Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

I get the feeling that Rosenstein's decision to appoint Mueller is in part a way of giving The Donald a good hard kick in the pants. A retaliatory strike for trying to use Rosenstein's reputation like a paper towel to wipe up the mess they created with the Comey firing.

"Make me look like a hack who writes toady yes-man memos to give you bureaucratic cover for doing shady stuff to obstruct justice, will you? Well here, get a load of THIS!"

Not. Good. Enough. We need at least a 3 person team of Special PROSECUTORS to be looking at this half aborted stillbirth of an Administration from several different angles.

1) "Special counsel" and "special prosecutor" are functionally identical job titles. Getting obsessive over the job title is silly.

2) Regardless of how many people are working on this, one person has to be in charge of the investigation. Multiple independent investigations is not a good thing, unless they coordinate so well and share information so thoroughly that for all practical purposes they're one big investigation.

You're reacting as if you think Robert Mueller will behave like a private eye who's investigating everything all by himself like a Humphrey Bogart movie character or something. He's going to have a staff, he's going to have people working for him. Plenty of people. Mueller's just the man in charge of the group of people who will be investigating this.

I wasn't aware that they were interchangeable titles. And I think there is enough malfeasance that there actually should be more than one, each given specific areas to investigate, and if needed, prosecute. I'm well aware that a single special prosecutor has many underlings, including detectives that do the investigating and report. I was alive and aware at the time of the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton and the resulting months long dark comedy that followed.

[Flagg]

The most important thing is that we have someone who's trusted not to be a partisan operative, I think. Mueller, as someone who served under both Bush Jr. and Obama, seems like he might be a good choice in that respect, though I admit I'm not familiar enough with his history to say for certain.

They couldn't have found somebody better than somebody who was made a laughingstock by NFL fans of all people?

Well to be fair, football is more important to more Americans than national politics ever will be. No, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

That said, I share your misgivings. But if Mueller? Mueller...? Mueller......? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If only Ben Stein weren't a former Nixon speechwriter and current Republican hack ) Anyway, if Mueller had a suspect or witness that not only erased all data from, but physically destroyed their smartphone, they could (and I don't see why they would not) be charged with obstruction of justice and/or destroying evidence. Either of those alone could lead to serious prison time as opposed to a 4 game suspension for not cooperating, ala Tom "the crybaby" Brady.

[Gaidin]

Well to be fair, football is more important to more Americans than national politics ever will be. No, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

That said, I share your misgivings. But if Mueller? Mueller...? Mueller......? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If only Ben Stein weren't a former Nixon speechwriter and current Republican hack ) Anyway, if Mueller had a suspect or witness that not only erased all data from, but physically destroyed their smartphone, they could (and I don't see why they would not) be charged with obstruction of justice and/or destroying evidence. Either of those alone could lead to serious prison time as opposed to a 4 game suspension for not cooperating, ala Tom "the crybaby" Brady.

As stated, if only Mueller touched that case. I guess football isn't important enough to Thanas or you to check up on these things?

[Flagg]

Well to be fair, football is more important to more Americans than national politics ever will be. No, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.

That said, I share your misgivings. But if Mueller? Mueller...? Mueller......? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If only Ben Stein weren't a former Nixon speechwriter and current Republican hack ) Anyway, if Mueller had a suspect or witness that not only erased all data from, but physically destroyed their smartphone, they could (and I don't see why they would not) be charged with obstruction of justice and/or destroying evidence. Either of those alone could lead to serious prison time as opposed to a 4 game suspension for not cooperating, ala Tom "the crybaby" Brady.

As stated, if only Mueller touched that case. I guess football isn't important enough to Thanas or you to check up on these things?

I assumed Thanas was correct, since he usually is and responded to his post before reading AD's rebuttal. But yeah, an attorney from FL named Ted Wells was responsible for investigating the Patriots.

And I can't speak for Thanas, but no, you guessed correct in that football is nowhere close to being within the same sphere of me giving a shit as something as important as politics. I still maintain the NFL is more important to more Americans than politics. If you go by the money.

[Civil War Man]

Even the fact that a special counsel is being appointed at all is a big symbolic step forward. And Mueller's reputation does lend it a certain air of legitimacy. He's not a Trump stooge, and he used to work with Comey back when he was FBI Director and Comey was Assistant AG, so assuming he comes up with something damning he's not likely to try to bury it. Not to mention that Mueller's former FBI, and since Comey's firing the general consensus is that the relationship between the FBI and Trump is, at best, strained.

