went to the polls.

Why was he fired?
The Trump administration attributed Comey's dismissal to his handling of the investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. In a signed letter released by the White House, Trump informed Comey that he was "hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately," explaining that he reached the conclusion that the erstwhile director was "not able to effectively lead the bureau."

What was he investigating?
As head of the FBI, he was overseeing the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties to the Kremlin. Democrats have ridiculed the notion that the Clinton issue is what truly prompted Comey's dismissal, drawing parallels to Watergate-era firings and suggesting Comey was getting too close to the White House with the Russia probe.

Where is the investigation now?
At a hearing last week, Comey confirmed that the FBI's investigation into accusations of coordination between Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials was continuing. It's not clear if the incoming FBI director will pick up where Comey left off.
Opinion: In firing Comey, Trump is playing with fire

Sally Yates

Appointed by Obama, former Deputy Attorney General Yates had been running Trump's Justice Department as Acting Attorney General while Trump's nominee for the role, Sen. Jeff Sessions, awaited confirmation. She became a household name when Trump abruptly removed her from the temporary position.

Why was she fired?
Ostensibly for her refusal to implement the first iteration of Trump's ban on travelers from a number of Muslim-majority countries.

"The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement at the time, explaining the President's actions.

What was she investigating?
As part of the probe into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump administration, then-acting Attorney General Yates met with White House counsel to inform them that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn wasn't telling the truth about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, as a result, represented a blackmail risk.

"We believed that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians," Yates said in a Senate subcommittee hearing aimed at gathering details of the Russian hacking of the 2016 election on Monday in Washington.

"Logic would tell you that you don't want the national security adviser to be in a position where the Russians have leverage over him," she added.

Where is the investigation now?
Yates said Monday that she warned the White House earlier this year that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn could be "essentially blackmailed by the Russians."


Preet Bharara

Preet Bharara, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was known as one of Wall Street's fiercest watchdogs and a widely respected prosecutor.

Why was he fired?
Bharara first refused to resign along with 46 US attorneys across the country. Although it is common for incoming administrations to replace district attorneys when transitioning to power, Trump had previously assured Bharara that he'd keep his job.

Sources told CNN that Bharara had been told after a meeting with Trump in November that he could stay on, and that he felt blindsided by the request. He was fired after refusing to comply.
At the time, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren posted a series of tweets suggesting Bharara was removed in part because he "had authority over Trump Tower."

Bharara suggested that this was indeed the case. "I wanted it to be on record that there was a deliberate decision to change (his) mind and fire me, particularly given what my office's jurisdiction is," he said.

What was he investigating?
Bharara's office had many investigations ongoing at the time of his firing, including one involving Trump favorite Fox News.

And then there's the President's claim that he was wiretapped in Trump Tower on orders of then-President Obama, whose investigation led back to the Southern District of New York.
"Trump has undoubtedly decided that he wants his own pick rather than the choice of Senate adversary (and minority leader) Chuck Schumer in place as the top federal prosecutor in New York,"

Where is the investigation now?
Members of both parties have said they have seen no evidence to back up Trump's allegations about Obama, and, addressing a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said that he had "no information" to support claims by the President that he was wiretapped on the orders of his predecessor.

Opinion: After firing Preet Bharara, President Trump beware

CNN's Laura Jarrett, Jake Tapper, Stephen Collinson, Jeff Zeleny and Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.

[Flagg]

I honestly don't think Trump will be able to get even momentary support from 80% of Americans with a 'unifying event' or whatever. I don't think he has it in him, and I don't think most Americans are inclined to fall for the pretense that uniting behind someone who will lead us into a disaster is a good idea. If nothing else, the Iraq War put a pretty high price tag on "unite behind the leader-man regardless of what he does." And any sudden spikes of support Trumpolini gets, he will bleed away a lot faster than Bush the Younger did... for the simple reason that Trumpo is an utter ass. Dubya was not, while in office, an unmitigated ass.

That's true to a degree, but ultimately human nature leads us to unite behind the common threat (or what is perceived as a common threat). I'm not saying President Pussygrabber would be up to the challenge of handling (or like Bush II, who pretended to be up to the challenge after he flew around the country like a coward for 8(?) hours on 9/11 and didn't go back to D.C. Until it was totally clear the danger was passed. Yeah, I'm sure his head Secret Service agent was telling him not to go back to D.C., but that's when "The Leader of the Free World" thanks him for his service, tells him he takes his concerns seriously, and then orders the pilot to fly to D.C.), I'm just saying that being the halfwit in the WH (or mayor of NY) who happens to be there when some disaster happens that requires leadership gives the person (or in Pussygrabber's case, entity) in the leadership position a huge jump in support.
But don't think I'm naive enough to think he'd be up to the challenge. The only challenge he's up to is "how much of my inheritance can I lose declaring bankruptcy".