To paraphrase 538's take on the appointment, the biggest downside for the Democrats, barring the hypothetical scenario where Mueller somehow finds no wrong-doing, is that they lose the ability to use the lack of a special counsel as a campaign talking point in 2018.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, minor political concerns take a back seat to getting this wannabe fascist shit out of the White House. We'll still have plenty of ammunition in 2020, weather or not there's a special prosecutor and weather or not its him, Pence, or Weasel Ryan in the Oval Office.

And if this does boot him out faster... well, I can hardly see the impeachment of a Republican President for Obstruction of Justice hurting the Democrats, though seeing Justice done, not partisan gain, should be the priority of any investigation.

[Civil War Man]

We'll still have plenty of ammunition in 2020, weather or not there's a special prosecutor and weather or not its him, Pence, or Weasel Ryan in the Oval Office.

It could theoretically get weirder than that. Imagine, for a moment, a hypothetical situation where the investigation doesn't blow up until after the 2018 midterms, that Trump becomes enough of an albatross around the GOP's neck that the Democrats end up taking back the House, and when the dust finally settles both Trump and Pence end up going down with the ship.

Then we could be living Nate Silver's latest joke tweet: "Gonna be weird when the Pelosi-Hatch ticket runs for re-election in 2020 and wins."

[The Romulan Republic]

It would be problematic, I think, for the Democrats to impeach both Trump and Pence with a Democratic Speaker next in line. No matter how richly they may turn out to deserve it, it would look like a blatant power-grab, and no doubt be played that way by many partisans.

Edit: I have a horrible feeling that if they drag this out too long, and it gets close to 2020, there will be a lot of people who want to just run out the clock (particularly Republicans) on the basis of "letting the voters decide", rather than doing their duty and impeaching. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't want to give Trump a chance to voter suppress/fraud his way into another term.

[Thanas]

Err, Mueller didn't investigate deflategate, he investigated the ray rice domestic abuse scandal. And I was under the impression that the Mueller Report was good, It's just that no one can decide which side it's good for.

You are right, I was mistaken. I confused him with Ted Wells. My apologies.

[Thanas]

So General Flynn was paid more than 500k for representing Turkey and did so while being in the campaign and being the national security advisor.

One of his first acts was to halt a planned offensive against ISIS because Turkey was against it.

Winning

WASHINGTON
One of the Trump administration’s first decisions about the fight against the Islamic State was made by Michael Flynn weeks before he was fired – and it conformed to the wishes of Turkey, whose interests, unbeknownst to anyone in Washington, he’d been paid more than $500,000 to represent.

The decision came 10 days before Donald Trump had been sworn in as president, in a conversation with President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, who had explained the Pentagon’s plan to retake the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa with Syrian Kurdish forces whom the Pentagon considered the U.S.’s most effective military partners. Obama’s national security team had decided to ask for Trump’s sign-off, since the plan would all but certainly be executed after Trump had become president.

Flynn didn’t hesitate. According to timelines distributed by members of Congress in the weeks since, Flynn told Rice to hold off, a move that would delay the military operation for months.

If Flynn explained his answer, that’s not recorded, and it’s not known whether he consulted anyone else on the transition team before rendering his verdict. But his position was consistent with the wishes of Turkey, which had long opposed the United States partnering with the Kurdish forces – and which was his undeclared client.

Trump eventually would approve the Raqqa plan, but not until weeks after Flynn had been fired.

Now members of Congress, musing about the tangle of legal difficulties Flynn faces, cite that exchange with Rice as perhaps the most serious: acting on behalf of a foreign nation – from which he had received considerable cash – when making a military decision. Some members of Congress, in private conversations, have even used the word “treason” to describe Flynn’s intervention, though experts doubt that his actions qualify.

But treason or not, Flynn’s rejection of a military operation that had been months in the making raises questions about what other key decisions he might have influenced during the slightly more than three weeks he was Trump’s national security adviser, and the months he was Trump’s primary campaign foreign-policy adviser.

Even three months after he was fired, for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about a call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, his role in the White House resonates.

With word that the president may have asked FBI Director James Comey to drop any criminal probe of Flynn – failure to register as a foreign agent is a federal crime – there is renewed focus on getting to the bottom of what Flynn did, and what Trump knew.

Despite the Trump administration’s attempts to downplay the red flags, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the administration was repeatedly warned about Flynn’s foreign involvement.

“This was a serious compromise situation that the Russians had real leverage,” former acting Attorney General Sally Yates said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday, after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer downplayed her warning about Flynn’s interactions with Russian officials as just “a heads up.”

Flynn’s actions were also the subject of discussion just last week at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on national security threats, with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., zeroing in on the 18 days that passed between Yates’ warning that Flynn might be subject to Russian blackmail and Flynn’s forced resignation.