As regards your general point, I agree that innocents should not suffer, obviously.

And that's really what it comes down to and why I get really annoyed when liberals say "Well, serves "them" right to lose their insurance!" Because "those people's" kids didn't vote for Trump, and many if not most in a condition like I'm in voted for Clinton. So those supposedly more intelligent (and usually very smug) liberals who in pure spite write off everyone they perceive as having lost access to healthcare to be Trump voters need to turn their empathy chips back on because that's what is supposedly what makes "us" better than "them".

But that's not to say that pointing out that "That's unfortunately what happens when you have so many deeply indoctrinated by Glenn Beck and Sean "Bet Welsher" Hannity types voting against their interest which will 100% cause many of them and their children to get sick and suffer life changing disabilities (or in the worst case die)."

I do think, though, that we're about to see one of democracy's most expensive and desperate feedback mechanisms in action: Namely, what happens when the electorate has a collective spasm of screwing-up and elects a bunch of complete lunatics, only to find itself regretting ever letting said lunatics into power on account of elections have consequences. People react negatively to that, on average over time.

That's true, but all too often in FL I would see there being a handful of, or many times one, issue that will cause the right to stay in their comfort zone and give avlying shit that, for instance, just got elected for their 7th term (when while campaigning for their first term promised to only serve 3 terms)

It's not what I'd like to have happening right now; in a decentish world President Clinton is doing blah blah instead. But it's what I think will happen.

You just have to get your faith in humanity beaten, demeaned, lied about, humiliated, and crippled out of you is all.

[Flagg]

Didn't want to start a new thread for this so I put it here because I think it's part of trend.

Reporter arrested after repeatedly asking questions

Dan Heyman, a reporter for Public News Service, said he was arrested at the West Virginia State Capitol after trying to ask Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price a question about the House-passed healthcare bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

In a press conference held shortly after posting bail, Heyman said he asked Price repeatedly about whether domestic violence is considered a preexisting condition under the new GOP healthcare bill.

According to Heyman's account, he waited for Price to come into the building and then reached past those accompanying Price with his phone and repeatedly asked his healthcare questions, adding that a number of other reporters wanted to bring up the issue of preexisting conditions.

He said capitol police at some point "decided I was just too persistent in asking this question and trying to do my job and so they arrested me."

He couldn't remember how many times he asked the question, he said, but he added that it is his job to ask questions, expressing disbelief that he was arrested.

"First time I've ever been arrested for asking a question. First time I've ever heard of someone getting arrested for asking a question," he said.

Heyman said he asked his questions in a public space and received no warnings that he was in the wrong place or doing other activities to warrant his arrest.

"No police officer told me 'you're in the wrong place,'" he said.

The police "put hands on me, although they didn't hurt me, certainly," he added.

Heyman asked them if he was under arrest, according to his version of events, and they said "yes." He also said he told the police he was a member of the press.

The police didn't immediately read him his Miranda Rights, he added, because they said were not asking him questions.

"It's dreadful. This is my job, this is what I'm supposed to do. I'm supposed to find out if someone is going to be affected by this healthcare law...I think it is a question that deserves to be answered," he added.

Heyman had to pay $5,000 bond and was charged with willful disruption of governmental processes, a misdemeanor.

Now, reporters sometimes can be a pain in the ass, but this combined with firing the FBI director Comey is starting to feel like a trend to silence any who question or oppose or might be a risk to the current administration. Which we've seen hints of for some time, of course.

Trump demands absolute loyalty, but is loyal to no one. He wants no dissent and no questions, and this is seeping into the rest of the government. We've seen some of this with Republican Congressmen refusing questions at "town halls" or trying to control the crowd, even cancelling such meetings when they couldn't impose control. The elected officials are expecting the public to act like good little employees, unquestioning peasantry, and getting pissy when Americans won't cooperate.

Broomstick, I agree that reporters can be a pain in the ass, and when they harass celebrities I find it disgusting. But if a reporter on (real, as opposed to that shit that did those propaganda pieces that got ACORN shut down due to careful editing, loose change, or birth certificates with the exception of Ted "born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother Cruz, which is the exact same scenario that birthers claimed made Obama ineligible) politics isn't being a pain in the ass then they aren't doing their job. Not contradicting you, just wanted to expand on your point.