“Blackmail, by an influential military official, that has real ramifications for global threat,” he said. “So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security adviser being vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.”

Flynn’s connections to Russia have been widely discussed. In 2015, he was paid more than $33,000 to speak at a gala dinner in Moscow where he was seated next to President Vladimir Putin. That alone may have exposed him to criminal charges: As a retired U.S. military officer, Flynn was required to seek permission to travel and to receive payment from a foreign entity, something the State Department and the Pentagon have told Congress he did not do.

More at the link.


My opinion: Flynn is a treasonous swine and Trump is too for continuing to stick by him for as long as he did. Yes, I know neither meets the legal definition of treason, but if you hold of an attack on fucking Isis of all things because your pay masters in Ankara want to not give any territory at all to the kurds then you are guilty of acting against the interests of your country in my book.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know. The legal definition of Treason in the Constitution includes offering aid and comfort to America's enemies. Holding off on an attack on Daesh for no good reason certainly violates the spirit of that, if not the letter (since he wasn't directly offering them aid).

Also... as of today, the Republicans NEVER get to play the "tough on terrorism" card again. Agreed?

[FireNexus]

I think we need a new debate on the creationism vs science page. Roger Ailes died today, due to complications from a stumble he made last week. A little on the nose, God, but I'll allow it.

[Gaidin]

Even the fact that a special counsel is being appointed at all is a big symbolic step forward. And Mueller's reputation does lend it a certain air of legitimacy. He's not a Trump stooge, and he used to work with Comey back when he was FBI Director and Comey was Assistant AG, so assuming he comes up with something damning he's not likely to try to bury it. Not to mention that Mueller's former FBI, and since Comey's firing the general consensus is that the relationship between the FBI and Trump is, at best, strained.

To paraphrase 538's take on the appointment, the biggest downside for the Democrats, barring the hypothetical scenario where Mueller somehow finds no wrong-doing, is that they lose the ability to use the lack of a special counsel as a campaign talking point in 2018.

The big thing is that ever since leaving the FBI is that Mueller has specialized in these kinds of cases where shit is flying and they need someone to come in and sort them out. Ray Rice video. Volkswagon emissions. Booz Allen Hamilton security practices. Takata airbags. And now this.

[Thanas]

Further news: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russia.

Winning.

[FaxModem1]

It's now a criminal investigation:
Washington Post

[The Romulan Republic]

[Mr. Burns]Exxxcellent.[/Mr. Burns]

[Simon_Jester]

I wasn't aware that they were interchangeable titles. And I think there is enough malfeasance that there actually should be more than one, each given specific areas to investigate, and if needed, prosecute. I'm well aware that a single special prosecutor has many underlings, including detectives that do the investigating and report. I was alive and aware at the time of the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton and the resulting months long dark comedy that followed.

The titles may not be strictly interchangeable, but they are related. I don't think we should read too much into the job title. Remember, Starr's job title was "independent counsel," and whatever complaints you may have against him, it's hard to say that he failed to adequately 'prosecute' Clinton by being a mere wimpy 'counsel.' If anything, he erred on the opposite side.

Furthermore, if one Kenneth Starr is enough 'special counsel' to investigate numerous allegations against Bill Clinton, one Robert Mueller is enough 'special counsel' to investigate numerous allegations against Donald Trump. Having multiple investigators working in parallel MIGHT speed things up if we're trying to punish offenses rapidly... But then again it might not, because there'd be duplication of certain efforts, and any deficiency in information-sharing could handicap both investigations. It'd be more efficient to just funnel more resources to Mueller's office to investigate two crimes, than to open up a second office to investigate a second crime.

So again, I think we should not worry about either Robert Mueller's job title, or about the fact that he is only one "special investigator/counsel/whatever." The only really important questions are whether he is competent, and whether he is trustworthy/nonpartisan/incorruptible.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34751.html

Donald Trump’s expected pick for top scientist job is not a scientist
Sam Clovis is a former Trump campaign aide and business professor

Donald Trump is set to appoint a former business professor for a position that is supposed to serve as the top scientist of the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Sam Clovis currently serves as the senior White House advisor for USDA and was a Trump campaign aide.

He worked as a public policy and business professor at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa and has said that climate change is “simply a mechanism for transferring wealth from one group of people to another."

"We need more science" on climate change before doing anything to combat it, Mr Clovis said. However ProPublica reports that he "has never taken a graduate course in science and is openly skeptical of climate change."

President Obama’s undersecretary for USDA research, Catherine Woteki, said Mr Clovis' appointment is akin to "appointing someone without a medical background to lead the National Institutes of Health," ProPublica reports.