Doesn't he know that he needs to stay in the "free speech" zone 4/10 of a mile away? Space in the Capital is paid speech/fellatio for speech zones.

But seriously, reporters/journalists who cover politics ask questions because that's their job and the free speech part of the first amendment had political journalism in mind. Now this reporter needs to sue the state, the individual pigs, the pig department, and Price along with the Executive branch of the Federal government.

Hell, the ACLU should likely take the case pro bono for the epic boner it gives them alone.

[FaxModem1]

The Hill

EPA dismisses five scientists from major review board: report
BY BRANDON CARTER - 05/07/17 10:43 PM EDT 1,521

EPA dismisses five scientists from major review board: report
© Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has dismissed at least five academic members of one of its scientific review boards and may replace them with representatives from industries the EPA regulates, according to The New York Times.

A spokesperson for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said Pruitt is considering replacing the five scientists with representatives of industries whose pollution the EPA polices.

“The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” spokesperson J.P. Freire told The Times.

It's the latest in a string of controversial moves by the agency in recent weeks. The agency has removed several pages about climate change from its website and has proposed shuttering a regional office that oversees environmental regulation in several states.
Trump has also signed several executive orders that impact the environment, including rolling back former President Barack Obama’s climate change policies and expanding offshore drilling.

Get ready to buy bottled water.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, just saw breaking on CNN that Flynn has been subpoenaed.

[Flagg]

The Hill

EPA dismisses five scientists from major review board: report
BY BRANDON CARTER - 05/07/17 10:43 PM EDT 1,521

EPA dismisses five scientists from major review board: report
© Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has dismissed at least five academic members of one of its scientific review boards and may replace them with representatives from industries the EPA regulates, according to The New York Times.

A spokesperson for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said Pruitt is considering replacing the five scientists with representatives of industries whose pollution the EPA polices.

“The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” spokesperson J.P. Freire told The Times.

It's the latest in a string of controversial moves by the agency in recent weeks. The agency has removed several pages about climate change from its website and has proposed shuttering a regional office that oversees environmental regulation in several states.
Trump has also signed several executive orders that impact the environment, including rolling back former President Barack Obama’s climate change policies and expanding offshore drilling.

Get ready to buy bottled water.

And buy a respirator.

[Broomstick]

Oddly enough... I already own a respirator. And I have my own well.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Oddly enough... I already own a respirator. And I have my own well.

Don't worry, the groundwater will get contaminated too.

[Broomstick]

I will construct a solar oven and distill my own. Yes, I actually do know how to do that. Rainwater. Oh, I have so many ways to work around that...

... except in an alleged first world nation you shouldn't have to do that.

[Simon_Jester]

And that's really what it comes down to and why I get really annoyed when liberals say "Well, serves "them" right to lose their insurance!" Because "those people's" kids didn't vote for Trump, and many if not most in a condition like I'm in voted for Clinton. So those supposedly more intelligent (and usually very smug) liberals who in pure spite write off everyone they perceive as having lost access to healthcare to be Trump voters need to turn their empathy chips back on because that's what is supposedly what makes "us" better than "them".

Do you or do you not believe that I am actually doing this thing that you describe?

I do think, though, that we're about to see one of democracy's most expensive and desperate feedback mechanisms in action: Namely, what happens when the electorate has a collective spasm of screwing-up and elects a bunch of complete lunatics, only to find itself regretting ever letting said lunatics into power on account of elections have consequences. People react negatively to that, on average over time.

That's true, but all too often in FL I would see there being a handful of, or many times one, issue that will cause the right to stay in their comfort zone and give avlying shit that, for instance, just got elected for their 7th term (when while campaigning for their first term promised to only serve 3 terms)

All things are percentage effects.

There is virtually nothing that will cause 100% of people who are now being morons to stop being morons.

It is, however, sometimes possible to get 5% or 10% of people who are being morons to stop being morons, at least until they find a new kind of stupidity to latch on to.

And that's all it would take to gravely undermine the Republican position in modern American politics.

It's like, you're unhappy that the brakes on the car don't work well enough, and it's causing you to seem to have trouble understanding me when I try to say they work at all. There's a difference between "brakes that slow the car down slower than I'd like" and "brakes that don't work at all." The former kind can still result in you going off a cliff, it's a bad thing and I'm not denying it.

But if I'm saying "yeah, there are brakes even if they don't work very well," and you're saying "BRAKES ARE A MYTH DROP YOUR ILLUSIONS," it's kind of counterproductive.