Ms Woteki, who holds a PhD in human nutrition and also worked for President Clinton's administration in food safety, said “this position is the chief scientist of the Department of Agriculture. It should be a person who evaluates the scientific body of evidence and moves appropriately from there."

In her position as undersecretary for research she was tasked with everything from assisting local farmers and agricultural workers to address severe drought, flooding, and shifting weather patterns, Zika, Ebola, and had the USDA create “Climate Hubs” across the country to develop local solutions to combating climate change.

Mr Clovis holds a PhD from the University of Alabama, however his writing concerned federalism and counter-terrorism. He also has a conservative radio programme, “Impact with Sam Clovis.”

He also told E&E News during the 2016 campaign that under Mr Trump's USDA would not focus on the damage being done by climate change at all, but direct resources to lightening regulations and increasing agricultural trade.

There is no word when Mr Trump will announce Mr Clovis' appointment or what impacts will be felt by career federal employees working in the agency's research and climate change programmes.

Nice to see Trump draining the swamp. By appointing his supporter to a scientific post when said supporter isn't even a scientist. I say we now need Lance Armstrong to run the United States Anti Doping Agency.

[The Romulan Republic]

See, Trump is draining the swamp, by gathering all the scum of America together in one administration so they can be voted out/impeached/imprisoned.

Now its up to the Special Prosecutor, FBI, and Congress to not fuck up this brilliant plan.

[Lost Soal]

Nice to see Trump draining the swamp. By appointing his supporter to a scientific post when said supporter isn't even a scientist. I say we now need Lance Armstrong to run the United States Anti Doping Agency.

Except Lance Armstrong would have more idea what to look for in that role than this idiot would even if he wanted to.

[Highlord Laan]

Nice to see Trump draining the swamp. By appointing his supporter to a scientific post when said supporter isn't even a scientist. I say we now need Lance Armstrong to run the United States Anti Doping Agency.

Completely aside, as an attempt to salve my increasing cynicism, that actually would probably be a workable idea. He dodged the system so effectively and for so long that he's familiar with a great many of the tricks and methods.

[FireNexus]

Nice to see Trump draining the swamp. By appointing his supporter to a scientific post when said supporter isn't even a scientist. I say we now need Lance Armstrong to run the United States Anti Doping Agency.

Completely aside, as an attempt to salve my increasing cynicism, that actually would probably be a workable idea. He dodged the system so effectively and for so long that he's familiar with a great many of the tricks and methods.

His doctor should be the one appointed. Armstrong just hired the right people. His medical team probably did the heavy lifting in terms of circumventing the process.

[Flagg]

It's really not much different than corporations hiring hackers to secure their systems, which they do. Same with casino's hiring cheaters, etc.

[Ralin]

Unsurprisingly, nothing came of the FCC's Colbert investigation

Show With Stephen Colbert,” in which the host quipped during his opening monologue that “the only thing [Trump’s] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c— holster.”

The FCC received thousands of complaints following the broadcast. In response to an inquiry, an FCC spokesman provided a statement on the status of its review.

RELATED
Earlier today (Wednesday, May 17), Stephen Colbert, host of the acclaimed and top-rated THE LATE SHOW with STEPHEN COLBERT, headlined the opening production number of the CBS Upfront presentation at Carnegie Hall. Photo: Jeffrey R. Staab/CBS ©2017 CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Stephen Colbert Speaks Out on FCC Controversy — With More Trump Bashing

“Consistent with standard operating procedure, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has reviewed the complaints and the material that was the subject of these complaints,” the FCC statement said. “The Bureau has concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC’s rules.”

Colbert’s remark was bleeped out of the broadcast and his mouth was blurred.

The FCC’s conclusion means that it found that Colbert’s remark did not rise to the level of obscenity or indecency to warrant any kind of sanction or fine. That appeared to be highly unlikely, given the circumstances. Broadcasters have a safe harbor for indecent or profane content between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., although they can face penalties for airing obscene content at any hour.

Several days after the broadcast, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was asked about complaints over the remarks, and he said that they would be looked into. All complaints are reviewed by the FCC, but the agency does not monitor programming.

Like I said before: Investigating IS the process for dismissing baseless complaints. Also note the part about them receiving 'thousands' of complaints. Which is a lot more plausible than the White House calling the Chairman and telling him to make an example of a comedian.

[Thanas]

So a republican thug just assaulted a Guardian reporter link.

Weird thing is a Fox news team witnessed the altercation and reported it.


Fox news backing a liberal reporter over a rightwing candidate who donated millions to trump? So much winning.